This website uses cookies to various ends, as detailed in our Privacy Policy. You may accept all these cookies or choose only those categories of cookies that are acceptable to you.

Loading paragraph markers

R. v. Kalkat, 2019 BCPC 190 (CanLII)

Date:
2019-08-13
File number:
233640-1-T
Citation:
R. v. Kalkat, 2019 BCPC 190 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/j22qv>, retrieved on 2024-03-28

Citation:

R. v. Kalkat

 

2019 BCPC 190

Date:

20190813

File No:

233640-1-T

Registry:

Surrey

 

 

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Criminal Court

 

 

 

 

 

REGINA

 

 

v.

 

 

GURKEERT KALKAT

 

 

 

 

 

 

ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE

OF THE

HONOURABLE JUDGE D. GAFFAR

 

 

 

 

Counsel for the Crown:

G. Kipp

Counsel for the Defendant:

J.R. Ray, Q.C.

Place of Hearing:

Surrey, B.C.

Date of Hearing:

August 13, 2019

Date of Sentence:

August 13, 2019


[1]           Mr. Kalkat has been charged and has pled guilty to Count 1 on Surrey Information 233640-1-T. This is a matter that was waived from Calgary Alberta. He has pled guilty to having trafficked a controlled substance on the 25th day of April 2018 and the 3rd day of May 2018, the substance of which has been analyzed as fentanyl or fentanyl analogue, contrary to s. 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. I note that the Information was amended at the commencement of this proceeding to combine the two dates into Count 1.

[2]           Mr. Kalkat was involved in an undercover police operation. The police contacted what is called a "dial‑a‑dope" drug line to make arrangements for a purchase of drugs.

[3]           On the 25th of April 2018 and on the 3rd of May 2018, Mr. Kalkat met with the undercover police officer at two separate locations in Calgary. The undercover operator purchased $100 worth of what he believed to be heroin but what was later analyzed as fentanyl in the amount of 0.4 grams on the 25th of April and, for $200, what the officer believed to be heroin, but which was analyzed as fentanyl and a fentanyl analogue product in the amount of 1.1 grams on the 3rd of May 2018.

[4]           Counsel have proposed a joint submission. The joint submission is for a federal sentence of three years, given the nature of the offence. This is a joint submission that has been arrived at through negotiations with the Crown and the defence in Alberta, as well as with the consideration of the defence and the Crown in British Columbia. I will say at the outset that I find that the joint submission is not contrary to the public interest and it does not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

[5]           The joint submission was arrived at by counsel surrendering certain advantages and acknowledging certain disadvantages in their cases. The joint submission was arrived at considering the sentencing cases in Alberta for this type of offence, as well as the cases in British Columbia. I find that the sentence falls within the range of the cases in British Columbia for fentanyl drug trafficking for a first-time offender. I also find that it is within the range of the sentences in Alberta as provided and referred to by Ms. Kipp for the Crown.

[6]           The aggravating circumstances in this particular sentencing are as follows.

[7]           This is what is called a "dial‑a‑dope" operation or context. It is an aggravating feature because it is a more sophisticated drug delivery system that has, as its objective, the more expedited distribution of drugs to a wider population of drug users. As a result, the cases are quite clear that the primary sentencing principle in this case is denunciation and deterrence, i.e. to demonstrate the community's condemnation of Mr. Kalkat's conduct, as well as to impose a sentence that serves to deter him and others from similar conduct.

[8]           The substance in this particular case is fentanyl. This is a highly lethal substance that has caused innumerable deaths and mayhem in British Columbia, as well as across Canada.

[9]           The mitigating circumstances include, first of all, the guilty plea by Mr. Kalkat. It is a demonstration of his acceptance of responsibility. It also has saved the court resources in Alberta and, to some extent, in British Columbia.

[10]        The next mitigating circumstance is that he is a first offender and a youthful offender. Our Court of Appeal has emphasized that, for youthful offenders, rehabilitation can still be an important sentencing principle. Mr. Kalkat does not have a criminal record.

[11]        Mr. Kalkat has significant support in the community. He also has confirmation of employment upon his release from custody.

[12]        I acknowledge that in British Columbia, for a first-time youthful offender, a sentence of three years might be on the higher end of the range. However, I acknowledge and accept that the three-year range is not unfit, given my comments with regards to the state of the law in Alberta as well as in British Columbia.

[13]        Mr. Kalkat, please stand.

[14]        Mr. Kalkat, I do not think there is much more than I can say that your family and friends have not already said. We stood the matter down from this morning so that you would have an opportunity to bid them farewell for the period of time during which you are incarcerated. I do not think it needs saying that you have disappointed your family and friends. I do not think it needs saying that your activity, whatever the motivation, was selfish and dangerous.

[15]        I hereby sentence you to a federal sentence of three years in custody.

[16]        MR. RAY: Ancillary orders?

[17]        THE COURT: With regards to the firearms prohibition, pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code, I do impose a firearms prohibition on you. It will be that you are not to possess any firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, explosive substance for a period of 10 years.

[18]        I am making an order (under s. 487.051) that a DNA sample be taken from Mr. Kalkat. I am ordering that it be taken by the sheriffs before he is released from the court today to proceed on to the next step of his incarceration. This is a discretionary order. I am making the order because it was more than one occasion on which drugs were trafficked. It was involvement in a slightly more sophisticated type of operation, that being a dial‑a‑dope operation, and because the substance involved was fentanyl.

[19]        MR. RAY: I would ask that the letters be marked as an exhibit and I do that purely from the perspective that they may follow him into the federal system, Your Honour, where they can be reviewed.

[20]        THE COURT: Yes. All right. Then I will ask that these letters that were provided to the court be marked as one package and they will form Exhibit 1 on the sentencing.

EXHIBIT 1: Letters

[21]        MS. KIPP: And Your Honour, there is also the matter of restitution.

[22]        THE COURT: I make an order for restitution in favour of the Calgary police department for the payment of $300.

(REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED)