HIS MAJESTY THE KING, - v. –, 2023 NBKB 076

WCR/4/21 IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH OF NEW BRUNSWICK TRIAL DIVISION JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WOODSTOCK Citation: 2023 NBKB 076 Date : 20230501 BETWEEN: HIS MAJESTY THE KING, - AND – CHRISTINA BRADSTREET SENTENCING DECISION Date of Hearing: May 1, 2023 Date of Decision: May 1, 2023 Before: Justice Richard G. Petrie At: Woodstock, New Brunswick

Appearances: Jillian E. Jordan, for the Crown Martine Rousselle, for Christina Bradstreet D E C I S I O N Petrie, J. (Orally) I. Introduction 1 . On March 22, 2023, the Accused, Ms. Christina Bradstreet, pled guilty and was thus convicted of one count of possession of methamphetamine for the purposes of trafficking and one count of possession of cocaine for the purposes of trafficking contrary to section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , S.C. 1996, c. 19 . (“ CDSA ”) 2 . Both methamphetamine and cocaine are substances listed in

Schedule I of the CDSA . Subsection 5(3) (

a) of the CDSA provides that, where the subject matter of the offence is a substance included in

Schedule I, the accused is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a maximum sentence of imprisonment for life. II. Circumstances of the Offence 3 . The underlying facts are not in dispute and indeed both the Crown and Accused are in agreement on the facts and on a proposed sentencing for Ms. Bradstreet. I marked the Agreed Facts as Exhibit S-2. The Agreed Facts are as follows: 1. On November 6, 2020, Christina Bradstreet was a resident at 759 Back Greenfield Road, Summerfield, New Brunswick. 2.

On November 5, 2020, a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) applied for and was granted a warrant to search the residential premises including outbuildings and vehicles located at 759 Back Greenfield Road, Summerfield, New Brunswick. 3. The Search Warrant was executed at Christina Bradstreet’s residence commencing at 10:00 hrs on November 6, 2020. 4. At that time the search was executed, there were four occupants in the residence: Christina Bradstreet, Matthew Hickens, Katlyn Anderson and Cole Smith. 5.

The search of the residence on November 6, 2020, resulted in the seizure of multiple items including the following: 1. 3.79 grams of cocaine 2. 3.09 grams of crystal methamphetamine 3. 29.9 grams of cocaine 4. 19.55 grams of cocaine 5. 14.16 grams of crystal methamphetamine

6. 12.29 grams of crystal methamphetamine 7. Violation ticket for Christina BRADSTREET 8. Small orange baggies 9. $3,769 in assorted Canadian bills 10. 1040 methamphetamine pills 11. 1040 methamphetamine pills 12. 515 methamphetamine pills 13. 970 methamphetamine pills 14. 825 methamphetamine pills 15. 29.49 grams of cocaine 16. 25.93 grams of crystal methamphetamine 17. 2.85 grams of cocaine 18. Assorted plastic baggies 19. 228 grams of crystal methamphetamine 20. Digital scales with white residue 21. 1 gram of crystal methamphetamine 22. "Score sheets" 23. Black Samsung cellular phone 24.

Assortment of rubber elastics 25. "Score sheets" 26. 11.26 grams of crystal methamphetamine 27. Lee-Enfield .303 bolt-action rifle 28. Black Alcatel cellular phone 29. Black Samsung cellular phone 30. Black ZTE cellular phone (being used by BRADSTREET'S child) 6. Items numbered 1 to 9 in paragraph 5 were found in a pink and grey bag (purse) at the foot of the bed in the main bedroom. 7. Items numbered 10 to 21 in paragraph 5 were found in an orange backpack at the foot of the bed in the main bedroom. 8. Items numbered 22 to 30 in paragraph 5 were found in various other locations in the main bedroom. 9.

All of the suspected controlled substances seized by RCMP were sent to Health Canada for analysis. Certificates of Analyst confirmed the controlled substances. Below is a list of the relevant controlled substances including total quantities and their approximate street values:

10. Christina Bradstreet was in possession of all of the items listed in paragraph 5 on November 6, 2020. 11. Christina Bradstreet was in possession for the purpose of trafficking the methamphetamine and cocaine detailed in paragraphs 5 and 9 on November 6, 2020. III. Circumstances of Ms. Bradstreet 4 . The Court has before it a Pre-Sentence Report (“PSR”). I find the PSR to be quite positive of Ms. Bradstreet from the perspective of both her level of cooperation and forthrightfulness during her interview. It is reported that she fully accepts responsibility and is remorseful for her actions. 5 .

I wish to quote from the PSR, at page 4: Christina Lee BRADSTREET reported to the Woodstock Probation office on April 4, 2023, for the purpose of the Pre-Sentence Report. Throughout the interview, Ms. BRADSTREET appeared sincere, polite, and answered all questions posed to her. Christina BRADSTREET acknowledged and accepted responsibility for the matter before the Court. She appeared remorseful and takes responsibility for the present matters. Ms. BRADSTREET indicated she is willing to comply with the disposition of the Court. 6 . Ms.

Bradstreet is a relatively young woman of 34 years of age and the mother of four young children. She reports on her upbringing being primarily with her father after her parents separated. She also spent considerable time with her grandparents. While she did not report experiencing any form of abuse during her childhood, she did witness some domestic violence in her home between her parents. Her father, who she was very close to, did suffer from alcoholism. She moved from the family home to Calgary, Alberta at the age of 18 and for approximately 10 years. 7 . Ms.

Bradstreet has a high school education and worked, on and off, up until 2020. It was in August 2020 that she had a serious car accident which led to the amputation of one of her legs. 8 . Ms. Bradstreet presently has no financial income and is largely supported by her boyfriend, Matthew Hickens. 9 . It is reported that Ms. Bradstreet’s mental and emotional health have been a challenge for her over the last several years due to her own personal hardships and hardships suffered within her family. Her father passed away in February of 2020 due to kidney failure. Her grandfather subsequently died in April 2020.

In 2022 her grandmother passed away. It was also, at that time, when her children were removed from her care by the Minister of Social Development due to child protection concerns, in part, relating to her drug use and charges. In February 2023 Ms. Bradstreet lost her home in a housefire. All of these incidents have understandably had an impact on her mental health as she lost the very supports that she most relied upon within her family. 10 . Ms. Bradstreet reported to first trying marijuana at the age of 14 and cocaine at the age of 15.

She did, by the age of 18, begin to use cocaine 1- 2 times per week, on the weekend. At the age of 28, Ms. Bradstreet first used methamphetamine and, in 2020, she began to smoke crystal meth daily for approximately one year. She reports to now being clean of drugs for over a year and a half. While she did regularly also use alcohol, she indicates that she has been dry for over a year and a half. She has not attended any formal treatment programs. 11 . Ms. Bradstreet has no prior criminal record.

IV. Position of Crown and Defence – Joint Recommendation 12. The parties have made a joint recommendation on sentencing. The parties have asked the Court to impose a 30 monthcustodial sentence on Ms. Bradstreet, along with a number of Ancillary Orders. 13. Both parties submitted helpful pre-hearing briefs in support of the proposed joint sentence and relevant sentencingprovisions and authorities. 14.

In support of the imposition of a penitentiary sentence, the Crown argues, and acknowledged by Counsel for Ms.Bradstreet, that in New Brunswick, courts have long maintained general deterrence and denunciation to be the primary principles whensentencing drug traffickers. [R. v. Cormier, 2018 NBCA 38 (NBCA)] 15. Justice Quigg of the Court of Appeal, in the decision R. v.

Cormier, 2018 NBCA 38 (N.B.C.A.) provides an exhaustive andvery helpful review of principles and precedents in cases involving sentencing offenders for possession for the purpose of trafficking inhard drugs such as cocaine, methamphetamine and hydromorph contin. Cormier was a case of crack cocaine possessed for the purpose oftrafficking. At paragraph 61, Quigg J.A., on behalf of the Court, wrote: As for the objectives sought to be achieved in the present case, it is clear from the jurisprudence that primary consideration must begiven to denunciation and deterrence, both specific and general.

The sentence must be proportional to the seriousness of the offence,which, in this case, is significant because of the nature of one of the illegal substances -- crack cocaine. Without question, a sentence ofincarceration is indicated. 16. In Cormier, the Court of Appeal declined to establish a range of sentence for these types of crimes (paras. 30 and 42).Rather, it set out by way of a

schedule to the judgment, 36 case summaries and sentences from across Canada for crimes of this nature. 17. With respect to the appropriate considerations in sentencing for these types of offences, Quigg, J.A. cites, at paragraph 54,a Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal judgment on the issue, found in R. v. Oakes, (NL CA), [1992] N.J.No. 165 (N.L.C.A.): The gravity of the offence is magnified because, as described above, one of the crimes involved crack cocaine. Its full extent is determined by also considering, to the extent possible, the level of Mr. Cormier's involvement in the drug trade.

This is a fact-based analysis. In R. v. Oakes, (NL CA), [1992] N.J. No. 165 (NL C.A.) (QL), the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal established a list of relevant factors to help identify the level of one's participation in the distribution of drugs. They are as follows: 1. Types of drugs involved; 2. Quantities in question; 3. The degree of sophistication of the enterprise; 4. Potential for profit; 5. Length of time the enterprise existed prior to arrest; and 6. Accused's role or level of involvement in the enterprise.

18. I simply wish to note, in the case of Ms. Bradstreet that the Court has no evidence on factors 3, 5, and 6. As for factors 1,2, and 4, we are dealing with a not insignificant amount of

Schedule I substances, with an agreed street value to be approximately$40,000. 19. As the Crown points out by way of its brief, recently in R. v. Parranto 2021 SCC 46, the Supreme Court issued nationalguidance concerning hard drug use, sale and possession for the purposes of sale. The Court in that case was focused on the “hard drug”,fentanyl. It also offered general guidance on the utility of relying on legal precedents from the past that do not reflect our currentunderstanding of the “human wreckage” across this country wrought by hard drug addiction. 20.

Some of the observations of the Court in Parranto, through the concurring judgment of Justices Moldaver and Côté,capture the current state of affairs in Canada. Although lengthy, the opening to their reasons for judgment and their guidance isimportant. At paras. 87- 92 they wrote, in part: A. The Dangers Posed by Trafficking in Hard Drugs The dangers posed by trafficking in hard drugs, such as heroin and cocaine, have long been recognized in Canada.

Over the past few decades, however, society's awareness of the true gravity of trafficking in such drugs has grown to the point that we are reminded, on a daily basis, of the death, destruction, and havoc it causes in communities across Canada. Trafficking in such substances causes both direct and indirect harms to society. Directly, the distribution and abuse of hard drugs leads to addiction, debilitating adverse health effects, and, all too frequently, death by overdose.

As Lamer J. (as he then was) astutely observed, where addiction and death occur -- as they so often do -- those who oversee the distribution of these drugs are personally "responsible for the gradual but inexorable degeneration of many of their fellow human beings" (R. v. Smith, (SCC), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045, at p. 1053). Trafficking also leads indirectly to a host of other ills, including an increase in all manner of crime, committed by those seeking to finance their addiction, as well as by organized crime syndicates (Pushpanathan v.

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (SCC), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, at paras. 85-87, perCory J., dissenting, but not on this point; R. v. Kang-Brown, 2008 SCC 18, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 456, at para. 184, per Deschamps J.,dissenting, but not on this point). Given that much of this criminal activity is violent, trafficking has come to be understood as an offenceof violence, even beyond the ruinous consequences it has for those who abuse drugs and in the process, destroy themselves and others.

Indeed, as Doherty J.A. has explained,violence is such a predictable consequence of the illicit drug trade that it cannot be dissociated from it: Cocaine sale and use is closely and strongly associated with violent crime. Cocaine importation begets a multiplicity of violent acts. Viewed in isolation from the conduct which

inevitably follows the importation of cocaine, the act itself is not a violent one in the strict sense. It cannot, however, be disassociated from its inevitable consequences. [Emphasis added.] (in original) (R. v. Hamilton (2004), (ON CA), 72 O.R. (3d) 1 (C.A), at para. 104) • • • A further and perhaps even more devastating consequence of the hard drug trade is its impact on families and the intergenerational trauma it causes: Trafficking in drugs, and in particular hard drugs such as cocaine, is a crime whose victims can be found far beyond the individuals who become addicted to the drugs.

Families can be torn apart by either the loss of the individual to the addiction itself or to the violence that all too often accompanies the drug trade... Children suffer immense harm from the effects of addiction in their home, whether this addiction be from pre-natal impact or from physical and/or emotional violence in the homes that they should be safe in. The future of these children and their families is damaged and all of society pays the price. (R. v.

Profeit, 2009 YKTC 39, at paras. 25-26 ) • • • Trafficking in hard drugs is thus a "crime with such grievous consequences that it tears at the very fabric of society" (Pushpanathan, atpara. 79). Significant penitentiary sentences are regularly imposed for individuals who traffic in large quantities of such drugs, which, aswe shall see, are far less deadly than fentanyl (see, e.g., R. v. Bains, 2015 ONCA 677, 127 O.R. (3d) 545 (9 years for possession of onekilogram of heroin for the purpose of trafficking); R. v. Athwal, 2017 ONCA 222 (12 years for conspiracy to possess heroin for the

purpose of trafficking); R. v. Chukwu, 2016 SKCA 6, 472 Sask. R. 241 (10 years for the possession of 0.59 kilograms of heroin for thepurpose of trafficking); R. v. Dritsas, 2015 MBCA 19, 315 Man. R. (2d) 205 (9 years for possession of cocaine for the purposes oftrafficking for a "highlevel cocaine trafficker involved in kilo-level deals" (para. 9)). 21. As stated recently by J. Ferguson in R. v. Mazerolle 2022 NBQB 38 : 72. As said, the conclusions reached in the concurring judgment in Parranto are the sad reality that exists in this community ofMiramichi today.

Never before has such societal disablement and deconstruction been seen or experienced here due to hard drugaddiction. One would wish that the wreckage of the hard drug scourge was otherwise but, sadly, it is not. The common traits andelements of it are as pervasive here as they are across this country. 73. It is my firm belief, having watched the societal landscape change over a lengthy period of time, that methamphetamine poses asserious a risk as cocaine in any form.

Moreover, it is dangerously cheap to buy and that fact alone poses a serious danger to the segmentof the drug addicted or vulnerable public who are without financial means to buy more expensive illicit drugs such as cocaine. Its abilityto takeover an addicted person’s lifestyle and world is indisputable. 22. I agree with the Crown’s comments in its brief, that J. Ferguson’s description of the impacts of hard drug use,methamphetamine in particular in Miramichi, are undoubtably applicable to all communities in New Brunswick. 23.

Both parties cited a number of other authorities in support of a range of sentence for purposes of the joint recommendationincluding: 1. R v. Donovan 2020 NBPC 1 – accused was a 39 year old addict, with no criminal record and was sentenced to two yearsfor trafficking a small quantity of methamphetamine. 2. R v. Byers, 2007 NBQB 224 – accused was the “king pin” of the trafficking operation. Police seized Dilaudid,marijuana and crack cocaine. She pleaded guilty, had prior convictions for drug offences and she was sentenced to three years in prison. 3. R v.

Gilker, 2022 NBKB 247 – accused was sentenced to four years in jail for a number of offences. On the conspiracy to trafficmethamphetamine count, the sentence was three- and one-half years in jail. 4. Aube c. R, 2022 NBCA 65 -The Court of Appeal of New Brunswick rejected the appeal against the conviction on count 5(2) ofthe CDSA. The Appellant was sentenced to 20 months incarceration. 5. R v. Frenette, 2009 NBQB 81 – The accused plead guilty to three counts of trafficking and was sentenced to two years minus 1day incarceration. 6. R v.

Hachey, 2008 NBQB 52 – The accused was found guilty under section 5(2) of the CDSA and sentenced to two years minus 1day incarceration. 7. Dow v. R, 2014 NBCA 15 – The accused was a young man of 25 years old, he had drugs in his possession of an approximatestreet value of $26,000.00, no prior convictions related to drugs and entered a guilty plea. He was sentenced to 3 years incarceration. 24. The Court also identified a decision of Justice Dysart in HMTQ v Terry Albert Allen 2022 NBQB 142, where a sentence of30 months incarceration was imposed on possession for the purpose of trafficking methamphetamine.

It was the accused’s fourthconviction of trafficking in

Schedule I substances.

25. While no two cases are ever the same, my review of these authorities suggests an appropriate range of sentence for drugtrafficking in somewhat similar circumstances, to be from 2-3 years of incarceration. V. Sentencing Principles 26. The purposes and principles of sentencing are set out in

section 718 of the Criminal Code. They include the followingobjectives: the need to denounce unlawful conduct; to deter the offender and others from committing offences; to separate offendersfrom society where necessary; to assist in the rehabilitation of offenders; to promote a sense of responsibility and acknowledgement inoffenders for the harm they have done; and to provide reparations for harm done.

Section 718.1 provides that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibilityof the offender.

Section 718.2 also directs the Court to take into consideration aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to theoffence or the offender. It sets out certain circumstances which shall be deemed to be aggravating. In addition, the

section provides thata sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances. 29. Furthermore, and as it relates to drug offences under the CDSA, section 10(1) of that Act specifies that the fundamentalpurpose of a sentence for this type of offence is to contribute to the respect of the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safesociety, while encouraging rehabilitation, and treatment in appropriate circumstances, of offenders and acknowledging the harm done tovictims and to the community. VI. Joint Recommendation 30.

In the case before me, there is a joint recommendation on sentence. A joint recommendation, while never binding on aCourt, carries a lot of weight. As I appreciate the law on this, a joint recommendation should be followed unless it is unreasonable andwould bring the administration of justice into disrepute (see R. v. Steeves, 2010 NBCA 57). 31. The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, makes it even more clear that the threshold fordisregarding a joint recommendation is a very high one. 32.

As Justice Moldaver of the Court comments in Anthony-Cook at paragraphs 32-34: 32 Under the public interest test, a trial judge should not depart from a joint submission on sentence unless the proposed sentencewould bring the administration of justice into disrepute or is otherwise contrary to the public interest. But, what does this thresholdmean? Two decisions from the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal are helpful in this regard. 33 In Druken, 2006 NLCA 67 , [2006] N.J.

No. 326, at para. 29, the court held that a joint submission will bring theadministration of justice into disrepute or be contrary to the public interest if, despite the public interest considerations that supportimposing it, it is so "markedly out of line with the expectations of reasonable persons aware of the circumstances of the case that theywould view it as a break down in the proper functioning of the criminal justice system". And, as stated by the same court in R. v.

B.O.2,2010 NLCA 19, at para. 56 , when assessing a joint submission, trial judges should "avoid rendering a decision that causes aninformed and reasonable public to lose confidence in the institution of the courts". 34 In my view, these powerful statements capture the essence of the public interest test developed by the Martin Committee. Theyemphasize that a joint submission should not be rejected lightly, a conclusion with which I agree.

Rejection denotes a submission sounhinged from the circumstances of the offence and the offender that its acceptance would lead reasonable and informed persons, awareof all the relevant circumstances, including the importance of promoting certainty in resolution discussions, to believe that the properfunctioning of the justice system had broken down. This is an undeniably high threshold - and for good reason, [...]. 33. The Supreme Court of Canada also emphasized that joint recommendations are both a proper and necessary part of theadministration of criminal justice in Canada.

VII. Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances 34 . As per

section 718.2, I find the following aggravating and mitigating circumstances to be most relevant to Ms. Bradstreet’s circumstances. Aggravating 35 . Drug trafficking of a

Schedule I drug, such as cocaine and methamphetamine, is a very serious crime with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The amount of

Schedule I drugs seized was not insignificant. Mitigating 36 . Ms. Bradstreet is relatively young and a mother of four young children. Ms. Bradstreet has no prior criminal record. 37 . Ms. Bradstreet has pled guilty to both charges. She has shown remorse, regret, and responsibility for her actions. Ms. Bradstreet also maintains she has stopped using drugs. VIII. Sentencing 38 .

In light of the applicable legal principles governing joint recommendations along with consideration of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances in combination with the range of sentences for relatively similar type crimes as supported by the various authorities provided, I am satisfied that the joint recommendation meets the applicable standard to be accepted by this Court. It is a sufficiently significant period of incarceration so as to denounce unlawful conduct and the significant harm done to victims and the community from such hard drugs. 39 .

The joint recommendation is not unreasonable in the circumstances and does not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, nor is it contrary to the public’s interest. IX. Imposition of Sentence 40 . Ms. Bradstreet, we arrive at the point of my decision to impose sentence. Would you please stand: 41 . Christina Bradstreet

A) With respect to Count 1, of possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , you will serve a term of imprisonment of 30 months.

B) With respect to Count 2, of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , you will serve a term of imprisonment of 30 months.

C) The two sentences will run concurrently. To be clear, Ms. Bradstreet is sentenced to a total of 30 months incarceration. Ancillary Orders

42 . There will be an order of forfeiture pursuant to

section 16 of the CDSA of all the items seized under the authority of the search warrant from Ms. Bradstreet’s residence on or about the 6 th day of November 2020. 43 . Ms. Bradstreet, you will be subject to a mandatory firearms prohibition for 10 years as per section 109(2) of the Criminal Code . 44 . A sample of your DNA will be provided to the DNA databank pursuant to the provisions of

section 487.051 of the Criminal Code . 45 . Given your current financial circumstances and the fact you will be receiving a not insignificant period of incarceration, I decline to impose a Victim Fine Surcharge as I believe it would amount to undue hardship in the circumstances. 46 . Ms. Bradstreet, you will now be taken into custody by the sheriffs.