R. v. Dickey (C.W.)

• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Judge: Lowry, Garson and Fenlon, JJ.A.
• Citation: (2016), 386 B.C.A.C. 121 (CA),2016 BCCA 177
• Date: 25 April 2016

R. v. Dickey (C.W.) (2016), 386 B.C.A.C. 121 (CA);

    667 W.A.C. 121

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] B.C.A.C. TBEd. AP.055

Regina (appellant) v. Chad William Dickey (respondent) and Pivot Legal Society (intervenor)

(CA42866)

Regina (appellant) v. Marco Trasolini (respondent) and Pivot Legal Society (intervenor)

(CA42867)

Regina (appellant) v. Erin Cody Bradley-Luscombe (respondent)

(CA43117; 2016 BCCA 177)

Indexed As: R. v. Dickey (C.W.)

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Lowry, Garson and Fenlon, JJ.A.

April 25, 2016.

Summary:

The three accused (Dickey, Trasolini and Bradley-Luscombe) were separately convicted of drug offences for their involvement in "dial-a-dope" operations. None had prior drug convictions. Dickey was convicted of trafficking in cocaine and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and sentenced to a suspended sentence and 20 months' probation. Trasolini pleaded guilty to trafficking in cocaine and was sentenced to eight months' imprisonment. Bradley-Luscombe pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and was sentenced to eight months' imprisonment. In each case, the Crown had given notice that it intended to prove that the offences were committed in a public place usually frequented by persons under 18 years of age or that the offences were committed using the services of or involving a person under 18 years of age. If either was proven, ss. 5(3)(a)(ii)(A) and (C) of the Safe Streets and Communities Act provided a mandatory minimum sentence of two years' imprisonment. In two of the cases, the trial judges ruled that the mandatory minimum sentence was unconstitutional as constituting cruel and unusual punishment (Charter, s. 12) and not saved as a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1. In the third case, the trial judge found that the mandatory minimum sentence infringed s. 7 on the basis that it was overbroad and was not saved by s. 1. The Crown appealed, arguing that the trial judges erred in finding that ss. 5(3)(a)(ii)(A) and (C) violated ss. 7 and/or 12 of the Charter and that the sentences imposed in each case were demonstrably unfit.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals. The court affirmed that ss. 5(3)(a)(ii)(A) and (C) violated s. 12 of the Charter and were not reasonable limits prescribed by law under s. 1. Given that the sections were invalid and unenforceable for violating s. 12, the court found it unnecessary to deal with the issue of overbreadth under s. 7 of the Charter. The sentences imposed, while at the lower end of the appropriate range, were not demonstrably unfit.

Civil Rights - Topic 3829

Cruel and unusual treatment or punishment - What constitutes - Mandatory minimum and consecutive sentences - See paragraphs 34 to 122.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law (Charter, s. 1) - See paragraphs 34 to 122.

Criminal Law - Topic 5830.8

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Drug and narcotic offences - See paragraphs 34 to 122.

Criminal Law - Topic 5850

Sentence - Trafficking in a narcotic or a controlled drug or substance (incl. possession for the purpose of trafficking) - See paragraphs 34 to 122.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Smith (E.D.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045; 75 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Nur (H.), [2015] 1 S.C.R. 773; 469 N.R. 1; 332 O.A.C. 208; 2015 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Lloyd (J.R.) (2016), 482 N.R. 35; 385 B.C.A.C. 1; 665 W.A.C. 1; 2016 SCC 13, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Luxton, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 711; 112 N.R. 193; 111 A.R. 161, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Goltz, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 485; 131 N.R. 1; 5 B.C.A.C. 161; 11 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Brown (B.B.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 749; 173 N.R. 317; 97 Man.R.(2d) 169; 79 W.A.C. 169, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Morrisey (M.L.) (No. 2), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 90; 259 N.R. 95; 187 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 585 A.P.R. 1; 2000 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Latimer (R.W.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 3; 264 N.R. 99; 203 Sask.R. 1; 240 W.A.C. 1; 2001 SCC 1, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Ferguson (M.E.), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 96; 371 N.R. 231; 425 A.R. 79; 418 W.A.C. 79, 2008 SCC 6, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Voong (D.M.) (2015), 374 B.C.A.C. 166; 642 W.A.C. 166; 2015 BCCA 285, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Ahmed (S.) (2001), 159 B.C.A.C. 136; 259 W.A.C. 136; 2001 BCCA 504, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Williams (J.D.) (1996), 75 B.C.A.C. 220; 123 W.A.C. 220; 1996 CanLII 3271 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Nur (H.) (2013), 311 O.A.C. 244; 2013 ONCA 677, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Carrillo (O.O.) (2015), 371 B.C.A.C. 182; 636 W.A.C. 182; 2015 BCCA 192, refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Pettigrew (1990), 56 C.C.C.(3d) 390 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Preston (1990), 47 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. DeSousa, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 944; 142 N.R. 1; 56 O.A.C. 109, refd to. [para. 100].

R. v. A.D.H., [2013] 2 S.C.R. 269; 444 N.R. 293; 414 Sask.R. 210; 575 W.A.C. 210; 2013 SCC 28, refd to. [para. 101].

Counsel:

W.P. Riley, Q.C., and R.D. Leong, for the appellant;

D.N. Fai, for the respondent (CA42866), Chad William Dickey;

L.D. Myers, Q.C., Z. Myers and M. Fingas, for the respondent (CA42867), Marco Trasolini;

B.D. Vaze and R. Mansoori-Dara, for the respondent (CA43117), Erin Cody Bradley-Luscombe;

C.E. Hunter and A.S. Smith, for the intervenor (CA42866 and CA42867), Pivot Legal Society.

These appeals were heard on February 1-2, 2016, at Vancouver, B.C., before Lowry, Garson and Fenlon, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

On April 25, 2016, Lowry, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.