3 total
A youthful first offender addicted to cocaine received a suspended sentence for trafficking after completing residential treatment.
The accused, a 28-year-old first-time offender, pleaded guilty to trafficking in cocaine.
She sold 0.4 grams of cocaine for $40 while under police surveillance.
The Crown sought six months jail followed by probation, while the defence sought a non-custodial sentence.
The court imposed a suspended sentence with three years probation, recognizing the accused's addiction, her engagement in rehabilitative programming including residential treatment, and her status as a youthful first offender.
The court balanced the serious nature of cocaine trafficking with the principles of rehabilitation and specific deterrence applicable to first offenders.
Convictions and 20-month sentence for possession and distribution of child pornography upheld on appeal.
The appellant appealed his convictions and 20-month sentence for possession and distribution of child pornography.
He argued the trial judge failed to properly apply the W.(D.) test to his defence of innocent possession, misapprehended evidence regarding deleted files, and provided insufficient reasons.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge correctly applied the law and relied on compelling evidence of knowledge, including the sophisticated organization of the files.
The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the 20-month term was within the appropriate range and the trial judge made no errors in assessing aggravating factors.
Exceptional rehabilitation justified conditional sentence for cocaine trafficking.
The accused was convicted of possession of 90.7 grams of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.
The Crown sought a two‑year custodial sentence, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for drug trafficking offences.
The defence requested a conditional sentence based on significant post‑offence rehabilitation, including educational achievements, community work with youth, and stable employment.
The court held that the offender’s exceptional rehabilitative progress, lack of reoffending, and strong community support justified restraint in sentencing.
A conditional sentence of two years less a day to be served in the community was imposed, followed by probation.