Rechercher sur ce blogue

Aucun message portant le libellé Loi réglementant certaines drogues et autres substances. Afficher tous les messages
Aucun message portant le libellé Loi réglementant certaines drogues et autres substances. Afficher tous les messages

lundi 6 juillet 2026

Tableau des peines – possession de petites quantités ou de quantités modestes de cocaïne (sous forme de poudre)

R. c. Nelson, 2019 QCCQ 3534

Lien vers la décision


APPENDIX A

- sentencing chart – PPT of small or modest amounts of cocaine in powder form (s. 5(2)(3)(a) C.D.S.A.) -

 

Decision

Relevant facts

Quantities involved

 

Accused’s profile

Sentence

 

R. c. Dinh (1982), 1982 CanLII 3867 (QC CA), 68 C.C.C. (2d) 374 (Que.C.A.).

 

 

-trafficking: 5.3 g

 

-PPT: 2.3 g

 

-20 years old.

 

-no prior convictions.

 

-had the support of his wealthy family.

 

-used drugs himself, though he was not addicted.

 

-went back to school shortly before his arrest.

 

3 years

 

(affirmed on appeal)

 

R. v. Byers (1989), 1989 CanLII 200 (NS CA), 90 N.S.R. (2d) 263 (N.S.C.A.).

-guilty plea.

 

-the accused sold cocaine to an undercover officer.

 

-trafficking: 4 g

 

-trafficking: 1 g

-extensive criminal record, including drug offences.

3 years

 

(increased on appeal from 2 years)

 

R. c. Larochelle, [1998] J.Q. no. 449 (Que.C.A.).

-a confidential informer told police that the accused was selling drugs from a given location.

 

-upon executing a search warrant, the police found 1.5 g of cocaine underneath the bathroom sink, 10 000$ in cash, a firearm, a scale and accounting documents.

 

-PPT : 1.5 g

-extensive criminal record, including one prior conviction for PPT dating back 9 years, for which he received 9 months in jail.

 

30 months

 

(reduced on appeal from 6 years)

 

R. v. Le, 2013 ABCA 232.

-guilty plea.

 

-the accused was observed engaging in transactions consistent with trafficking. On arrest, he was found in possession of 6.58 g of cocaine.

 

 

-PPT: 6.58 g

-48 years old.

 

-unforeseen immigration consequences. He lived in Canada for 30 years as a permanent resident.

 

28 months

 

(affirmed on appeal, despite the unforeseen immigration consequences)

 

R. c. Leblanc, [1993] J.Q. no. 2061 (Que.C.A.).

-guilty plea.

 

-two minor transactions with an undercover officer at a bar.

-trafficking: 0.5 g

 

-trafficking: 0.5 g

-“young” accused.

 

-several prior convictions, including 3 of a similar nature.

 

-was already on probation for drug trafficking.

 

27 ½  months

 

[25 months + 2 ½ months pre-sentence custody]

 

(affirmed on appeal)

 

R. c. Maltais & Blais, [1990] J.Q. no. 849 (Que.C.A.).

-guilty pleas.

 

-sold 6 g of cocaine to an undercover officer. Promised to sell him another 6 g at a later time.

-trafficking : 6 g

-Maltais: 26 years old. Prior convictions, but not drug-related. Welfare recipient with a 4-year-old child.

 

-Blais: 30 years old. One prior conviction for theft. Welfare recipient.

 

24 months

 

[23 months + 41 days of pre-sentence custody]

 

(affirmed on appeal)

 

R. v. Harrisson (1998), 1998 ABCA 16 (CanLII), 122 C.C.C. (3d) 572 (Alta.C.A.).

 

-PPT: 5.75 g

 

(split into 23 x ¼ g flaps)

 

-30 years old.

 

-one previous conviction for theft.

 

-supported himself as an artist.

 

2 years

 

(increased from a 2 year-1day conditional sentence)

 

R. v. Do, 2012 ABCA 385.

 

-dial-a-dope operation.

 

-sold 60$ worth of cocaine to an undercover officer.

 

-“very unusual facts”, according to the Court of Appeal.

 

-a “single small act of trafficking”.

 

-trafficking: 0.7 g

 

-the accused was never actually in possession of the drug.

-23 years old.

 

-no prior convictions.

 

-PSR: the accused minimized his actions.

22 months

 

(reduced on appeal from 30 months)

 

R. v. Meggo, [1998] O.J. No. 2564 (Ont.C.A.).

-the police executed a search warrant in the accused’s apartment and found the drugs.

 

-PPT: 7 g

-33 years old.

 

-no prior convictions at the time of the offence. Had one subsequent conviction.

 

18 months

 

(affirmed on appeal)

 

R. v. Downey (1989), 1989 CanLII 9820 (NS CA), 94 N.S.R. (2d) 71 (N.S.C.A.).

-during the execution of a search warrant, the accused was found in a bedroom with two infant children.

 

-hidden underneath one of the children was a leather pouch containing the drugs.

 

-PPT: 4.5 g

 

(split into 18 decks)

 

18 months

 

(affirmed on appeal)

 

R. v. Ahmed, 2001 BCCA 504.

-over a one-month period, the accused sold cocaine to undercover officers on 6 occasions.

-trafficking: 7.2 g

-29 years old.

 

-landed immigrant.

 

-the accused denied the offences.

 

-stable relationship with a newborn child.

 

-employed as a janitor.

 

-letters of support from his community.

 

18 months

 

(increased on appeal from an 18-month conditional sentence)

 

R. c. Robert, [1993] J.Q. no. 1626 (Que.C.A.).

-sold small amounts of cocaine to an undercover police officer, all on the same day.

 

-during his subsequent arrest, the larger quantity was seized.

 

-trafficking: 0.5 g

-trafficking: 0.25 g

-trafficking: 0.5 g

-trafficking: 2 g

-PPT 6.25 g

 

-steadily employed.

 

-no prior convictions.

 

18 months

 

(increased on appeal from 90 days intermittent)

 

R. v. Cook, 2001 BCCA 225.

 

-police executed a search warrant and discovered the cocaine in her residence, as well as cocaine-related paraphernalia.

-trafficking: 6.9 g

 

(split into 23 flaps)

-one prior conviction of a similar nature “a few years ago” for which she was sentenced to 45 days.

 

-drug abuse problems. Was making very good progress while in custody.

 

18 months

 

(affirmed on appeal)

 

R. c. Léonard, [1993] J.Q. no. 1628 (Que.C.A.).

-sold small amounts of cocaine to an undercover police officer, all on the same day.

 

-during his subsequent arrest, the larger quantity was seized.

 

 

-trafficking: 0.25 g

-trafficking: 0.25 g

-trafficking: 0.25 g

-PPT: 15 g

-steadily employed.

 

-prior conviction for breaking and entering, 5 years earlier.

 

18 months

 

(increased on appeal from 90 days intermittent)

 

R. v. Ruda (1992), 1992 CanLII 8270 (SK CA), 100 Sask.R. 159 (Sask.C.A.).

-undercover police attended the accused’s place of business looking for cocaine. He provided them with 6.25 g for 800$ cash.

 

-trafficking: 6.25 g

-31 years old.

 

-no previous drug-related conviction.

 

-the accused was working and had a wife and children, including a 4-year-old son.

 

16 months

 

(reduced on appeal from 21 months)

 

R. v. Martin (2012), 2012 NBCA 95 (CanLII), 396 N.B.R. (2d) 343 (N.B.C.A.).

 

-guilty plea.

 

-following an ongoing investigation, the accused was stopped and arrested. A search of his truck revealed the drugs.

-PPT hash: 4.12 g

 

-PPT cannabis: 7 g

 

-PPT cocaine: 5.75 g

(split into 13 baggies)

-previous related conviction 9 years earlier.

 

-favourable PSR.

 

-the accused was paying child support for 3 children.

 

-was gainfully employed, working hard to reduce various debts.

 

15 months

 

(increased on appeal from a 22-month conditional sentence)

 

R. v. Bathurst, [1996] A.J. No. 846 (Alta.C.A.).

-the accused sold 1 g of cocaine to a friend. Another gram was seized after he volunteered the information to the police.

 

-trafficking: 1 g

-PPT: 1 g

-25 years old.

 

-no prior convictions.

 

-employed.

 

-supportive family.

 

-drug addict. He sought treatment.

 

15 months

 

(reduced on appeal from 2 years-1day)

 

R. v. Dawe, 2002 NSCA 147.

 

 

-PPT cocaine: 4 g (split into 8 packages)

 

-PPT hash: 200 g

-PPT cannabis: 235 g

 

-prior convictions.

 

-lack of remorse.

15 months

 

(affirmed on appeal)

 

R. v. Barrick, 2012 BCCA 83.

-guilty plea.

 

-the accused sold 3 spitballs to an undercover officer. While on bail, he was arrested and a search of his car revealed a further 3.2 g of cocaine.

 

-trafficking: 3 “spitballs” of cocaine.

 

-PPT: 3.2 g

 

(split into 7 spitballs)

-24 years old.

 

-no prior convictions.

 

-sold cocaine to support an addiction to pain medication arising from a motor vehicle accident.

 

-numerous favourable letters of reference.

 

15 months total sentence

 

(the length was affirmed on appeal, but the C.A. substituted consecutive terms totalling 15 months)

 

R. v. Johnson, 2010 BCCA 57.

-dial-a-dope operation. The accused’s father sold cocaine to an undercover officer.

 

-PPT: 5.8 g

 

(split into 13 packages)

-30 years old, with a learning disability. She still lived with her parents.

 

-one prior conviction for fraud.

 

-the accused was addicted to cocaine.

 

-various health issues: anxiety disorder, sleep apnea causing excessive weight, depressive disorder.

 

12 months

 

(affirmed on appeal)

 

R. v. Newman (1998), 1998 CanLII 17781 (MB CA), 129 Man.R. (2d) 286 (Man.C.A.).

 

-guilty plea.

 

-one single sale of 0.25 g of cocaine.

 

-trafficking: 0.25 g

-40 years old.

 

-no prior convictions at the time of the offence. Subsequent unrelated convictions.

 

-suffered from clinical depression.

 

-substance abuse problems.

 

-high risk to reoffend.

 

12 months

 

(reduced on appeal from 18 months)

R. v. Perry, 2007 PESCAD 15.

-guilty plea.

 

-the accused sold cocaine to two undercover officers.

 

-trafficking: 1 g

 

-trafficking: 3.5 g

-no prior convictions.

 

-married with one child, in addition to two other children from a previous relationship.

 

-employed and described as reliable by his employer.

 

-expressed remorse.

 

-the accused was not a drug user, but did have a drinking problem at the time of the offence.

 

 

12 months

 

(affirmed on appeal)

 

R. v. Salame, 1999 ABCA 318.

-guilty plea.

 

-the accused sold cocaine to an undercover officer in order to secure a job.

 

-trafficking: “small amount”

 

12 months [due to exceptional circumstances, including the time served, the restrictive conditions and the 100 hours of community service already performed]. The Court of Appeal held that 2 years-1day would have been an appropriate sentence.

 

(increased on appeal from a conditional sentence with strict conditions, including intermittent incarceration)

 

R. v. Mandolino, [2001] O.J. No. 289 (Ont.C.A.).

-guilty plea.

 

-conducted two separate sales to an undercover officer.

-trafficking: 0.8 g

-29 years old.

 

-criminal record (unspecified).

 

-the accused was a drug addict and prior to trial, had taken steps to deal with his addiction.

 

-the Crown had only asked for a 12-month sentence.

 

10 months

 

(reduced on appeal from 15 months)

 

R. v. McIntyre, 2012 SKCA 111.

-guilty plea.

 

-dial-a-dope operation.

 

-undercover officers made two cocaine purchases from the accused on the same night.

 

-the accused was a small, street-level trafficker.

 

-trafficking: 2 g

-25 years old.

 

-father of a newborn.

 

-one prior unrelated conviction (mischief).

 

-addicted to cocaine since age 19.

 

-took steps to turn his life around.

 

10 months

 

(reduced on appeal from 14 months)

 

R. v. Tran, [1998] B.C.J. No. 652 (B.C.C.A.).

-guilty plea in the course of the trial.

 

-dial-a-dope operation.

-trafficking: “small amount”

 

-no drugs were actually found on the accused

-married man with two children.

 

-he came to Canada as a refugee.

 

-the accused’s business was in difficulty and he was persuaded to get involved in a trafficking operation.

 

9 months

 

(affirmed on appeal)

 

R. v. Martinez, 2001 BCCA 712.

-guilty plea.

 

-dial-a-dope operation.

 

-the accused delivered 0.7 g of cocaine to an undercover officer.

 

-trafficking: 0.7 g

 

-PPT: 1.2 g

-38 years old.

 

-2 previous convictions for PPT.

 

-landed immigrant status.

 

-university educated.

 

-was living with his pregnant common-law spouse.

 

-unemployed at the time of the offence. Had been steadily employed as a painter and landscaper in the past.

 

 

8 months

 

(reduced on appeal from 14 months)

 

R. v. Ladret, 2012 BCCA 401.

-dial-a-dope operation.

-PPT: 400-500$ value.

-42 years old.

 

-prior convictions, but none for drug trafficking.

 

-Significant drug problem.

 

8 months

 

(affirmed on appeal)

 

R. v. Prudencio, 2000 CarswellOnt 4733 (Ont.C.A.).

-guilty plea.

 

-the accused sold cocaine on two occasions to an undercover officer in a parking lot.

 

-trafficking: 0.9 g

 

-trafficking: 0.84 g

-26 years old.

 

-prior convictions, but unrelated (possession of stolen property and dangerous driving).

 

-was on probation at the time of the offence.

 

6 months

 

(reduced on appeal from 12 months)

 

R. v. Duong, 2003 BCCA 120.

-dial-a-dope operation. On two occasions in the same week, the accused sold cocaine to undercover officers.

 

-the accused was “at the bottom of the pyramid in the cocaine industry”.

 

-trafficking: 2g

 

-trafficking: 3.5 g

-33 years old.

 

-no prior convictions.

 

-obtained his citizenship after coming to Canada as a refugee.

 

-was employed at the time of the offence and at the time of sentencing.

 

-good prospects of rehabilitation.

 

6 months

 

(affirmed on appeal)

 

R. v. Fargo, 2015 BCCA 187.

 

-guilty plea.

 

-the accused was observed by the police to be a passenger in a car who engaged in 5 interactions that were consistent with drug transactions. When arrested, his search revealed the cocaine.

 

-PPT: 3 g

-25 years old.

 

-no prior convictions.

 

-addicted to crack cocaine.

 

-unemployed: sold cocaine to support his addiction.

 

-long-time marijuana user.

6 months

 

(affirmed on appeal)

R. v. Juker, 2015 SKCA 127.

 

-guilty plea.

 

-the cocaine was found following a traffic stop. The accused was the rear passenger and appeared to be quickly deleting messages from his cell phone.

 

 

-PPT: 9 “spitballs” of cocaine.

 

-criminal record for property offences.

 

-drug addict.

 

-supportive family.

 

-the accused suffered from a disabling degenerative hereditary condition: muscular atrophy.

 

-positive PSR.

 

6 months

 

(affirmed on appeal; had it not been for the debilitating medical condition of the accused, the Court of Appeal would have increased the sentence. He required medical care, including Dilaudid treatment and special orthotic footwear).

 

 

 

Le dédommagement à la victime doit toujours être envisagé lors de la détermination de la peine

Le délai de 24 heures n'est qu'une limite maximale : tout retard policier injustifié pour faire comparaître un prévenu constitue une détention illégale et arbitraire selon la Charte

R. c. E.W., 2002 NLCA 49 Lien vers la décision [ 12 ]        Les parties pertinentes du paragraphe 503(1) du Code criminel sont libellées ...