Sentencing in the context of addiction

The decision in R. v. Myrskog, 2010 ONCJ 258 deals with sentencing for a motor vehicle offence in the context of an ongoing drug addiction. Oddly, the case seems to be one of first instance, and the Court, after careful review, concludes that an on-going addiction is a mitigating factor. Part of the decision follows:

I am also considering, sir, your cross-addiction and I have decided after considering a number of authorities that your cross-addiction is a mitigating consideration under the circumstances.
Generally, the criminal courts have drawn a bright line between individuals who traffic drugs because of their own personal greed versus those who traffic drugs primarily for the purpose of securing enough funds to satisfy their addictions. This distinction has translated into different sentencing in a number of high court decisions in the Criminal Code context, see: the Queen v. Stephenson (1957), 117 C.C.C. 292 of the British Columbia Court of Appeal; and the Queen v. Lebovitch reflex, (1979), 48 C.C.C. (2d) 539, Quebec Court of Appeal, and the Queen v. Marcello (1973), 11 C.C.C. (2d) 302, Ontario Court of Appeal, among others. These cases reflect the sentencing principles contained in sections 718, 718.1 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code for criminal matters.

I refer to these decisions and the principles in the Criminal Code because the potential damage to society from drug dealing is by far more grave than the danger to society from Driving While Under Suspension, even for a repeat offender with a bad driving record. The need for deterrence and denunciation must be balanced with the need to account for any aggravating or mitigating circumstances which relate to the offence or to the offender.

After considering the submissions made today, I find that the defendant before the Court must be sanctioned and agree that a custodial sentence is the appropriate punishment for the sixth conviction for the same offence, particularly for someone with such a serious driving record.
Further, I find your cross-addiction, sir, is a mitigating factor in sentencing and one that must be addressed. I accept your counsel’s submissions that these offences took place during the height of your cross-addiction issues when you were having family issues.