Vanja Ilic

Matthew Mailhot was sentenced for possessing fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, along with other drugs, while in custody on a surety revocation.

He had a significant criminal record, including recent firearms convictions for which he was already serving a five-year sentence.

The Crown sought an eight-year consecutive sentence, while the defence sought a four-to-five-year concurrent sentence.

The court emphasized the seriousness of fentanyl trafficking, especially in a custodial setting, but also considered the offender's lamentable background and lifelong addiction as mitigating factors.

The judge rejected the Crown's interpretation of R. v. Ribble regarding the minimal relevance of addiction for commercial traffickers and reaffirmed proportionality as the cardinal principle of sentencing, which includes the offender's moral responsibility.

The court imposed a 3.5-year sentence, consecutive to the existing sentence, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA order, and victim surcharge.

The judge also recommended transfer to an Alberta institution to support rehabilitation.

The defendant, Lauren McDiarmid, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence obtained through multiple warrantless police entries into her apartment, arguing violations of her s. 8 Charter rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

The court found that three warrantless entries by police officers were unreasonable, as the Crown failed to justify them under common law duties or statutory provisions.

Consequently, the information obtained from these unlawful entries was excised from the search warrant application, rendering the warrant invalid.

Applying the R. v. Grant test, the court concluded that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, given the cumulative seriousness of the violations and their impact on the defendant's privacy rights.

The evidence was therefore excluded from trial.

The defendant, Benjamin Boucher, brought an application to exclude evidence seized during a search of his home and outbuildings, arguing that the search warrants lacked reasonable grounds and violated his s. 8 Charter rights.

Police had found cocaine, trafficking indicators, and a prohibited weapon.

The court found that the information to obtain the warrant for Boucher's residence was insufficient, particularly when compared to the strong grounds for a co-accused's warrant, leading to a s. 8 Charter breach.

The observations leading to the outbuilding warrant were deemed tainted by the invalid house warrant.

Applying the s. 24(2) Charter analysis, the court determined the breach was serious, the impact on Boucher's privacy substantial (as it was his home), and that the public interest in a trial on the merits did not outweigh these factors.

Consequently, the evidence seized from the home and garage was excluded, resulting in no evidence upon which to argue conviction for the drug charges.

Boucher was placed on a peace bond for the prohibited weapon.