I won't cite the actual case, but this is an actual case that has occurred. You have between dates.... November 15, 2005, is the magic number, because on that day it was proclaimed that for sentences beyond that date there should be a mandatory minimum for distribution. If you have an occurrence where you have someone who was distributing between those dates, a crown prosecutor would be open to amend the charge, to make it such that it is going to only take into account the pre-November 15, 2005, events, to accomplish what the Crown is also of the opinion is the best objective in terms of sentencing: that the rehabilitation of this person is best achieved in the community.
Again, that flexibility is now being exercised by the Crown. Had there not been mandatory minimums, we could be in a situation where the judge could make that call and, if appropriate, then the jail sentence be opposed.