ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
DATE: 2025 07 21
COURT FILE No.: 23 48119803
Toronto Region
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
Suhail ALSENDI
Before Justice Cidalia C.G. Faria
Heard on January 22, May 27, and July 21, 2025
Reasons for Sentence released on July 21, 2025
Abrahim Ahmed .................................................................................. counsel for the Crown
Sarah Cressatti ................................................ counsel for the accused Suhail ALSENDI
1Suhail Alsendi pled guilty on January 22, 2025, to having trafficked cocaine on October 12, 2023, in Toronto contrary to s.5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. A Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) was ordered, submissions were heard, and the parties requested a second opportunity to make submissions as a result of further developments. I granted the request and heard further submissions.
2These are my reasons for sentence.
I. Facts
3The parties filed an agreed statement of facts.[1] On October 12, 2023, an undercover officer of the Toronto Drug Squad called Suhail Alsendi. During their telephone conversation, Mr. Alsendi agreed to sell the officer a quantity of cocaine for $900.
4The officer met Mr. Alsendi at 1570 Wilson Avenue. Mr. Alsendi got into the officer’s car and sold him 12.87 grams of cocaine for $900. Police arrested Mr. Alsendi after the deal.
5Upon arrest, Mr. Alsendi dropped 6.49 g of cocaine, and 13.5 pills of oxycodone on the front passenger floor mat of the undercover officer’s car. He had a prescription for the oxycodone. The search incident to arrest led to the seizure of bear spray and $380.00 from Mr. Alsendi’s backpack.
6Additional aggravating facts agreed to are:
i. On September 30, 2023, using the same number as that of October 12, a different Toronto Drug Squad undercover officer called Mr. Alsendi who agreed to sell that officer cocaine for $220.00. Mr. Alsendi met that officer at the same Wilson address, got into that officer’s car, and the two drove to 200 Exbury Rd. Mr. Alsendi went into the building and returned shortly after with 3.57 g of cocaine for $220. Mr. Alsendi was not arrested, and the investigation continued.
ii. On October 6, 2023, a different officer called Mr. Alsendi using the same telephone number. Mr. Alsendi agreed to sell that officer a quantity of cocaine for $80. The two met at a Tim Horton’s restaurant on Keele St. Mr. Alsendi got into that officer’s car. The officer was told to drive to 200 Exbury Rd. Mr. Alsendi got out of the car, went into the building and came back to the car. He then sold that officer 1.11g of cocaine for $80.00. Mr. Alsendi was not arrested, and the investigation continued. This officer called Mr. Alsendi on October 12, 2023, as well.
iii. On October 12, 2023, Toronto police executed a search warrant at Mr. Alsendi’s home at #406 – 200 Exbury Rd. Inside Mr. Alsendi’s bedroom, police located empty drug packaging, a replica firearm, and a crossbow.
II. Suhail Alsendi
7Mr. Alsendi is now 33 years old. He was 32 at the time of the offences. He has no criminal record.
8Pursuant to his PSR,[2] Mr. Alsendi grew up in a loving home in Baghdad, Iraq where his father worked, and his mother cared for the children. He completed high school and attended one year of university. He was exposed to the violent conflict that led to the Iraqi War during which his father was injured. He immigrated to Canada as a sponsored refugee with his family. His father is on disability because of injuries sustained during the war. In 2012, Mr. Alsendi became a permanent resident at the age of 21, and never applied for citizenship.
9Mr. Alsendi still lives with both his parents who are in their 60’s, his brother who is a barber, and his sister who works in insurance. His father was recently diagnosed with cancer and needs treatment. Counsel submitted Mr. Alsendi will be his primary care giver during this time. They are a close family and he attends Church with them weekly.
10He has a limited employment history, though he did work as manual labour, in a bakery, in construction, and with a manufacturing company at different times. He has not worked since 2017 when he was injured in a motor vehicle accident and injured again in a motorcycle accident in 2020. He is on social assistance.
11Mr. Alsendi reports he has no addictions but uses marijuana throughout the day to manage his pain and consumes a “couple of shots” of alcohol one or two evenings a week. He is proud he did not misuse his prescribed medication after his two accidents. He reported having “lots of friends” with whom he plays pool and soccer. He goes fishing and he likes to swim.
12Mr. Alsendi reported to the PSR author that he offended because he needed money for personal expenses, pay his bills, in particular, to purchase medication, and “live a life.” He stated he “did not approach people to sell drugs”, people called him. He believes he has limited legal work opportunities.
III. Legal Principles
13The fundamental purpose of sentencing is set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code. The objectives of sentencing, also set out in s. 718, are supportive of that purpose. Proportionality, as the fundamental principle of sentencing, serves to give effect to the purpose and objectives of sentencing. The secondary principles set out in ss. 718.2 assist to giving effect to proportionality.
14Secondary principles include considering aggravating and mitigating factors (s.718.2(a)), parity (s. 718.2(b)), and restraint (s. 718.2(e)).
15The sanction that the court imposes should have one or more of the following objectives:
- to denounce unlawful conduct
- to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences
- to separate offenders from society, where necessary
- to assist in rehabilitating offenders
- to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community
- to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community.
IV. Position of the Parties
16Both parties agree that a custodial disposition is warranted. The dispute is whether it should be served in custody or in the community.
17The Crown submits the range is 6 months to 2 years for this level of drug trafficking and given the nature of the drug, the number of times he trafficked and the lack of insight, Mr. Alsendi’s sentence should be a carceral one.
18The Defence did not dispute the range but submitted that as this is Mr. Alsendi’s first offence, he suffers from a physical disability and will be caring for his father, a conditional sentence meets the principles of sentencing.
19The Crown added that since submissions were made on May 27, 2025, Mr. Alsendi has been charged with serious provincial offences allegedly committed while Mr. Alsendi was on bail for this offence, and he is now in custody. He submits this fact should be considered when determining if a conditional sentence is appropriate.
20The Defence submits that at the time she made the submission that Mr. Alsendi had no outstanding charges and was having no difficulty following his bail conditions, she was correct. However, the situation has changed.
V. Analysis
21It is now noted that Mr. Alsendi has been charged while on bail. However, Mr. Alsendi is presumed innocent of those charges, he is still considered a first-time offender before me, and so the new charges, though noted, are ultimately of little weight.
22The main aggravating factors in this case are:
i. Although Mr. Alsendi pled to trafficking cocaine on October 12, 2023, he also trafficked on 2 other occasions.
ii. Cocaine is a hard drug.
iii. The quantum of cocaine Mr. Alsendi trafficked was not insignificant.
iv. He had a replica handgun in his bedroom and empty drug packaging. This is an item of concern for a drug dealer to possess.
v. Mr. Alsendi was pursuing economic advantage via drug trafficking. He has no addiction according to him, he is housed with his family, and he receives social assistance.
vi. He has no insight as the harm his offending causes the community and vulnerable addicted people. He communicated a sense of entitlement given he feels he has limited employment choices, people come to him to purchase the drugs, and he somehow feels victimized by police.
23The mitigating factors are:
i. Mr. Alsendi has no criminal record which requires consideration as a first-time offender.
ii. He pled guilty which demonstrates accountability.
iii. His guilty plea saves resources in the criminal justice system in this jurisdiction.
iv. His plea obviates police witnesses from having to attend court, and are thus available to continue with their professional duties.
v. His family appears to be pro-social and able to emotionally support him should he choose to rehabilitate himself.
24A conditional sentence is available in this circumstance as trafficking is not an excluded offence per s. 742 of the Criminal Code, there is no minimum sentence, and neither probation nor a penitentiary sentence is warranted. Three of the five criteria are thus met.
25However, I must determine whether the last two criteria are met: first that Mr. Alsendi will not be a danger to the community; and second, whether a conditional sentence would meet the fundamental principles of sentencing in this case.
26Given that Mr. Alsendi has no criminal record, and this offence is not violent, strict terms would likely be able to manage the risk of danger to the community. However, as the Ontario Court of Appeal noted in Walker, a lack of understanding the seriousness of the offence is a concern that weakens the appropriateness of a conditional sentence. Mr. Alsendi has little insight, if any, to the extensive damage drug dealing causes individuals and the community.
27However, it is on the fifth criteria that I find a conditional sentence order is definitively inappropriate in this case.
28I am mindful that a conditional sentence can reflect the principles of denunciation and deterrence as stated in Proulx. However, it would not do so sufficiently in this case. A conditional sentence would not adequately reflect the gravity of the offence and blameworthiness of Mr. Alsendi.
29Although the sentence for Mr. Alsendi as a first offender must be a restrained one, and in keeping with others similarly situated, the primary applicable principles are denunciation and deterrence given the number of times Mr. Alsendi was selling drugs, the quantum, and his lack of insight.
30He wanted to make more money than he received from social assistance so as to live a better life. There are large numbers of people in our community with equally challenging physical ailments without Mr. Alsendi’s education, employment skills, housing, friends, and supportive family who make ends meet without turning to criminality to improve their finances.
31Moreover, not only does Mr. Alsendi claim no substance use issues, but he also confidently asserted he “separates himself from bad influences.” As a result, Mr. Alsendi’s offending was definitive, well-planned, purposive criminality.
32In this circumstance, a conditional sentence is insufficient to reflect the applicable sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence, and Mr. Alsendi’s high blameworthiness.
33Counsel submitted that as a permanent resident, a carceral sanction over 6 months may have serious negative collateral consequences on Mr. Alsendi’s status in Canada.
34That may be accurate. However, collateral immigration consequences cannot so affect a sentence as to distort it and make it disproportionate,[5] which in this case, would be the effect of a conditional sentence.
VI. Sentence
35Mr. Alsendi, you are sentenced to a 12-month jail term, in addition to the pre-sentence custody you have served enhanced by 1.5.[6]
36You will also be on probation with terms to assist you with improving your life skills and encourage you to find employment you can manage.
37Finally, I also make the following ancillary orders:
- A DNA order pursuant to s.487.04(b).
- A Forfeiture order for all the items seized.
- A s.109 weapons prohibition order for 10 years.
Released: July 21, 2025
Signed: Justice Cidalia C.G. Faria
[1] Exhibit 1: Agreed Statement of Facts, January 22, 2025
[2] Exhibit 2: Pre-Sentence Report, Suhail Alsendi, April 11, 2025
[3] R. v. Walker, 2021 ONCA 863 at para. 4.
[4] R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5, 2000 S.C.C. 5 at para. 22.
[5] R. v. Pham, 2013 SCC 15, 2013 S.C.C. 15 at paras. 14-16.
[6] 439 days minus 49 days enhanced to 74 days, for 365 days to serve.