DNA orders should generally be made for secondary designated offences

R. v. Erez, 2010 ONCA 776 is a useful source for the principle that DNA orders should generally be made for secondary designated offences. The Court holds:

[31] In our view, violence is not a necessary pre-condition for making a DNA order. Possession for the purpose of trafficking is a secondary designated offence under s. 487.04 of the Code and accordingly it was open to the trial judge to impose a DNA order and she ought to have done so. As Rosenberg J.A. of this court noted in R. v. Hendy "in the vast majority of cases" it would be in the best interests of the administration of justice to make the order. This was a serious offence and not the appellant's first conviction for trafficking in drugs.