Supreme Court Judgments

Decision Information

R. v. Pham

Collection Supreme Court Judgments
Date 2006-06-21
Neutral citation 2006 SCC 26
Report [2006] 1 SCR 940
Case number 31256
Judges McLachlin, Beverley; Deschamps, Marie; Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Charron, Louise; Rothstein, Marshall
On appeal from Ontario
Subjects Criminal law
Notes SCC Case Information: 31256

Decision Content

 

                                                 SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

 

 

Citation: R. v. Pham, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 940, 2006 SCC 26

 

Date:  20060621

Docket:  31256

 

Between:

Kim Thi Pham

Appellant

and

Her Majesty The Queen

Respondent

 

Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Deschamps, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ.

 

 

Reasons for judgment:

(para. 1)

 

 

 

McLachlin C.J. (Deschamps, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ. concurring)

 

______________________________

R. v. Pham, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 940, 2006 SCC 26

 

Kim Thi Pham                                                                                                   Appellant

 

v.

 

Her Majesty The Queen                                                                               Respondent

 

Indexed as:  R. v. Pham

 

Neutral citation:  2006 SCC 26.

 

File No.:  31256.

 

2006:  June 21.

 

Present:  McLachlin C.J. and Deschamps, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ.

 

on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario

 

Narcotics — Possession for purpose of trafficking — Constructive possession.

 

APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (McMurtry C.J.O. and Blair J.A. and Kozak J. (ad hoc)) (2005), 77 O.R. (3d) 401, 204 O.A.C. 299, 203 C.C.C. (3d) 326, 36 C.R. (6th) 200, [2005] O.J. No. 5127 (QL), affirming the accused’s conviction for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.  Appeal dismissed.

 

Craig Parry, for the appellant.

 

James C. Martin, for the respondent.

 

The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

 

1                                   The Chief Justice — We are all of the view that this appeal should be dismissed for the reasons of the majority of the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

 

Judgment accordingly.

 

Solicitor for the appellant:  Craig Parry, Kitchener.

 

Solicitor for the respondent:  Attorney General of Canada, Halifax.

 

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.