3 total
The offender was sentenced to eight and a half years imprisonment for possessing 276.2 grams of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.
Marcus Gil pleaded guilty to possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime over $5,000.
The court considered aggravating factors, including the large quantity of fentanyl (276.2 grams), its proximity to a children's daycare, and the offender's criminal history and breach of probation.
Mitigating factors included an early guilty plea, expressed remorse, young age (22), and strong family support.
The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as paramount objectives due to the ongoing opioid crisis and the destructive effects of fentanyl.
A total sentence of eight and a half years imprisonment was imposed, with credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in six years and ten months to serve.
Ancillary orders included a lifetime firearm prohibition, a DNA order, and forfeiture of seized items.
Rules prohibiting broadcasting of hearings do not apply to exhibits; Dagenais/Mentuck test governs exhibit broadcasting.
The CBC appealed a decision dismissing its motion to broadcast a video recording of a statement made by the accused to the police, which was tendered as an exhibit at trial.
The trial judge had held that the Rules of Practice of the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec, Criminal Division prohibited broadcasting the recording.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the rules prohibit broadcasting recordings of proceedings, not exhibits.
Access to exhibits is governed by the open court principle, and trial judges must apply the Dagenais/Mentuck test to determine if broadcasting should be limited.
The appeal was dismissed as moot because the accused had been acquitted.
Appeal dismissed; conviction for sexual assault upheld based on the evidence.
The appellant appealed a decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal finding him guilty of sexual assault involving mentally handicapped persons.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that even though section 273.1 of the Criminal Code was not in force at the time of the alleged acts, the appellant must be convicted based on the evidence.