Lisa Bristow

The offender was convicted by a jury of human trafficking, possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, trafficking heroin, and related offences.

The offender exploited a vulnerable young woman struggling with heroin addiction by supplying her with drugs and forcing her into sex work.

The court weighed significant aggravating factors, including the use of heroin and threats to control the victim, against mitigating factors such as the offender's youth, lack of prior record, and harsh pre-trial custody conditions.

A global sentence of 7 years was imposed, resulting in a net sentence of 4 years and 240 days after pre-sentence custody credits.

The court sentenced the accused after jury convictions for trafficking in crack cocaine, possession of crack cocaine for the purposes of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime arising from an undercover street-level drug buy.

The sentencing analysis balanced denunciation and deterrence for crack trafficking against strong rehabilitation evidence, including addiction, parental responsibilities, compliance with Narcotics Anonymous, and a positive pre-sentence report, while also noting relapse and prior addiction-related convictions.

A custodial sentence was found necessary, but the court imposed a relatively modest term in light of the connection between addiction and the offences.

The accused received six months' imprisonment less time served, followed by 18 months' probation with treatment and community service conditions.

A mandatory weapons prohibition was imposed, but the requested DNA order and victim fine surcharge were declined.

The accused were charged following an incident at a Shoppers Drug Mart in Toronto.

The accused were falsely accused of attempting to steal condoms by a loss prevention officer.

After being told to leave the premises, they attempted to do so but were physically detained by the loss prevention officer and store employees.

A struggle ensued outside the store.

The court found that the accused were not given a reasonable opportunity to leave as required by the Trespass to Property Act, making the arrest unlawful.

Consequently, the accused had the right to resist the unlawful detention using reasonable force.

The court found the force used was reasonable and not excessive.

All charges were dismissed.