R. v. MacIvor (R.M.),

• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Judge: Roscoe, Bateman and Cromwell, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2003 NSCA 60
• Citation: (2003), 215 N.S.R.(2d) 344 (CA),2003 NSCA 60,1994 CanLII 4057 (NS CA),176 CCC (3d) 420,[2003] CarswellNS 199,[2003] NSJ No 188 (QL),215 NSR (2d) 344,57 WCB (2d) 648,675 APR 344,675 A.P.R. 344,215 NSR(2d) 344,215 N.S.R.(2d) 344,(2003), 215 NSR(2d) 344 (CA),[2003] NS.J. No 188 (QL)
• Date: 05 June 2003
• Court: Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)

R. v. MacIvor (R.M.) (2003), 215 N.S.R.(2d) 344 (CA);

 675 A.P.R. 344

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. AU.017

Ronald Murray MacIvor (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(CAC 190399; 2003 NSCA 60)

Indexed As: R. v. MacIvor (R.M.)

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

Roscoe, Bateman and Cromwell, JJ.A.

June 5, 2003.

Summary:

The accused pleaded guilty to production of a controlled substance (marijuana) and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to ss. 7(1) and 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The Crown and accused jointly recommended a six month conditional sentence, with house arrest, plus one year's probation.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, in a judgment reported (2002), 210 N.S.R.(2d) 92; 659 A.P.R. 92, declined to accept the jointly recommended sentence and sentenced the accused to four months' imprisonment plus one year's probation. A conditional sentence did not provide the deterrence and denunciation warranted. The accused appealed.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and substituted the jointly recommended sentence.

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - When available or appropriate - The 48 year old accused had a substantial marijuana growing operation on his property (over three kilograms seized) for years - The accused had leukaemia - The marijuana was used only by the accused, his wife and some close friends who visited - The grow operation was not commercial - The marijuana was never sold and did not leave the property - The accused was married, with three adult children and no criminal record - The accused pleaded guilty to production of a controlled substance (marijuana) and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking - The Crown and accused jointly recommended a six month conditional sentence plus one year's probation - The trial judge sentenced the accused to four months' imprisonment plus one year's probation - Although the accused was only "technically" trafficking and a jointly recommended sentence was entitled to some deference, a conditional sentence did not provide the deterrence and denunciation warranted - The court stated that but for the accused's poor health the sentence would have been longer - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal substituted the jointly recommended conditional sentence - The trial judge overemphasized deterrence and denunciation to the virtual exclusion of mitigating factors - Further, where the jointly recommended sentence was manifestly fit, the trial judge should not have departed from it absent compelling reasons for doing so.

Criminal Law - Topic 5813

Sentencing - Sentencing procedure and rights of the accused - Plea bargain or joint submission - Effect of - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5833

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Deterrence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5848.3

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Medical - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5848.7

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Denunciation or repudiation of conduct - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5853

Sentence - Trafficking in hashish or marijuana (incl. possession for purposes of trafficking) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5878

Sentence - Possession, cultivation or production of a narcotic or controlled substance - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. McCurdy (J.S.) (2002), 210 N.S.R.(2d) 33; 659 A.P.R. 33 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Longaphy (J.F.) (2000), 189 N.S.R.(2d) 102; 590 A.P.R. 102 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Henry (T.A.) (2002), 203 N.S.R.(2d) 40; 635 A.P.R. 40 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. MacDonald (L.W.) et al. (2001), 191 N.S.R.(2d) 399; 596 A.P.R. 399 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Frenette (P.M.) (1997), 159 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 468 A.P.R. 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Wheatley (R.A.) (1997), 159 N.S.R.(2d) 161; 468 A.P.R. 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Proulx (J.K.D.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61; 249 N.R. 201; 142 Man.R.(2d) 161; 212 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Ferguson (1988), 84 N.S.R.(2d) 255; 213 A.P.R. 255 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Nguyen (V.T.) (2002), 180 B.C.A.C. 161; 297 W.A.C. 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Thomas (O.) (2000), 153 Man.R.(2d) 98; 238 W.A.C. 98 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Tkachuk (E.A.) (2001), 293 A.R. 171; 257 W.A.C. 171; 159 C.C.C.(3d) 434 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. G.W.C. (2000), 277 A.R. 20; 242 W.A.C. 20; 150 C.C.C.(3d) 513 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Bezdan (J.G.) (2001), 154 B.C.A.C. 122; 252 W.A.C. 122 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. B.B., 2002 CarswellNWT 17 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Webster (D.) (2001), 207 Sask.R. 257; 247 W.A.C. 257 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Dewald (T.O.) (2001), 144 O.A.C. 352; 156 C.C.C.(3d) 405 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Cerasuolo (J.C.) (2001), 140 O.A.C. 114; 151 C.C.C.(3d) 445 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Dorsey (C.) (1999), 123 O.A.C. 342 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. T.M.N. - see R. v. Nome (T.M.).

R. v. Nome (T.M.) (2002), 172 B.C.A.C. 183; 282 W.A.C. 183 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Hatt (R.E.) (2002), 209 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 170; 626 A.P.R. 170; 163 C.C.C.(3d) 552 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Verdi-Douglas (2002), 162 C.C.C.(3d) 37 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

Counsel:

Stephen M. Robertson, for the appellant;

James Martin, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on May 16, 2003, at Halifax, N.S., before Roscoe, Bateman and Cromwell, JJ.A., of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal.

On June 5, 2003, Cromwell, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.