Majority
English version of the judgment of the Court delivered orally by
Lamer J.
Lamer J. ‑‑ We are now ready to render judgment. We are all in agreement with Chouinard J.A. when he says:
[translation] Even assuming that possession of the said card was initially innocent, it has to be admitted that at some point prior to its use the accused chose to keep it wrongfully, hence his possession by the commission of an offence. He could subsequently have dealt with it, by continuing the possession he knew to be unlawful or by using it. He chose to use it to unlawfully obtain goods.
There is no reason why possession that is initially innocent cannot later become unlawful.
((1986), 4 Q.A.C. 74, at pp. 76‑77.)
For this reason we feel this appeal should be dismissed, and it is dismissed.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors for the appellant: Desrosiers, Provost, Taillefer, Groulx, Turcotte & Associés, Montréal.
Solicitor for the respondent: The Crown Prosecutor, Montréal.