The accused, O’Neil Harriott, was convicted by a jury of weapons trafficking (offer to transfer a handgun) and cocaine trafficking (offer to sell 2 ounces of cocaine), but acquitted on three counts of actual cocaine trafficking based on a duress defence.
The defence brought a constitutional challenge to the three-year mandatory minimum sentence for weapons trafficking under section 99(2)(a) of the Criminal Code, arguing it violated section 12 of the Charter.
The court found the mandatory minimum grossly disproportionate, both in the accused's specific circumstances (a hollow offer to sell a gun with no intent or ability to provide it, under duress) and in reasonable hypothetical scenarios (e.g., licensing infractions).
The mandatory minimum was declared of no force or effect.
The court then sentenced the accused to a suspended sentence on the cocaine trafficking charge and 6 months less a day consecutive on the weapons trafficking charge, along with three years' probation and a lifetime weapons prohibition, considering mitigating factors such as duress, limited record, and pre-sentence custody.