Territorial Court

R. v. Reindeer, 2003 NWTTC A13
Date: 20030815
Docket: T-3-CR-2003000574

IN THE TERRITORIAL COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

IN THE MATTER OF:


HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN


- and -


RACHEL VICTORIA REINDEER


Transcript of the Reasons for Judgment delivered by The Honourable Judge R.M. Bourassa, sitting in Fort McPherson, in the Northwest Territories, on the 23rd day of July, A.D. 2003.


APPEARANCES:

Ms. S. Bond:   Counsel for the Crown

Mr. B. Enge:   Counsel for the Defendant


(Charge under s. 84 of the Liquor Act)


THE COURT:   Well, the accused, Rachel Reindeer, has been tried on a charge of unlawful sale of alcohol, contrary to Section 84(c) of the Liquor Act of the Northwest Territories. The argument hasn't been fully developed or made before me, but I am of the view that this is a strict liability matter, although I don't say that definitively. I recall a number of cases involving the transport of alcohol where rulings were made and upheld, that those provisions were strict liability. There is nothing in the territorial legislation that uses the typical words associated with intent such as “knowingly”, “willfully”. In any event, the Crown must prove the alleged sale, as pointed out by Mr. Enge for defence, beyond a reasonable doubt.

I'm entitled -- any court is entitled to make reasonable inferences. Cases can be circumstantial. Of course, one can only convict if the circumstances and the inferences lead to proof beyond a reasonable doubt or that the circumstances and the inferences are consistent only with the delict, again leading to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The facts are quite straightforward and uncontradicted. The witness for the Crown was drinking with her friend, a drinking buddy, and ran out of alcohol. The accused resided across the street. The two women wanted another bottle and went

[Page 1]

to the accused's house for the specific purpose and specifically to buy a 26-ounce bottle of vodka. The Crown witness testified that the husband of her drinking friend gave her, the accused, the money to buy the bottle. They went over to Reindeer's residence, knocked, and went in. The one woman went further into a hallway. The Crown witness stood near the porch. She says, approximately four feet away. She overheard a request for a bottle being made to the accused. She saw the accused depart and come back with a bottle in her hand and give it to the friend. The witness said that she saw her friend pass something to Reindeer, but was quite candid in saying that she couldn't see what it was, she couldn't see if it was money. Before they went, the Crown witness had agreed to pay for half the bottle at some point, and, in fact, after they drank the bottle, she did pay $30 for her half share of the bottle.

After the bottle was obtained from Reindeer, they went back across the street to Beverly's house and drank the bottle.

The Crown witness has a criminal record. She admits to bootlegging on occasion. She admits to drinking heavily on weekends. None of that impacts or takes away from her credibility. I found her to be a straightforward witness, unsophisticated and uncomplicated. She had no hesitation in admitting her

[Page 2]

problems with the law and her defaults, and when questioned, gave her motivation for her conduct in coming forward to the police. I find her to be credible.

The accused is convicted.

(REASONS FOR JUDGMENT CONCLUDED)


Certified to be a true and accurate transcript, pursuant to Rules 723 and 724 of the Supreme Court Rules of Court

Jane Romanowich,
Court Reporter

[Page 3]