R. v. Nadeau Date:, 2017 BCPC 150

Citation: R. v. Nadeau Date: 20170505 2017 BCPC 150 File No: 36311-2-C Registry: Campbell River IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. KARALO NADEAU RULING ON APPLICATION OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE FLEWELLING Counsel for the Crown: N. Holubowich Counsel for the Defendant: W. E. Jessop Place of Hearing: Campbell River , B.C. Date of Hearing: April 28, 2017 Date of Judgment: May 5, 2017

Introduction: [ 1 ] Mr. Nadeau seeks his release pending his trial on charges of possession of heroin, fentanyl, cocaine and methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking and resisting or wilfully obstructing a peace officer in the execution of his duty. [ 2 ] Normally, the Crown must establish that there is just cause to detain an individual. However, in this case because the new charges involve

Schedule I substances and the maximum penalty is life imprisonment (CDSA, s. 5 (2) (a)), pursuant to s. 515 (6) (d), he is in a reverse onus position and must establish on a balance of probabilities that his continued detention is not justified. Notwithstanding the reverse onus, I have kept in mind throughout my analysis, all the principles applicable to a bail hearing. [ 3 ] These charges stem from events that occurred on September 20, 2016 in the City of Campbell River. His trial is scheduled to take place in Campbell River in December, 2017. [ 4 ] Mr.

Nadeau has been in custody since his arrest on September 20, 2016. [ 5 ] Crown seeks Mr. Nadeau's detention on all three grounds under s. 515 (10) (a), (

b) and (c), commonly referred to as primary, secondary and tertiary grounds. [ 6 ] Counsel for Mr. Nadeau argues forcefully for his release and submits that Mr. Nadeau can be released on a substantial cash bail as well as strict conditions that will ameliorate the Crown's concerns. [ 7 ] Before I deal with each of the individual grounds, I will summarize the circumstances of these alleged offences. I emphasize that the circumstances I am about to set out are only allegations and that Mr. Nadeau is presumed to be innocent until a contrary finding following his trial.

Circumstances of the Offence: [ 8 ] On September 20, 2016, at approximately 12:45 PM, the Campbell River RCMP street crime unit observed a black charger driving along Cedar Street in Campbell River. There had been reports about possible drug transactions involving this vehicle and surveillance was established. [ 9 ] The officers observed the black Charger pulled over mid-block to the curb and allege that it was Mr. Nadeau who entered the rear seat of the vehicle. There is conflicting evidence with regard to the description of that man.

However, earlier that day, at approximately 10:00 a.m., an off duty officer observed the black Charger being driven by, as he described it, a man of east-Indian descent. Another officer observed that the passenger was a man who appeared to be in his early twenties with a dark complexion and possibly black. It was noted by Crown that Mr. Nadeau has a dark complexion and suggests that he fits that description. [ 10 ] I accept that at least at this point in time, it is not clear that it was Mr.

Nadeau who was picked up by the driver of the Charger. [ 11 ] Believing that a drug transaction was occurring, the police drove their unmarked car in front of the Charger, got out of the vehicle and identified themselves as police officers. [ 12 ] The Charger reversed and accelerated quickly to leave the scene and in so doing struck Constable Stuart who rolled onto the hood and was thrown to the pavement. Fortunately, Cst.

Stuart was not seriously injured. [ 13 ] The Charger sped away from the scene at a high rate of speed. [ 14 ] Approximately fifteen minutes later the police located the same black Charger parked in the parking lot of 282 Birch St., Campbell River. It was only about one block away from the location of the initial attempt to stop it. [ 15 ] The police initiated surveillance on that vehicle. Approximately five minutes later they saw a man, who matched the description of the driver of the Charger, as well as Mr. Nadeau, leave 282 Birch Street together and get into a taxi.

A statement provided by the taxi driver indicated that he had been asked to take them to Nanaimo together. [ 16 ] It is not disputed that the driver of the Charger and the man with Mr. Nadeau is his co-accused Jitesh Kumar Vagh. The taxi started to drive away with the two men and once the police were able to stop it safely they surrounded it with their police vehicles. As that was occurring, Mr. Vagh and Mr. Nadeau fled the taxi. [ 17 ] Upon being ordered to stop by the police, Mr. Vagh stopped and surrendered. However, Mr. Nadeau went into a full sprint away from the police.

The police ordered him to stop but he refused to obey. As he was running he broke a cell phone in half and threw it away. Ultimately, the police gave chase and were able to catch and arrest Mr. Nadeau. As a result of a search incident to arrest, the police found two additional cell phones as well as just over $1500 in cash in Mr. Nadeau's possession. [ 18 ] When asked to provide his name and date of birth: Mr. Nadeau gave a false identity and date of birth. It was not until the police returned him to the police detachment and obtained fingerprints that they were able to determine his correct identity. [ 19 ] Mr.

Vagh was carrying a backpack as he and Mr. Nadeau got into the taxi. After arrest, the police searched the backpack and found a substantial quantity of drugs and cash. [ 20 ] They found and seized 410 spitballs of heroin with a weight of 72.28 g. After analysis, fentanyl was detected in some of the heroin. This fentanyl/heroin mixture weighed 55 g. Fentanyl was also detected in a heroin and cocaine mix with a total weight of 17 g. These drugs have an estimated street value of approximately $12,000.

[21] They also found 39 spitballs of methamphetamine with a weight of 13.3 g. and a street value of almost $1200. [22] They also found 30 spitballs of powder cocaine weighing 11.37 g. with a street value a little over $1100 and 74 spitballs ofcrack cocaine weighing 23.42 g. with a street value a little over $2300. [23] The total street value of all drugs was over $16,600. [24] The police also found a substantial amount of cash in the backpack totalling $47,475. [25] The cash was separated into labelled bundles and packages. One bundle was labelled "C. River".

The bundles also containeddrug sales ledgers, commonly called "score sheets". The amount of cash in each bundle ranged from $1500 to about $6000. [26] A search warrant was executed at Unit 402, 282 Birch St., Campbell River. There was very little there in the way of furnishingsand the police found used drug packaging materials, a cash counter and drug sales ledgers. Fingerprinting was inconclusive. [27] By way of further background, I am advised by counsel that following a contested bail hearing Mr.

Nadeau’s co-accused, Mr.Vagh, was ordered released on a bail requiring a deposit of $20,000 cash, with a named surety and strict conditions. He had no priorcriminal record. [28] Shortly after Mr. Vagh’s bail hearing, two other individuals arrived in Campbell River with cash for his bail but were turnedaway from the Campbell River courthouse registry. Due to a series of events that were not expounded upon by counsel, these twoindividuals were arrested later that night or the next day and also face charges of possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking.

Apparent Strength of the Crown’s Case: [29] I will now refer to the strength of the Crown’s case because it is a relevant consideration in assessing whether or not detentionis justified, or whether or not Mr. Nadeau has established that his detention is not justified, under all three grounds. An assessment of thestrength of the case for the prosecution is always difficult at this stage.

It may appear stronger than it is because witnesses have not beencross examined during a trial and the assessment is based upon the submissions of counsel. [30] Notwithstanding that it is a difficult exercise, I must assess and consider the quality, type (physical or circumstantial evidence)and amount of evidence proffered by the Crown and I must also consider the strength of any defences raised by the accused: R. v. St.Cloud, 2015 SCC 27 , [2015] S.C.J. No. 27, para 57 - 59. [31] Counsel for Mr. Nadeau asserts that the case against his client is quite distinct from that involving Mr. Vagh.

In particular, hepoints out that there is no evidence of a “joint venture” between Mr. Vagh and Mr. Nadeau. He reminds the Court that Mr. Nadeau wasnot in possession of the backpack full of drugs and money. There is conflicting evidence about who had been seen living in unit 402 ofthe building. The tenancy agreement for unit 402 was in Mr. Vagh’s name as was the rental agreement and insurance documents for theCharger. Furthermore, Mr. Vagh was in possession of the keys to the apartment and the Charger. [32] Counsel advises that Mr.

Nadeau denies being in the Charger or Unit 402. [33] I accept that there are triable issues in this case including whether or not it was Mr. Nadeau who was observed to get in the rearseat of the Charger being driven by Mr. Vagh. I also accept that the Crown will have to deal with the issue of possession by Mr. Nadeauand that it is not as clear cut as the case against Mr. Vagh. [34] However, it is clear that Mr. Nadeau was accompanying Mr. Vagh as they left the complex at Birch Street and they entered thetaxi together.

The Crown also has evidence from the taxi driver that he was told to drive them both to Nanaimo. [35] Also of relevance is the fact that Mr. Nadeau immediately attempted to flee the scene and destroyed a cell phone as he wasrunning away. Mr. Nadeau was found with two cell phones in addition to one he destroyed although I heard no submissions about anyevidence they may have contained. Mr. Nadeau also had $1,500 cash in his pocket. This is not, to use a colloquialism, “pocket change”. [36] Mr. Nadeau was residing in Surrey at the time of these events.

There is no evidence that would allow me to understand hispresence in Campbell River. There is no evidence which would allow me to understand why he was with Mr. Vagh as they left theBirch Street complex. Similarly, there is no evidence before me to assist me in understanding why he got into a taxi with Mr. Vagh andthe driver was instructed to drive to Nanaimo. [37] It is apparent that Mr. Vagh and Mr. Nadeau were in the process of leaving Campbell River about twenty minutes after thepolice had attempted to stop the Charger being driven by Mr. Vagh.

I have come to the conclusion that the case for the Crown has somestrength notwithstanding that the evidence is, at this point, circumstantial. Mr. Nadeau’s Background: [38] Mr. Nadeau is 23 years of age. He has lived most of his life in Surrey, B.C. after he and his family immigrated to Canada fromFiji.

He has been employed in the food industry and has also worked as a labourer. [39] He has a criminal record. [40] He has a minor unrelated offence as a youth and was convicted of theft under $5,000 on Feb. 28, 2011. [41] On April 22, 2015, he was given a suspended sentence and two years probation in relation to two charges: trafficking incontrolled substance and possession for the purpose of trafficking. The offences occurred on September 5, 2013. [42] Mr. Nadeau was charged with breaching his probation on June 12, 2015 and on July 7, 2015 received a custodial sentence,

which with pre-sentence credit, amounted to seven days in custody. [ 43 ] On October 5, 2015 he again breached a condition of his probation. [ 44 ] On October 22, 2015, once again, he breached a condition of his probation. [ 45 ] While still on probation, on December 11, 2015 and March 11, 2016, Mr. Nadeau failed to appear in court as required. [ 46 ] On February 3, 2016 he received a custodial sentence for the October 5, 2015 breach amounting to (with pre-sentence credit) fourteen days. [ 47 ] On June 8, 2016, Mr.

Nadeau was sentenced in relation to charges that on April 13, 2016 he wilfully resisted or obstructed a peace officer in Surrey, B.C. and on September 16, 2014 wilfully resisted or obstructed a peace officer in Langley, B.C. On the same day he was also sentenced in relation to charges that on September 16, 2014 he fraudulently personated another individual with intent to gain advantage.

He received a custodial sentence which, with pre-sentence credit, amounted to 45 days for all charges and was placed on a period of probation for one year. [ 48 ] On June 24, 2016 his suspended sentence for the previous trafficking and possession offences was revoked and he was sentenced to custody which, with pre-sentence credit, was a total of 110 days. On the same day, he was sentenced for the breach of probation on October 22, 2015 and received a custodial sentence for that offence of twenty one days.

He was placed on probation for a period of nine months. [ 49 ] According to his counsel, he was released from custody in July, 2016. At that time, he was subject to two probation orders - June 8, 2016 and June 24, 2016. Both required, among other things, that he keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The probation order made on June 24, 2016 also required that Mr.

Nadeau seek and maintain employment and/or attend any educational or vocational program if directed by the probation officer. [ 50 ] This brings us to the date of the current charges which arise from events in Campbell River on September 20, 2016 and his proposed release plan. Proposed Release Plan: [ 51 ] Following his release from jail in July, 2016, he had been living with his mother and father in Surrey, B.C. His mother is ill and undergoing chemotherapy. His father is seventy years of age and is retired. They are not in a position to act as sureties. The plan put forward by counsel for Mr.

Nadeau is that, if he is released, he would reside with his parents and would obey strict conditions such as a curfew or house arrest. He would deposit $20,000 as cash bail, the same amount that was deposited by his co-accused, Mr. Vagh. [ 52 ] Mr. Nadeau provided a letter dated April 26, 2017 from a company called Labour Ready. According to Mr. or Ms. Klaire, Mr. Nadeau is interested in obtaining full time work with Labour Ready and he could start immediately. This individual advises that Mr. Nadeau could work at construction sites or general warehouse work and that Labour Ready could offer Mr.

Nadeau 37.5 hours a week. The pay rate would be determined upon the job that Mr. Nadeau accepts. [ 53 ] Mr. Nadeau also provided a letter that is undated, unsigned and does not have the name of the individual who prepared it. It is not on letterhead. It states that Mr. Nadeau has applied to Capilano University for full time studies in the two year Business Program. The letter states: Mr. Nadeau has indicated his interests are to develop business principles in order to obtain employment in an office position. The desired start date is June 2017 and second choice is September 2017. Mr.

Nadeau will need to be available for assessment at North Vancouver Campus in May 2017. The Law: [ 54 ] Crown objects to Mr. Nadeau’s release on all three grounds. [ 55 ] Counsel provided the Court with the leading legal authorities that guide courts in determining whether or not an individual should be released into the community pending trial.

At the outset, I keep in mind a number of fundamental principles that operate to favour pre-trial release: • Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause: Canadian Charter of Rights, s. 11 (

d) and (e); • Pre-trial detention is a severe deprivation of a person’s liberty, which once lost can never be regained and that is why our justice system favours release over detention: The Queen v. Whyte , 2014 ONCA 268 , at para. 28 and 29 . The Primary Ground: [ 56 ] Detention on this ground may be warranted if it is necessary to ensure his attendance in court and, in particular, for his trial in Campbell River. [ 57 ] He has two convictions for failing to appear in court - December 11, 2015 and March 11, 2016.

He has a record for disobeying probation orders as well as resisting or obstructing a peace officer. [ 58 ] Turning to the current allegations and charges, Mr. Nadeau immediately fled when the taxi was blocked by police. In spite of being ordered to stop and surrender he continued to run.

[ 59 ] At the time of these events, Mr. Nadeau lived with his parents in Surrey, B.C. [ 60 ] His trial will take place in Campbell River, B.C. He does not have any ties to this community and is facing serious charges. His plan of release involves having him return to his parents’ home where he was living at the time of these events. He has indicated that he would be able to deposit $20,000 for bail as did his co-accused. His parents are unable to act as sureties. [ 61 ] I do not have any confidence that Mr. Nadeau would co-operate by attending court when required to do so.

I base this on his record but, in particular, the fact that he is alleged to have attempted to leave Campbell River in a taxi and then fled from the police on foot in spite of being ordered to stop. [ 62 ] I am of the view that if released, there would be a substantial likelihood that Mr. Nadeau would not appear at his trial in Campbell River. [ 63 ] Accordingly, I find that he should be detained on the primary ground. [ 64 ] I have also considered whether Mr. Nadeau’s detention is justified under the secondary and tertiary grounds.

The Secondary Ground: [ 65 ] The test for the secondary ground has been considered in a number of cases: • Just cause for denial of bail can only occur in narrow circumstances and only when necessary to promote the proper functioning of the bail system. Bail is denied only for those who pose a “substantial likelihood” of committing an offence or interfering with the administration of justice, and only where this “substantial likelihood” endangers “the protection or safety of the public”.

Moreover, detention is justified only when it is “necessary” for public safety, not where merely convenient or advantageous: R. v. Morales [1993] 3 S.C.R. 711 , para.37 - 39. • The bail system does not function properly if people commit crimes while on bail. A primary objective of the criminal justice system is to stop criminal behaviour.

Therefore, release on bail must be on condition that the accused person will not engage in criminal activity pending trial. … if there is a substantial possibility that the accused will engage in criminal activity pending trial, it furthers the objectives of the bail system to deny bail: Morales (supra), para. 41. • Bail should not be denied if that risk of criminal activity can be ameliorated by the imposition of conditions (reporting, curfews, house arrest, sureties or cash bail, etc.): R. v. Abdel-Rahman , 2010 BCSC 189 , para. 23 . [ 66 ] Under this ground, I must assess the risk that, if released, Mr.

Nadeau will re-offend and endanger the community, notwithstanding that he may be placed under strict conditions by the Court. That requires that I assess whether there are conditions, and ones that he will obey, that will reduce that risk to an acceptable level. [ 67 ] Of concern to me is that fact that Mr. Nadeau was on probation at the time of these alleged offences.

He also has three prior convictions for breaching probation orders and two convictions for resisting or obstructing a peace officer in the course of duty. [ 68 ] When the police stopped the taxi in which he was a passenger, he attempted to flee the scene and refused to stop although ordered to do so by the police. Police had to chase and forcefully arrest him. This is in contrast to his co-accused Mr. Vagh who stopped immediately and surrendered. [ 69 ] Furthermore, Mr. Nadeau broke one of the cell phones he was carrying in what I expect was designed to prevent the police from recovering evidence from it.

When he was arrested he gave a false name and birth date and it was only through fingerprinting data that the police in Campbell River were able to identify him. [ 70 ] Also relevant to my analysis is the risk that his release would endanger the safety or protection of the public. Crown referred me to the most recent report of the Chief Coroner summarizing all unintentional illicit drug overdose deaths in British Columbia between January 1, 2017 to March 31, 2017. In March, 2017 alone, there were 120 suspected drug overdose deaths, an increase of 51.9% over the same period in 2016.

The Chief Coroner also reports that: Illicit fentanyl-detected deaths appear to account for the increase in illicit drug overdose deaths since 2012 as the number of illicit drug overdose deaths excluding fentanyl-detected has remained relatively stable since 2011. [ 71 ] The report also states: A review of completed cases from 2015 and 2016 indicates that the top four detected drugs relevant to illicit drug overdose deaths were cocaine, fentanyl, heroin and methamphetamine/amphetamine.

Drugs tested by Health Canada indicate that fentanyl and its analogues are being detected in samples of cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine. [ 72 ] These are the same drugs that were found in Mr. Vagh’s backpack. [ 73 ] The number of illicit drug overdose deaths in North Vancouver Island for the entire year in 2016 was 25, compared to 8 deaths over the entire year in 2015. For the first three months of 2017 alone, there were 9 such deaths in this region.

One does not need to be a mathematician to realize that the increase in illicit drug overdose deaths is dramatically on the rise in North Vancouver Island. [ 74 ] A chart provided by the Chief Coroner in his report shows that North Vancouver Island is in the category involving the top two highest rates of death in the province. [ 75 ] It is clear that the distribution and sale of drugs, particularly heroin, cocaine, fentanyl and methamphetamine, coupled with the substantial risk or even likelihood that fentanyl will be found those drugs, is a threat to the safety and protection of the public.

[ 76 ] I have considered Mr. Nadeau’s prior record and the fact he was on probation at the time of these events. It is noteworthy that at the time of these events, he was living with his mother and father. His father is an older retired gentleman and his mother is very ill and undergoing chemotherapy. I do not have any confidence that they would be able to monitor or supervise Mr. Nadeau or that by residing with his parents he would abide by curfew or house arrest conditions. [ 77 ] Mr.

Nadeau also provided two letters that suggest he could find full time employment and could also be accepted into Capilano University for their two year business program. I do not find these letters to be compelling evidence of his intentions or circumstances. I find that both are vague, one is undated and unsigned and not even on letterhead. Neither letter has an address or phone number of the organization providing the information. [ 78 ] Furthermore, at the time of the charges, Mr. Nadeau was under a condition of probation to seek employment and/or attend school at the direction of his probation officer.

These letters do not provide me with any comfort in my assessment of his application for release. [ 79 ] Mr. Nadeau was convicted of trafficking drugs in April, 2015. That conviction and sentence seems not to have deterred him from committing further offences, although I recognize that none of those subsequent offences specifically relate to drug trafficking. [ 80 ] I have considered all the circumstances, including the fact that he was subject to two probation orders at the time of these charges and that Mr. Nadeau fled when an attempt was made to arrest him.

I find that if released, there is a substantial likelihood Mr. Nadeau would commit further criminal offences and that if he re-offends in the community, he is a threat to the safety and protection of the community and that extends to law enforcement officers. I am not satisfied that there are conditions I could impose that would ameliorate that risk. [ 81 ] I detain Mr. Nadeau on the secondary ground. The Tertiary Ground: [ 82 ] Pre-trial detention may be justified in order to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice. [ 83 ] In R. v. St.

Cloud (supra) the Supreme Court of Canada has explained the basis on which a court should approach an assessment under this ground. [ 84 ] Section 515 (10) (

c) refers to four circumstances that must be considered - the strength of the prosecution’s case, the gravity of the offence, the overall circumstances of the offence and the possibility of a lengthy term of imprisonment. The court must consider each circumstance as well as their combined effect and balance these along with any other relevant circumstances to decide whether detention is justified on the basis that it is necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice. [ 85 ] Who is this “public”?

We as judges must take care to ensure that decisions to detain individuals are based on reason, not anger or emotion or public outcry. The court must therefore approach the determination from the perspective of a member of the public who is reasonable and well-informed. It is someone who, while not a legal expert, understands and accepts the most fundamental values of our criminal law including the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty. [ 86 ] I will begin my analysis first by reviewing the four circumstances set out in s. 515 (10) (

c) of the Code . The Apparent Strength of the Prosecution’s Case: [ 87 ] I have already dealt with this earlier in my decision and I do not intend to repeat it here. I find that the Crown’s case has some strength although I recognize there are triable issues which I have taken into account in my decision. The Gravity of the Offence: [ 88 ] Assessing the gravity of an offence under this ground is based on the maximum sentence, and minimum sentence if any, provided for in the Criminal Code : St.

Cloud (supra), para. 60. [ 89 ] Possession for the purpose in trafficking carries a maximum sentence of life in prison. [ 90 ] I accept that this is a serious offence and that is reflected by Parliament’s decision to make drug trafficking potentially punishable by the most severe punishment - life imprisonment. Circumstances Surrounding the Commission of the Offence: [ 91 ] An assessment of the circumstances of the offence includes a variety of factors including the degree of violence, level of participation by the accused and whether weapons were used.

Aggravating or mitigating factors that would be considered at a sentencing hearing can also be taken into account: St. Cloud , (supra) para 61. [ 92 ] There is a triable issue about whether or not Mr. Nadeau was a passenger in the Charger that struck a police officer in the course of fleeing from the scene. However, the driver of that vehicle, Mr. Vagh, was the same individual who was accompanied by Mr. Nadeau as they left the Birch Street complex where the Charger was parked. [ 93 ] Mr. Nadeau was observed getting into the taxi with Mr. Vagh.

The taxi driver had been told to drive the men to Nanaimo. [ 94 ] They certainly appeared to know one another. [ 95 ] No weapons were found or used during the arrest.

[ 96 ] There are a number of aggravating factors including that Mr. Nadeau attempted to evade arrest by fleeing on foot and he broke a cell phone in his possession apparently in an attempt to prevent police from obtaining evidence. He also gave a false name and date of birth when arrested. [ 97 ] As this is an assessment at a bail hearing, it is difficult to assess Mr. Nadeau’s degree of involvement in the trafficking aspect of the offence. However, it appears that the operation was organized and lucrative. The cash found in Mr. Vagh’s backpack was bundled with drug sales ledgers for each bundle.

A specific bundle of money appeared to refer to Campbell River specifically. There was a significant quantity of cash, some $47,000, found along with a significant quantity of drugs. [ 98 ] Lastly, the drugs found in Mr. Vagh’s pack were positive for the presence of Fentanyl. Given what is now known of the high risk of death posed to those who use drugs containing Fenantyl, this is an aggravating factor.

Fact That the Accused Is Liable for a Potentially Lengthy Term of Imprisonment: [ 99 ] This is assessed subjectively on a case-by-case basis including all the circumstances of the case as well as the usual principles for determining a sentence for the specific offender: St. Cloud (supra) at para. 65. [ 100 ] Crown counsel submits that Mr. Nadeau could be facing a sentence in the range of four years. Counsel referred to the recent decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in R. v.

Smith , 2017 BCCA 112 established that the range of custody for a first time offender selling Fentanyl at the street level would be eighteen months to thirty six months and possibly beyond if that individual was higher up in the drug organization. [ 101 ] I find that, if convicted, Mr. Nadeau could be facing a potentially lengthy term of imprisonment. Other Circumstances or Considerations: [ 102 ] Finally, I must also consider any other circumstances relevant to the determination of whether detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice. I am keenly aware of the fact that Mr.

Nadeau’s trial is not taking place until December, 2017 - some seven months from now. This has caused me significant unease given that detention is usually the exception.

Conclusion as to the Tertiary Ground: [ 103 ] It is the perspective of the public that ultimately guides and informs my analysis when considering the tertiary ground. [ 104 ] This is a balancing exercise involving the presumption of innocence and the right to be granted reasonable bail on the one hand and the safety and protection of the public and the maintenance of public confidence in the administration of justice on the other. [ 105 ] I have reached a decision that the continued detention of Mr. Nadeau is necessary to maintain public confidence.

I find that a reasonable and well-informed member of the public would have grave concerns about Mr. Nadeau’s release in all the circumstances, including his prior record. His release plan would have him going back to live in the same setting he was in at the time of these offences. The charges involve trafficking in hard drugs, some of which were laced with Fentanyl.

The proliferation of these drugs in the community and especially the fact that people are dying, not just in B.C. but in the community of Campbell River as a result of Fentanyl and drug overdoses is of serious concern to the public. [ 106 ] As was so well said by Judge Sutherland who was faced with a similar application: Preserving public safety by invoking measures intended to prevent and reduce the prospect of potentially lethal drugs ... in the community must be a consideration in measuring the public confidence in the administration of justice. [ 107 ] I adopt those remarks.

Conclusion: [ 108 ] After much consideration of all the circumstances and the principles that I am required to follow; and recognizing that detention is an exceptional measure, I have nonetheless concluded that Mr. Nadeau should be detained on all grounds. BY THE COURT ___________________________ The Honourable Judge Flewelling