F. Lyons

The accused pleaded guilty to importing approximately 1.568 kilograms of cocaine into Canada.

The court considered the established sentencing range for cocaine importation of roughly three to five years for quantities around one kilogram, noting the seriousness of the offence and the societal harm caused by cocaine trafficking.

Mitigating factors included the accused’s guilty plea, lack of prior criminal record, and personal circumstances.

After considering the quantity of cocaine and the early guilty plea, the court determined that a fit sentence before credit would be just under 39 months.

Applying enhanced credit for pre‑trial custody at a 1.5:1 ratio for 176 days served, the effective sentence imposed was 30 months’ imprisonment, along with a weapons prohibition order and a DNA order.

The offender was sentenced following conviction for possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking under s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Police seized significant quantities of crack cocaine and powder cocaine along with cash from a residence associated with the offender, indicating a mid‑level commercial trafficking operation.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of five to six years, while the defence requested a sentence of two and a half to three and a half years with substantial credit for pre‑trial custody and restrictive bail conditions.

The court rejected arguments that the trafficking was driven primarily by addiction and declined to grant the full credit sought for time spent on judicial interim release.

Balancing denunciation and deterrence with the offender’s youth and the jump principle, the court imposed a four‑year penitentiary sentence with credits applied, along with forfeiture, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.

The accused brought Charter applications alleging infringements of their rights under sections 7, 8, 9, 10(a), and 12 during a police vehicle take down and subsequent strip searches.

The police had relied on confidential informant information and surveillance to arrest the accused for drug trafficking.

The court found that the police had reasonable and probable grounds for the arrests and the search warrant.

While the court held that one of the accused's section 8 rights was infringed because she was left completely naked for five minutes during a strip search at the police station, the court declined to stay the proceedings or exclude the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding the police conduct was not in bad faith and the evidence was crucial to the prosecution.