R. v. Elliott

R. v. Elliott

Section 7(2)(b)(i) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which mandates a six month minimum sentence for production of more than five and fewer than 201 marihuana plants for the purpose of trafficking, infringes s.12 and that infringement is not justified under s.1 because the measure fails the minimal impairment and proportionality branches of the Oakes test due to resulting gross disproportionality in some cases.

Citation
2016 BCSC 1200
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Keith Steven Elliott; Accused: Anthony Edward Rico
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Oral Ruling on S.1 Charter Application (section 12 Challenge)
Outcome
s.7(2)(b)(i) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act found inconsistent with Charter s.12 and not saved under s.1; the mandatory six month minimum is invalid to the extent described.
Legal Topics
Charter S.1 Justification, Section 12 Cruel and Unusual Punishment, Mandatory Minimum Sentence, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, Oakes Proportionality Test
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Drug Offences Charter S.1 Justification Section 12 Cruel and Unusual Punishment Mandatory Minimum Sentence Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Oakes Proportionality Test

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Keith Steven Elliott

Accused

Anthony Edward Rico

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Oral Ruling on S.1 Charter Application (section 12 Challenge)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.7(2)(b)(i) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act violates s.12 of the Charter
  2. 2 If there is a s.12 violation, whether that violation is justified under s.1 of the Charter
  3. 3 Whether the mandatory minimum six month sentence is rationally connected, minimally impairing and proportionate under the Oakes test

Ratio Decidendi

Section 7(2)(b)(i) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which mandates a six month minimum sentence for production of more than five and fewer than 201 marihuana plants for the purpose of trafficking, infringes s.12 and that infringement is not justified under s.1 because the measure fails the minimal impairment and proportionality branches of the Oakes test due to resulting gross disproportionality in some cases.

Court Disposition

s.7(2)(b)(i) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act found inconsistent with Charter s.12 and not saved under s.1; the mandatory six month minimum is invalid to the extent described.

Orders

  • Violation of s.12 not justified under s.1; s.7(2)(b)(i) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act declared invalid to the extent that it mandates a six month minimum sentence for production of more than five and fewer than 201 marihuana plants where production is for the purpose of trafficking.