ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
Oshawa 25-28100291
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
JAYDAN LAM
Before Justice Joseph Hanna
Heard October 7, 2025
Reasons for Judgment released December 1, 2025
R. Egberts…………………………………………………………….counsel for the Crown
D. Reeve……..………………………………………………………………..for the accused
HANNA J.:
Introduction
1Mr. Lam was found guilty after trial of the following offences:
possession of firearm knowing its possession is unauthorized, contrary to s. 92(1) of the Criminal Code;
unauthorized possession of a firearm in a motor vehicle, contrary to s. 94(1) of the Criminal Code;
possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code;
possession of a prohibited device, contrary to s. 92(2) of the Criminal Code;
possessing a firearm knowing its serial number has been defaced, contrary to s. 108(1)(b) of the Criminal Code;
possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act;
possession of p-fluorofentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act; and
possession of a mixture of fentanyl and p-fluorofentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
2The sole issue at Mr. Lam’s trial was whether the evidence discovered in the vehicle he was driving was admissible. For reasons previously given, I concluded that the police breached Mr. Lam’s rights under sections 10(a) and 10(b) of the Charter but admitted the evidence under section 24(2). As a result, Mr. Lam was convicted on all charges.
3The Crown seeks a total sentence of seven years imprisonment. The Crown also requests a DNA order, and a s. 109 weapons prohibition.
4The defence submits that the appropriate disposition is a conditional sentence of two years less one day followed by three years probation. The defence does not oppose the ancillary orders sought by the Crown.
The Facts Relating to the Offences
5Mr. Lam was stopped by police while driving alone on Highway 401 in Bowmanville. During the stop, officers discovered and seized the following items in his possession:
26.7 grams of fentanyl
55.3 grams of p-fluorofentanyl
167.5 grams of cocaine
$585 in cash
a cutting agent (caffeine)
a loaded, prohibited firearm that was defaced and equipped with a selector switch.
6The expert report filed on consent estimates that the total value of the seized cocaine ranged from $13,360 to $19,440 if sold by the gram, and from $6,840 to $10,260 if sold by the ounce. The report further indicates that the combined value of the fentanyl and p-fluorofentanyl was between $16,400 and $32,800.
The Circumstances of the Offender
7I have considered the pre-sentence report, numerous letters of support, and counsel’s submissions. Mr. Lam also submitted and read a personal letter to the Court.
8Mr. Lam was 20 years old at the time of the offences. He is of mixed heritage. His father was born in Trinidad and is of Chinese and Portuguese descent. His mother was born in Canada and is of Trinidadian heritage.
9Mr. Lam grew up in Ajax, and in 2022 his family moved into a four-bedroom home in Oshawa.
10He graduated from high school in 2021. In grade 10, he was assaulted at school, an incident he experienced as traumatic. The assault left him with a scar and reportedly left him with significant trust issues. He also reported being bullied during his time in school. He advised the pre-sentence report author that his teachers recognized his intelligence and encouraged him.
11Mr. Lam told the pre-sentence report author that he felt excluded at school because of race. He also described experiencing stigma in the community, including being followed in stores. He also claimed to have had negative interactions with male police officers, which he described as “terrible,” though he did not elaborate.
12Mr. Lam’s family operates a landscaping business. His relationship with his mother has always been positive, while his relationship with his father was strained during his upbringing. Mr. Lam’s father was often busy with work, and Mr. Lam mainly viewed him as a disciplinarian. Their relationship has improved significantly over the past year. In his letter, Mr. Lam’s father acknowledged his parental shortcomings. He also described having recently bonded with his son and emphasized Mr. Lam’s contributions to the family business.
13With respect to employment, Mr. Lam has worked in the family business and briefly at a warehouse and flea market. His stated goal is to continue working with his father.
14Mr. Lam has been in a relationship since 2023 with Azareel Recile. She describes him as loving, respectful, and caring. In her letter, she mentioned his commitment to counselling and the family business and credits him with supporting her own spiritual journey.
15Mr. Lam reported to the PSR author that many of his former schoolmates, including former friends, are now incarcerated. He currently lives with one close friend and has reconnected with his faith and church community.
16The letters of support submitted describe Mr. Lam’s rehabilitative efforts while on bail, including substance abuse counselling, psychotherapy, and his active involvement in the family business. They portray him as having matured, expressed genuine remorse, and demonstrated a strong work ethic, compassion, and respect for others. They also highlight his spiritual growth since his arrest and his longstanding involvement in his church community.
17When speaking with the PSR author, Mr. Lam did not report any issues with alcohol. He indicated that he previously used marijuana regularly, which caused paranoia, but said he has since stopped.
18Since July 2025, Mr. Lam has been enrolled in the Youth Substance Awareness Program. His counsellor describes him as engaged, respectful, and understanding of accountability.
19Between June 2023 and August 2025, Mr. Lam completed 30 psychotherapy sessions. According to his therapist, he has been consistently engaged in treatment and has demonstrated progress and accountability. The therapy focused on addressing personal risk factors and promoting behavioural responsibility. It included Dialectical Behaviour Therapy (DBT), which emphasizes developing skills in emotional regulation, distress tolerance, interpersonal effectiveness, and mindfulness.
20Mr. Lam explained to the PSR author that he possessed a firearm out of fear, claiming that he had previously been stabbed and shot at. He provided few details regarding these events and indicated he never sought medical attention. He also indicated that “carrying the firearm gave him a false sense of security amid associations with individuals involved in criminal activity.”
21Mr. Lam’s mother indicated to the PSR author that she worried about her son’s safety, but only knew what he had told her. She understood that he had been jumped at the Oshawa mall before. Mr. Lam’s father stated, “I worried about his personal safety because of the decisions he would make and the type of people he was around.” Ms. Recile stated: “Of course when he was meeting the addicts, some people kill for it. But he was never around that stuff. It was the people he was meeting to traffic the drugs.”
22The PSR author notes that Mr. Lam associates his involvement in drug trafficking with a desire to feel valued and needed.
23Mr. Lam denied gang affiliation, and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
24As part of his allocution, Mr. Lam read a letter he had written to the court. In it, he expressed genuine remorse and accepted full responsibility for his actions. He acknowledged the disappointment his conduct caused to his loved ones and the community. Mr. Lam outlined the steps he has taken to improve himself while on bail and expressed gratitude to those who provided letters of support. He affirmed his commitment to living a pro-social life, including pursuing further education and contributing positively to his family’s business.
General Principles
25The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to maintain a just, peaceful, and safe society, as set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code. The fundamental principle is proportionality, which requires consideration of both the gravity of the offences and the offender’s degree of responsibility: s. 718.1. In determining an appropriate sentence, I must weigh the mitigating and aggravating factors: s. 718.2(a). I am also required to blend and prioritize the objectives listed in s. 718(a)–(f), while applying the principles of parity, restraint, and totality: s. 718.2(b)–(e).
The Mitigating Factors and Collateral Circumstances
26The following mitigating factors are present in this case:
i. Mr. Lam is youthful. He was only 20 at the time he committed these offences.
ii. He has no criminal record.
iii. He has taken meaningful and positive steps towards his rehabilitation, including participating in drug counselling, spiritual counselling, and psychotherapy.
iv. He demonstrated an ability to be a productive worker and possesses positive employment goals.
v. He has repeatedly expressed remorse for his conduct to his loved ones, his counsellors, and to the court during his allocution.
vi. He has strong support in the community, including from his family, members of his church, and his girlfriend.
vii. He ran a very focused trial, which is deserving of some credit given the need to preserve court resources: R. v. Cunsolo, 2012 ONSC 114 at para 52; R. v. Ngo, 2023 ONSC 282, at para. 28.
viii. I accept that Mr. Lam’s experience with anti-Black racism is connected in some way to his offences: R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680. His family’s economic situation became more difficult when his mother lost her job, but it appears to have improved in more recent years with the growth of the family’s landscaping business. He had teachers who encouraged him, but he also experienced racism and bullying in school. His fear of being shot partly explains his poor decision-making. I further accept that his perceptions of limited opportunities and his negative peer associations are linked, at least in part, to systemic and overt racism.
ix. Mr. Lam has been subject to restrictive house arrest bail for 19 months. While I treat this as a significantly mitigating factor, I remain mindful that “bail is not jail” and I cannot treat them as equivalent. There is no formula for determining what credit should be granted for time spent on bail. Mitigation is appropriate because stringent bail conditions can be punitive and therefore “akin” to custody. See: R. v. Vuong, 2021 ONCA 697, at para. 65; R. v. Joseph, 2020 ONCA 733, at paras. 107–114; R. v. Place, 2020 ONCA 546, at para. 20; R. v. Downes (2006), 2006 CanLII 3957 (ON CA), 79 O.R. (3d) 321, at paras. 33–37.
27The defence submitted that the Charter breaches should mitigate Mr. Lam’s sentence. I addressed the nature of the breaches and their impact on Mr. Lam in my reasons for judgment. Having reviewed the relevant authorities, I am not satisfied that the breaches in this case warrant mitigation. In my view, the Charter violations did not affect the circumstances of the offence or the offender in a way that is relevant to determining a fit sentence: R. v. Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6, at para. 48; R. v. Claros, 2019 ONCA 626, at paras. 70–75.
28Incarceration would disrupt Mr. Lam’s employment and education and separate him from his family and community supports. These are relevant considerations; however, I remain mindful that the sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offences and the offender’s degree of responsibility: R. v. L.C., 2022 ONCA 863, at para. 24.
The Gravity of the Offences and the Aggravating Factors
29Before mentioning the specific aggravating features of this case, I will address the general gravity of the offences Mr. Lam has been convicted of.
30Cocaine is a highly addictive and dangerous drug: R. v. Desilva, 2022 ONCA 879, at para. 104; R. v. Pestill, 2025 ONSC 2478, at para. 45.
31The threat posed by fentanyl is even greater than that of other illicit drugs. It is very addictive and exposes users to risks of brain and organ damage, as well as death. The likelihood of a fatal overdose is extremely high. A lethal dose can be less than two milligrams. Fentanyl has been described as “public enemy number one”, and trafficking in fentanyl has been described as a national crisis: R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46, at paras. 93 – 96, per Moldaver J.; R. v. Campbell, 2024 SCC 42, at para. 142.
32Loaded, illegal handguns are inherently dangerous. They are used to intimidate, seriously injure, or kill: R. v. Nur, 2015 SCC 15, at para. 7; R. v. Omar, 2018 ONCA 975, at para. 103, per Brown J.A., dissenting, rev’d (substantially for the reasons of Brown J.A); R. v. Beharry, 2022 ONSC 4370 at para. 19. Their possession in public is “antithetical to the Canadian concept of a free and ordered society”: R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680 at para. 68.
33“The courts have repeatedly emphasized that the toxic combination of drugs and guns poses a pernicious and persisting threat to public safety and the welfare of the community. The social ills, including associated criminal conduct, fuelled by this combination is now well recognized”: R. v. Wong, 2012 ONCA 767, at para. 11. See also: R. v. Omoragbon, 2020 ONCA 336, at para. 22.
34There are aggravating features relating to the firearm charges. The firearm’s serial number was defaced, it was equipped with a selector switch, and it was recovered in a public setting inside a motor vehicle: R. v. Zaban, 2024 ONSC 2704, at para. 41(f); R. v. Gorgievski, 2024 ONSC 5899, 25; R. v. Kurzyna, 2025 ONCA 725, at para. 8; R. v. Harutyunyan, 2012 ONSC 58, at para. 16; aff’d 2012 ONCA 637. While Mr. Lam was convicted of separate offences for the defaced gun, possessing the selector switch, and having the firearm in the vehicle, I will impose concurrent sentences for these offences. It is therefore appropriate to consider these features as aggravating factors: R. v. McCue, 2012 ONCA 773, at paras. 21 – 22; R. v. Fortune, 2024 ONCA 269, at para. 33; R. v. Charley, 2025 ONSC 2490, at para. 45.
35With respect to the drug charges, the aggravating factors include the nature of the drugs involved, the quantity of drugs seized and their significant value. These offences were clearly motivated by profit.
Sentencing Precedents
Cases Submitted by the Defence
36The defence cited several decisions where conditional sentences were imposed for offences involving firearms, drugs, or both. I have considered each of the decisions submitted by the defence but will not refer to them all.
37In R. v. Williams, 2023 ONCJ 259, the 25-year-old offender was sentenced for one count of possessing 14.27 grams of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking. He also possessed 3.1 grams of cocaine. The offender provided financial support to his sister and her two children and acted as a father figure to them. He also co-parented a child with his former partner and maintained employment. Justice Monahan imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day. This case is not comparable to Mr. Lam’s. It involved a guilty plea, approximately one-fifth the amount of fentanyl, far less cocaine, significant collateral consequences relating to children, and no firearm.
38In R. v. Fabbro, 2021 ONCA 494, the offender was sentenced for carrying a weapon for a dangerous purpose, possession of a prohibited firearm with readily accessible ammunition, and breaches of court orders. The offences arose from a standoff with police during which Mr. Fabbro, in a suicidal state, pointed an unloaded gun at himself. The sentencing judge imposed a custodial term of two years less a day. On appeal, the Court varied the sentence to a conditional sentence, emphasizing that the danger posed by the offender’s conduct was significantly attenuated: the gun was not loaded, Mr. Fabbro repeatedly stated he would harm no one but himself, and the officers did not feel threatened. The case also involved a causal link between the offender’s mental illness and the offences, guilty pleas, and did not involve drugs.
39In R. v. Stewart, 2024 ONSC 281, the 19-year-old first offender received the equivalent of a conditional sentence of two years less a day, reduced by credit for pre-sentence custody. He was found in possession of a loaded firearm with an overcapacity magazine and 9.9 grams of fentanyl. Mr. Stewart pleaded guilty. In applying the Morris factors, the sentencing judge noted that Mr. Stewart grew up in poverty, in communities surrounded by crime, and had a learning disability. Overall, the aggravating factors in Mr. Lam’s case are more significant, and the mitigating circumstances in Mr. Stewart’s case were more pronounced.
40In R. v. Hamilton, 2020 ONCA 163, the offender was found in possession of a loaded revolver in his vehicle, several bullets in his pocket, and $337 in cash. Subsequent searches of his car and home uncovered approximately 40 grams of cocaine, over 400 grams of marijuana, two grams of hashish, drug paraphernalia, brass knuckles, and additional ammunition, both live and spent. The accused was a youthful first offender who pleaded guilty, expressed genuine remorse, and had demonstrated an effort to rehabilitate himself. He had spent 292 days in pre-sentence custody, for which he received 437 days’ credit. The Court of Appeal upheld the substance of the trial judge’s global sentence, which included a 292-day conditional sentence in addition to time served. In doing so, the Court acknowledged that the sentence was below the usual range given the aggravating features but ultimately deferred to the trial judge’s discretion.
41In R. v. Ramos, 2023 ONSC 1094, the offender was a young first offender who pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded firearm and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. She admitted to possessing approximately 30 grams of powdered cocaine and 33 grams of crack cocaine for trafficking. The sentencing judge imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, citing several “exceptional circumstances.” The judge noted that Ms. Ramos was not the principal in the offences and had minimal control over the gun and drugs. He also found that she was an addict involved in both the drug trade and the sex trade because of abuse by her pimp. At the time of sentencing, she had been on bail for nearly five years and had made significant rehabilitative progress.
Cases Submitted by the Crown
42The Crown referred me to the following decisions.
43In R. v. Ansah, 2021 ONSC 6339, the offender was convicted of possessing a loaded firearm and 85 grams of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking. He was 18 years old at the time of the offences and had no prior criminal record. Mr. Ansah had strong family support, and the materials filed at sentencing demonstrated that the social and economic circumstances in which he was raised—including racial discrimination—contributed to his instability. His pre-sentence incarceration included 343 days of full lockdown and 30 days of partial lockdown, during which prisoners were often confined to their cells, had limited access to showers and phone calls, and saw programs and visits cancelled. These harsh jail conditions were treated as a mitigating factor. After applying the principle of totality, the court imposed an effective sentence of six years’ imprisonment. I note that Mr. Ansah’s case involved significant aggravating features, including pointing a loaded firearm at police officers and discarding it in a backyard. On the other hand, Mr. Ansah was two years younger than Mr. Lam when he committed his offences, appears to have experienced greater instability during his upbringing, and endured harsh pre-sentence jail conditions over a lengthy period. Furthermore, unlike Mr. Lam’s case, Mr. Ansah’s case did not involve cocaine, which is an additional hard drug.
44In R. v. Griffith, 2022 ONSC 6406, the offender was convicted of possessing 71.25 grams of cocaine and 58 grams of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, as well as possession of over $3,000 in proceeds of crime. He conceded the Crown’s case after his Charter application was dismissed. At the time of sentencing, he was 38 years old and had a 13-year-old son. The sentencing judge found that he had good prospects for rehabilitation. Although he had a criminal record, the judge gave it little weight because it was very dated and involved less serious offences, referring to Mr. Griffith as “essentially a first offender.” The sentence imposed was five years’ imprisonment.
45In R. v. Sivashothy, 2024 ONSC 6564, the offender was convicted of possession of 55.78 grams of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking. The drugs were concealed in the wheel well of a vehicle rented by him. At the time of the offence, he was 23 years old, had no prior criminal record, and had been on non-restrictive bail for four years without any breaches. He had a supportive family, and his prospects for rehabilitation were considered positive. The sentencing judge summarized several fentanyl-related cases at paragraph 18 of his decision and characterized the quantity involved as falling within the “mid-level trafficking range” (para. 19). The Court imposed a sentence of five years’ imprisonment.
The Ranges Identified in the Case Law
46The authorities describe a three-to-five-year range for cases involving loaded firearms in situations where "the use and possession of the gun is associated with criminal activity, such as drug trafficking": R. v. Graham, 2018 ONSC 6817, at para. 38; R. v. Beharry, 2022 ONSC 4370, at para. 31; R. v. Varela Granado, 2025 ONSC 1917, at para. 31.
47Generally, the sentencing range begins at the low end of the penitentiary range for first-time offenders convicted of possessing a loaded prohibited firearm in circumstances where there is no other criminal activity: R. v. Burke-Whittaker, 2025 ONCA 142, at para. 38 (per Favreau J.A.), at para. 136 (per Hourigan J.A., dissenting); Graham, at para. 37; Beharry, at para. 31.
48The Court of Appeal has also recognized that there are situations where conditional sentences are appropriate in cases involving loaded firearms: R. v. Desmund-Robinson, 2022 ONCA 369 at para.13; Morris, at paras. 124-28, 180-81.
49For street-level cocaine trafficking, involving grams up to approximately an ounce, the range is typically six months to two years less a day: R. v. Bailey-Ricketts, 2024 ONSC 1834 at para. 49; R. v. Woolcock, [2002] O.J. No. 4927 at para. 15; R. v. Ahmed, 2016 ONCA 831; R. v. Burke, 2025 ONSC 4317 at para. 28. For dealing at the ounce level, the range generally falls between two and five years: R. v. Graham, at paras. 47–48; Burke, at para. 29.
50The sentencing range for mid-level fentanyl trafficking remains unsettled. Some decisions place the range for mid-level trafficking between four and seven years, or five and eight years, while other cases suggest a higher range: R. v. Jackson, 2024 ONSC 2402, at paras. 41 & 48; R. v. Llanos, at paras. 31 – 34; Sivashothy, at paras. 18 & 24; R. v. Campbell, 2024 ONSC 2220, at paras. 38–43; R. v. Owusu, 2024 ONSC 671, at para. 37; R. v. Wisdom, 2024 ONSC 4047 at paras. 49–50; R. v. Morias, 2025 ONSC 2978, at paras. 48 – 65, and the cases cited therein.
51Parity is a desirable objective because comparing similar cases helps calibrate the principle of proportionality. However, because each offence and offender is unique, sentencing ranges serve as guidelines—not straightjackets: R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, at paras. 58 & 60; R. v. Ruthowsky, 2024 ONCA 432, at para. 173. That said, “sentencing ranges cannot be arbitrarily ignored otherwise they become meaningless”: R. v. Davatgar-Jafarpour, 2019 ONCA 353, at para. 32.
The Appropriate Sentences in this Case
52Because Mr. Lam is a youthful first offender, I “must emphasize restraint and make space for rehabilitation as a primary and paramount objective”: R. v. Al-Kisadi, 2025 ONCA 229, at para. 84. While the gravity of the offences requires that general deterrence and denunciation receive significant weight, the primary objectives remain individual deterrence and rehabilitation. I am required to impose the least restrictive sanction capable of achieving a proportionate sentence: R. v. Brown, 2015 ONCA 361, at para. 7; R. v. Randhawa, 2020 ONCA 668, at para. 30; R. v. Habib, 2024 ONCA 830, at para. 38.
53There are Morris factors that contributed, to some extent, to Mr. Lam’s poor decision-making. While on a strict bail, he has taken meaningful steps toward rehabilitation, including participating in counselling and psychotherapy. He has expressed remorse and has strong community support. He has also demonstrated the ability to become a productive worker.
54Still, the offences committed are very serious and posed a real danger to the community. Mr. Lam’s possessed a loaded firearm, which was partially defaced, equipped with a selector switch in circumstances associated with drug trafficking. The quantity and value of the cocaine in Mr. Lam’s possession indicate that he was selling at the ounce level. Based on the total quantity and value of the fentanyl and its analogues, I am satisfied that Mr. Lam was operating as a mid-level dealer. See: R. v. St. Rose, 2024 ONCA 893, at para. 4; Sivashothy, at para. 19; Llanos, at para. 42; R. v. Campbell, 2022 ONCA 666, at para. 101; R. v. Cinelli, 2018 ONSC 4983; Jackson, at paras. 1, 20, 27, 45.
55I have considered the defence’s request for a conditional sentence. Notwithstanding the mitigating factors mentioned, a significant penitentiary term is clearly warranted in this case. Accordingly, a conditional sentence is not available: R. v. Johnston, 2023 ONCA 808, at para. 6. See also R. v. Richer, 2025 ONCA 439, at paras. 1, 28, 65, and 73—a case involving addiction, significantly less fentanyl, no firearm, and notable collateral consequences relating to a child.
56Mr. Lam is being sentenced for multiple offences. When deciding between concurrent and consecutive sentences, I must first determine whether the offences are related, which is a flexible test. I must then apply the totality principle to ensure the overall sentence is not excessive: Criminal Code, s. 718.2(c); R. v. Millard, 2018 ONSC 1299 at para. 30; R. v. W.Q., (2006) 2006 CanLII 21035 (ON CA), 210 C.C.C. (3d) 398, at paras. 11–15 (Ont. C.A).
57Offences arising from the same transaction may warrant consecutive sentences if they protect different legal interests, subject to totality: R. v. Bertrand Marchand, 2023 SCC 26 at para. 97; R. v. Fournel, 2014 ONCA 305 at para. 58.
58In this case I have reduced the sentences on some counts and made other counts concurrent to ensure the overall cumulative sentence remains proportionate.
59Having carefully considered all the circumstances, I have decided that the following sentences are appropriate in this case:
Count 7 (possession of p-fluorofentanyl for the purpose of trafficking): 5 years reduced by 1 year for totality, less 5 days Summers credit, resulting in a sentence of 4 years less 5 days.
Count 8 (possession of a mixture of fentanyl and p-fluorofentanyl for the purpose of trafficking): 5 years reduced by 1 year for totality, less 5 days Summers credit, resulting in a concurrent sentence of 4 years less 5 days.
Count 3 (possession of loaded prohibited firearm): 3 ½ years reduced by 1 year for totality, resulting in a consecutive sentence of 2 ½ years.
Count 2 (unauthorized possession of a firearm in a motor vehicle): 2 years concurrent.
Count 4 (possession of a prohibited device) 1 year concurrent.
Count 5 (possessing a firearm knowing its serial number has been defaced): 1 year concurrent.
Count 6 (possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking): 2 years concurrent.
60The total sentence is therefore 6 years and 6 months, less 5 days credit pursuant to Summers. I have determined that this is the lowest overall sentence I can impose having regard to the gravity of the offences and Mr. Lam’s degree of responsibility.
61Count 1 (possession of firearm knowing its possession is unauthorized) is conditionally stayed pursuant to the principle in R. v. Kienapple, 1974 CanLII 14 (SCC), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729.
62I will make a DNA order in relation to each offence given that they are all secondary designated offences.
63Pursuant to s. 109(2)(a) Mr. Lam is prohibited from possessing the weapons referred to in that provision for a period of 10 years.
64Pursuant to s. 109(2)(b), Mr. Lam is prohibited from possessing the weapons referred to in that provision for life.
65The victim fine surcharge is waived given all the circumstances.
Dated: December 1, 2025
Signed:_______________
Justice J. Hanna
Ontario Court of Justice.