R. v. Picard

R. v. Picard

The defence failed to show that the one‑year mandatory minimum in s.7(2)(b)(iii) is grossly disproportionate either as applied to Ms. Stinson or in reasonable hypotheticals; the statutory minimum falls within the range of sentences for commercial grow operations of 201–500 plants, merits deference to Parliament's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2016 BCSC 2052
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Accused: Roch Joseph Claude Picard (Also known as Rock George Picard); Accused: Linda Elizabeth Stinson
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Production of Marihuana and Possession for Purpose of Trafficking / Sentencing and Constitutional Challenge to Mandatory Minimum (s.7(2)(b)(iii) of Cdsa)
Outcome
Defence application to strike down s.7(2)(b)(iii) CDSA dismissed; mandatory minimum upheld and applied; accused sentenced.
Legal Topics
Mandatory Minimum Sentences, Section 12 Charter Cruel and Unusual Punishment, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act S.7, Conditional Sentence Availability, Reasonable Hypothetical Analysis
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Drug Control Legislation Sentencing Law Mandatory Minimum Sentences Section 12 Charter Cruel and Unusual Punishment Controlled Drugs and Substances Act S.7 Conditional Sentence Availability +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Roch Joseph Claude Picard (Also known as Rock George Picard)

Accused

Linda Elizabeth Stinson

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Production of Marihuana and Possession for Purpose of Trafficking / Sentencing and Constitutional Challenge to Mandatory Minimum (s.7(2)(b)(iii) of Cdsa)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.7(2)(b)(iii) CDSA mandatory one year sentence violates s.12 Charter as cruel and unusual
  2. 2 Application of the two‑stage gross disproportionality test: particularized inquiry and reasonable hypothetical
  3. 3 Relevance of absence of conditional sentence under Criminal Code s.742.1

Ratio Decidendi

The defence failed to show that the one‑year mandatory minimum in s.7(2)(b)(iii) is grossly disproportionate either as applied to Ms. Stinson or in reasonable hypotheticals; the statutory minimum falls within the range of sentences for commercial grow operations of 201–500 plants, merits deference to Parliament's focus on denunciation and deterrence, and therefore does not breach s.12; the mandatory one‑year sentence was imposed.

Court Disposition

Defence application to strike down s.7(2)(b)(iii) CDSA dismissed; mandatory minimum upheld and applied; accused sentenced.

Orders

  • Sentence of one year imprisonment on Count 1 (production of marihuana, s.7(1) CDSA), to be served concurrent with Count 2
  • Sentence of one year imprisonment on Count 2 (possession for the purpose of trafficking, s.5(2) CDSA), concurrent