Possession of a Schedule I or II substance for the purpose of trafficking, Possession of a weapon contrary to a prohibition order
R. v. Kazakoff
- Below the Crown's ask
- On release at the time
Sentence and the Crown's position
What the law allows
Peter Paul Kazakoff was convicted after trial of three counts of possession of fentanyl, carfentanil and methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, found in his motel unit in Grand Forks in March 2021, and of possessing ammunition while prohibited. The Crown sought six years, consecutive to an 18-month sentence imposed in another matter; the defence sought two years less a day plus three years' probation, served concurrently. Justice Kirchner imposed five years, consecutive to the earlier sentence, finding that a combined term of seven and a half years would be out of proportion to his culpability given the totality principle and his difficult upbringing.
In the judge's words
1[76] For those reasons and, again, having regard to the mitigating factors I have discussed, in my view, a term of incarceration of seven-and-a-half years in totality for the two sets of offences is out of proportion to Mr. Kazakoff's overall culpability. I would, therefore, find a total sentence for the present offences to be five years served consecutively to the sentence imposed by Justice Edelmann. In my view, that is appropriate having regard to the moral blameworthiness and the mitigating factors.
The record
- Convicted of
- Possession of a Schedule I or II substance for the purpose of trafficking (CDSA 5(2), 3 counts)
- Possession of a weapon contrary to a prohibition order (CC 117.01(1))
- Prior convictions
- 14 prior convictions1
- At the time of the offence
- On bail1
- Defence asked for
- 2 years less a day in custody1
- Appeal
- Not yet checked
- Counsel
- Crown: I. Ferbey
Defence: B.F. Suffredine, K.C.
Sources
- R. v. Kazakoff, 2022 BCSC 2151 Court decision, CanLII, November 7, 2022
[38] … The Crown argues for a global sentence of six years and says that this should be served consecutively to an 18-month sentence imposed recently by Justice Edelmann in another matter.
[39] Mr. Kazakoof argues for a sentence of two years less a day plus three years' probation to be served concurrently to the sentence imposed by Justice Edelmann.
[1] THE COURT: On June 24, 2022, I found the accused, Peter Paul Kazakoff, guilty on three counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking of controlled substances contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19.
[46] … However, I do consider it to be an aggravating factor that these offences were committed while Mr. Kazakoff was on bail awaiting trial on the charges before Edelmann J.
[45] … He has 14 previous convictions, one in 2000 for sexual interference. He has five convictions for possession including one, as I have just noted, for the purposes of trafficking. He has a conviction for obstructing a peace officer, assault of a public officer while threatening to use a weapon, among other offences.
[76] For those reasons and, again, having regard to the mitigating factors I have discussed, in my view, a term of incarceration of seven-and-a-half years in totality for the two sets of offences is out of proportion to Mr. Kazakoff's overall culpability. I would, therefore, find a total sentence for the present offences to be five years served consecutively to the sentence imposed by Justice Edelmann. In my view, that is appropriate having regard to the moral blameworthiness and the mitigating factors.
[76] For those reasons and, again, having regard to the mitigating factors I have discussed, in my view, a term of incarceration of seven-and-a-half years in totality for the two sets of offences is out of proportion to Mr. Kazakoff's overall culpability. I would, therefore, find a total sentence for the present offences to be five years served consecutively to the sentence imposed by Justice Edelmann. … [80] All of that is to be served consecutively to the sentence imposed by Justice Edelmann.
- R. v. Kazakoff, 2022 BCSC 2151 Court decision, Courts of British Columbia