Kelly Douglas & Company Limited v. Mutual Leaseholds Limited

THE CHIEF JUSTICE (orally for the Court) :-We are all of opinion that the decision of the Court of Appeal that the appellant had no right of appeal to that Court without leave from the judgment of Lieff J. was a decision determining a substantive right of the appellant. If that judgment stands et al. unreversed the result is that the appellant must pay to the respondents $29,230.50 and therefore the amount in controversy in the appeal to this Court is more than $10,000. The -motion to quash is dismissed with costs.

WAYDE ALLAN CYR and WILLIAM

APPELLANTS; *Feb. 13 ROBERT MILLIER ..............

Feb.13 AND

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN .......... RESPONDENT. ON APPEAL FROM THE APPEAL

BRITISH COLUMBIA

Criminal law-Trafficking in narcotics-Certificate of analyst as to contents of substance-Admissibility-Narcotic Control Act, 1960-61 (Can.), c. 35, s. 9.

At the trial of the appellants on a charge of trafficking in a narcotic, the Crown tendered in evidence, under s. 9 of the Narcotic Control Act, 1960-61 (Can.), c. 35, the certificate of an analyst as to the contents of the substance in question. The certificate identified the package containing the substance, indicated the time and place and from whom the analyst had received it, and gave a description of the contents of the package with its analysis. The magistrate held that part of the certificate was inadmissible and dismissed the charge for lack of proof. The Court of Appeal held that all the statements contained in the certificate were admissible and ordered a new trial. An appeal to this Court was launched by the appellants.

Held: The appeal should be dismissed.

Droit criminel-Trafic de stupgfiants-Certificat d'un analyste sur le contenu d'une substance-Admissibilitd-Loi sur les stupgflants, 1960-61 (Can.), c. 35, art. 9.

Cartwright C.J. and Fauteux, Judson, Ritchie and Pigeon JJ. [19691 S.C.R.