APPEARANCES:

Y. Brar Counsel for the Provincial Crown

S. Pashang Counsel for the Provincial Crown

E. Skowron Counsel for the Federal Crown

M. Forte Counsel for Giovanni Sacchetti

BROWN, J. (Orally):

On March 25th, 2025, the day that Mr. Sacchetti was to start a preliminary hearing in relation to his charges, he entered guilty pleas to various charges. The Crown proceeded by indictment. On the Information ending in 5326, he entered guilty pleas to counts 5 and 12, which were that on August 18th, 2024, he possessed a loaded restricted firearm, which was a Glock .22 handgun, in Mississauga, contrary to s. 95(2) of the Criminal Code, and on the same date and at the same place, possessing the firearm, the Glock handgun, while prohibited based upon an order made pursuant to s. 109(1), contrary to s. 117.01 of the Criminal Code. He also entered a guilty plea on Information ending in 5771, to, at the same date and place, possessing cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to s. 5(2) of the CDSA.

Mr. Sacchetti was arrested on August 18th, 2024, and has remained in custody to the date of his sentence, today, November 7th, 2025. That is a total of 446 real days in presentence custody.

An Agreed Statement of Fact was filed in evidence, together with the relevant s. 109 weapons prohibition order that was the subject of the offence.

The court found Mr. Sacchetti guilty of the various counts and ordered a presentence report. The case was put over for sentence from time to time and is now before the court, finally, for the imposition of sentence.

THE FACTS:

A. Circumstances of the offence:

As noted above, following the guilty plea to the relevant charges, an Agreed Statement of Fact was filed in evidence. It provided as follows:

On August 18th, 2024, officers attended 976 Mississauga Valley Boulevard in Mississauga in an effort to locate and arrest the accused, Mr. Giovanni Sacchetti. At 11:04 p.m., officers observed Mr. Sacchetti pulling into the driveway in a black 2014 Honda Accord, with licence plate CEES 066.

Officers Neale, #11820, and Sljivo, #65711, arrested Mr. Sacchetti. Officer Sljivo searched the vehicle incident to arrest and located a grey Winners reusable bag on the floor of the passenger seat. Inside this bag, the officers located a loaded Glock .22 handgun with one round in the chamber. The attached magazine contained nine additional rounds. The handgun had the serial number UKD627. The bag also contained a freezer-size bag and a sandwich bag with other drugs. There was also a pill bottle which contained oxycodone pills. The pill bottle was labeled with a valid prescription in Mr. Sacchetti’s name.

Photos of the contents of this bag at the time of his arrest were attached at Exhibit A of the Agreed Statement of Fact. (See Exhibit A - Photos of grey Winners Bag and Contents).

It was determined that the freezer bag had a total of 1273.38 grams of oxycodone. This was tested by Health Canada and confirmed to contain oxycodone and acetaminophen. The sandwich bag had a total of 118.76 grams of heroin. This was tested by Health Canada and confirmed to contain heroin, acetaminophen and caffeine.

After the firearm was located, Officer Neale conducted a pat-down search of Mr. Sacchetti for officer safety. He located a red and black Gucci bag on his person. Inside this bag, D.C. Neale located $2,910 in Canadian currency, jewellery, condo keys with a fob, 0.55 grams of cocaine and a cell phone.

Photos of the Gucci bag and the visible contents are attached at Exhibit B to this Agreed Statement of Fact. (See Exhibit B - Photos of Gucci bag and Contents).

Mr. Sacchetti was advised of the further charges arising from these searches. He was placed into the custody of other officers who transported him back to the division.

The car appeared to be lived in, as it contained a number of bags and a locked safe in plain view. D.C. Sljivo discontinued his search of the Honda. Police seals were placed on the motor vehicle, and it was towed to Toronto Police Service - Forensic Services. The following day a search warrant for the vehicle was sought and obtained.

The search warrant on the vehicle was executed on August 19th, 2024. The items listed below are separate and apart from the items listed above. It is admitted that all of the drugs listed below were possessed for the purpose of trafficking. That is important, this court would note. The following items were located by the officers:

a) 978.96 grams of cocaine, which was tested by Health Canada and confirmed to contain cocaine. It is to be noted that this is approximately 0.979 kilos, or just below one kilo, which would be 1000 grams of cocaine;

b) 1075.06 grams of cannabis, which was tested by Health Canada and confirmed to contain cannabis concentrates;

c) 4075.16 grams of GHB, or gamma- hydroxybutyrate, which was tested by Health Canada and confirmed to contain GHB;

d) 286.43 grams of methamphetamine, which was tested by Health Canada and confirmed to contain methamphetamine;

e) 16.44 grams of heroin and tramadol, which was tested by Health Canada and confirmed to contain heroin, tramadol, dextromethorphan and caffeine;

f) 248.41 grams of phenacetin, which is a cutting agent, which was tested and confirmed by Health Canada;

g) 1079.09 grams of caffeine, which was tested and confirmed by Health Canada;

h) 279.47 grams of boric acid, which was tested and confirmed by Health Canada;

i) A spent 9mm casing located on the floor behind the front passenger seat of the vehicle;

j) 76 rounds of 9mm Luger Wynn centre-fire ammunition;

k) 20 rounds of .45 calibre auto Winchester ammunition;

l) 2 rounds of .40 calibre Smith & Wesson centre-fire ammunition;

m) 3 rounds of 9mm Luger ammunition;

n) 41 rounds of .22 calibre Winchester Wildcat rim-fire ammunition;

o) An extended detachable box cartridge handgun magazine, capable of holding up to 31 rounds of ammunition;

p) $7,180 in Canadian currency;

q) A Canadian passport in the name of Giovanni Sacchetti;

r) Various small plastic baggies;

s) 4 watches and a gold bracelet;

t) 94 vape pens; and

u) 2 Google Phones.

Attached to the Agreed Statement of Fact at Exhibit C are photos of the execution of this search warrant. (See Exhibit C - Photos of Search Warrant Execution).

On October 10th, 2024, Mark Weber, a designated examiner of weapons with Toronto Police Service, examined the weapons and ammunition found in the course of this investigation and test-fired the various ammunition from the firearm.

Mr. Weber determined that the firearm was a restricted firearm, as it was a semi-automatic handgun with a barrel length of 114 millimetres. This means it is designed to be aimed and fired by the action of one hand and to discharge conventional ammunition containing a projectile that is designed to exceed the muzzle velocity and muzzle energy exemptions in the Criminal Code.

Mr. Weber determined that the extended magazine was a prohibited device under the Criminal Code, as it was capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. It was able to hold up to 31 rounds of .40 calibre ammunition.

Mr. Weber certified all of the bullets recovered as ammunition within the meaning of the Criminal Code. He was able to fire the .40 calibre bullets - seized incident to arrest and in the search warrant - from the firearm and indicated they were suitable for that purpose.

At the time of his arrest, Mr. Sacchetti was consuming about three grams of cocaine or an “eight ball” each day. He developed this habit in the months leading up to his arrest. Mr. Sacchetti was also using painkillers, marijuana and alcohol regularly.

The defence advised the court that Mr. Sacchetti had been prescribed Percocet following a workplace injury. A Percocet bottle with a prescription in his name was located in the search. The Crown advised that the pills inside that bottle were not part of the facts and quantities set out in the Agreed Statement of Fact related to the criminal and drug offences.

The defence does not suggest that all of the Percocet in this case was for personal use.

The defence advised that he had purchased the heroin illegally, although he thought it contained Percocets, not heroin mixed with acetaminophen.

The Crown takes the position that all of the drugs were possessed for the purpose of trafficking. The defence does not take issue with this, although indicates generally that Mr. Sacchetti was regularly using cocaine, oxycodone and cannabis at the time of the arrest.

At the time of the offence Mr. Sacchetti was subject to a s. 109 weapons prohibition order, that had been imposed at the time of sentence on a previous charge of possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine, for 10 years, beginning January 22nd, 2022. Accordingly, he had been on this order for less than three years when he was possessing a handgun in this case.

B. Circumstances of the offender:

Mr. Sacchetti has a criminal record, which has been filed in evidence. He was found guilty and sentenced on an impaired driving offence on February 22nd, 2013.

Most significantly, however, he was sentenced on January 21 of 2022, in Milton, to a charge of possession for the purpose of trafficking of a Schedule I substance and, at the time, given an 18-month conditional sentence and a s. 109 weapons prohibition order.

The presentence report that was prepared, and before the court as an exhibit, has been reviewed very carefully by the court.

Mr. Sacchetti is 40 years of age, married and has three children. His children are 7, 5 and 2 years of age, and they clearly miss their father. His wife indicated that he is a good father; their relationship had some issues, and they were separated just prior to the subject offences, but they have reconciled.

He does not have an Indigenous background, and Mr. Sacchetti is a Canadian citizen.

He completed high school, although he had some issues in school and was suspended for acting out, swearing, not listening, fighting and skipping class. The court would note that when he read his statement earlier today, it appears that when he went back to school, he received a special designation as the most improved student, which is noteworthy. According to the presentence report, he has recently been diagnosed with ADHD.

Mr. Sacchetti had what has been described as an overall positive upbringing. His parents were married, and they remained together. He was close with his mother, who died in 2022. He is close to his brother, Vito, who describes him as a good father. His brother was shocked to hear about the subject offences and that Mr. Sacchetti had a firearm.

His father used physical discipline on Mr. Sacchetti, but Mr. Sacchetti said it was never for nothing and that the interactions never crossed the line.

He has been employed most of his life, working in various jobs outlined in the presentence report. He at one point opened his own cable-laying company, but the work ran out during the COVID-19 pandemic. More recently he was employed by Sean Dodds at a surveillance camera company. Mr. Dodds speaks highly of him as an employee, and he would take Mr. Sacchetti back as an employee after the charges.

Mr. Sacchetti admits that he may have had an issue with alcohol in the past. When he drank heavily, this led to him abusing drugs. After an accident at work when he was 28 years of age, he became addicted to oxycodone. He would also use cocaine and GHB.

He advised the author of the presentence report that while in custody he has completed various programs, including a four-month reintegration program, anti-criminal thinking, healthy relationships, finding employment, financial literacy, and he has attended Bible study and Alcoholics Anonymous meetings.

The court would note that the defence has provided to the court an email to confirm his completion of the Black Employment program at the Toronto South Detention Centre. This is a program that ran from November 2024 to May of 2025. The email spoke in glowing terms of the nature of his participation in this program.

He completed his conditional sentence without issue and would be deemed suitable for future community-based supervision.

Mr. Sacchetti advised he sold the drugs for financial gain and had the firearm for protection while selling the drugs. He indicated his regret for committing the offences. The court would note that, as submitted by the defence, he was not an addict trafficker. He admitted that he committed the offences for financial gain, although he may have had some of the drugs for his own personal use.

The defence also filed medical records relating to Mr. Sacchetti’s stay at the Toronto South Detention Centre. It noted his history, including reference to chronic back pain and prior crack cocaine usage. It set out the medications that he had been prescribed and the complaints he has had while in custody. The court does consider the evidence before the court today that he was denied the type of pain medication, which were Percocets, that he had previously been taking before his arrest. As the court understands it, he was prescribed Advil, but he indicated that was not sufficient to relieve the pain that he was suffering from while in custody.

The court has reviewed all of the 22 pages that it is able to read, that is to say all of the portions that are legible, in detail.

A number of character reference letters were filed by the defence and have been read very carefully by this court.

His cousin, Danielle Da Silva, prepared a letter. She speaks positively of Mr. Sacchetti, indicating that he is a devoted husband and father to three children; his family is very important to him. He had a hard time in his life when he lost his mother to cancer, which was in 2022. He helped his grandparents and her sister during a crisis. He also helped his cousin who suffered a sudden brain aneurysm.

His cousin, Joseph Sacchetti, also prepared a letter which speaks favourably of Mr. Sacchetti. He noted the help he had given his mother when she was ill, and that he assisted in coaching youth soccer, working with the author and young boys. He expressed remorse.

His friend, Matthew Vaz, also wrote a letter of support. He has known Mr. Sacchetti for 30 years. He has a strong work ethic, and he is dedicated and hard-working. He and Mr. Sacchetti have been there for each other, and he states that Mr. Sacchetti’s kids and family are the most important things in his life.

His wife, Monica Sacchetti, also wrote a letter of support. She loves him and will be there to support him as the father of their three children. In the year before the offence, she indicated that he turned into someone she did not recognize because of his addiction. She wanted him to change, and he left. It was becoming a toxic environment for their children. He has apologized several times and regrets the hurt he caused. He misses his children and calls to speak to them daily. He started cutting hair for inmates, and he is interested in enrolling in classes to cut hair and to become a barber.

His father, Luca Sacchetti, signed an affidavit for bail purposes. He was prepared to act as a surety for Mr. Sacchetti.

His brother, Vita Sacchetti, also signed an affidavit for bail purposes and was prepared to act as a surety for him.

His cousin, Nico Sacchetti, also signed an affidavit and was prepared to act as a surety for him.

His most recent employer, Sean Dodds, also signed an affidavit and was prepared to act as a surety for him.

There is no doubt that Mr. Sacchetti had a prosocial employment record over 10 years or more leading up to the subject offences. There is also no doubt that he has been motivated to rehabilitate himself. He has taken the Urban Rez program, a lengthy program over many months, and done very well in that program, as indicated in the materials. He has also taken additional programming while in custody, to the extent that he’s been able to do so. The support he has from family and friends are indicative of him being motivated to continue to rehabilitate and do better. His statement to the court, which was heartfelt and this court found to be genuine, indicates that he has learnt a lot from the experience he has had in the Toronto South Detention Centre. While the court is disappointed that the conditions at the Toronto South Detention Centre continue to remain problematic, with lockdowns and triple bunking, Mr. Sacchetti has, nonetheless, under great stress and dealing with adverse conditions, managed to make it through his time in custody without any misconducts while at the jail. Those are important prosocial factors for him as an offender.

Mr. Sacchetti is also deeply upset about being away from his three children and his wife, and there is no doubt, as indicated below, that the further jail term that both parties are submitting will cause continued separation of Mr. Sacchetti from his children and his wife. This is a factor that the court considers.

LEGAL PARAMETERS

The maximum penalty for the offence of possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine, which is a Schedule I drug, is life imprisonment.

The maximum penalty for the offence of possession of a loaded restricted firearm, contrary to s. 95(2) of the Criminal Code, where the Crown proceeds by indictment, is 14 years imprisonment.

The maximum penalty for the offence of breach of a s. 109 weapons prohibition order, contrary to s. 117.01 of the Criminal Code, is 10 years imprisonment.

POSITIONS OF CROWN AND DEFENCE ON SENTENCE:

The Crown position is that the appropriate total sentence in this case should be 10 years, and ancillary orders should be made, including a weapons prohibition, a DNA order and forfeiture.

The Crown breaks down the submission in relation to each of the three subject offences. On the possession for the purpose of trafficking offence, the Crown has submitted that the appropriate sentence would be seven years, although the Crown has submitted this should be reduced to six years to allow for application of the principles of totality and mitigating factors. The Crown has also submitted that the sentences for the other offences should be consecutive to this charge and sentence.

Secondly, the Crown submits that there should be a sentence of four years’ jail, which the Crown has reduced in its submission to three years in light of the principle of totality and the mitigating factors on the s. 95 possession charge of the loaded firearm, and a further one year consecutive for the possession of the firearm contrary to the prohibition order. The Crown submits that it is appropriate that those sentences have deducted from them appropriate credit for presentence custody.

The Crown requests a DNA order for the secondary designated offences of the firearm charges and on the possession for the purpose of trafficking offence. The Crown also requests a s. 109 order for life and a forfeiture order.

The defence position is that a total of five years incarceration is appropriate as the total for the drugs and the firearm count. The defence arrives at that position based on his submission that the charge of possession of the firearm can be a concurrent sentence to the possession for the purpose of trafficking in drugs. Following that, the defence submits that the court should then add an additional six months incarceration, consecutive to that five-year sentence, for the breach of the s. 109 weapons prohibition charge.

The defence argues, as set out later, that there should be a reduction in sentence based on R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344, for the harsh conditions in the jail. Initially the position was of six months, although subsequently the defence has argued for a much greater reduction to lower the sentence. The defence submits that the court should deduct the Summers presentence custody credit based on 1.5 days’ credit for each day spent in custody and, as indicated, further enhanced presentence custody credit based upon the conditions in the jail.

Again, the defence submits that the firearms and drug charges, at least the s. 95 firearm charge, can be concurrent to each other. The Crown takes the position that they should be consecutive.

MITIGATING AND AGGRAVATING FACTORS:

Mitigating:

Mr. Sacchetti has entered a guilty plea to three of the charges he was facing. He did that on the day scheduled for the preliminary hearing to begin. The value of the mitigation of a guilty plea is less at that stage than it would have been had there been an early guilty plea. The timing also resulted in a situation where court time could not have been utilized for other cases. Nonetheless, it is in mitigation of penalty as it saved the Crown the need to prove the charges.

The Crown also submits that there were essentially no triable issues in this case and no Charter arguments that were put forward. It was essentially, this court would note, a strong case. Mr. Sacchetti was found in the vehicle containing the drugs, the firearm and the other items referred to in the facts. This impacts on the value of the mitigation arising from the guilty plea.

The court considers very carefully the lengthy statement of remorse made by Mr. Sacchetti earlier in the day today, which the court accepts as genuine.

Mr. Sacchetti has a past history of substance dependency. In the presentence report it was stated that he may have had an issue with alcohol in the past. When he drank heavily, this led to him abusing drugs. Then, when he was 28 years of age, after a work accident, he became addicted to oxycodone. It was indicated that he would also use cocaine and GHB. In a letter written by his wife, Monica Sacchetti, she stated in the year prior to the offence he turned into someone she did not recognize because of his addiction. While he was a drug user, the court would find that it was a factor in mitigation of a minimal level, given the commercial level of trafficking of many different Schedule I and other drugs, the large quantities of those drugs, and that he had those drugs for trafficking and to make money. It is important for this court to note his statement made to the author of the presentence report that he sold the drugs for financial gain and had the firearm for protection while selling the drugs.

There is evidence of rehabilitative prospects evidenced by the numerous programs Mr. Sacchetti has attended while incarcerated. He also has a great deal of family and other support, as demonstrated by the letters of reference and the affidavits filed with the court. These are indicative of prosocial aspects that the court considers with respect to the appropriate sentences for him as an offender. This is also referred to in the reasons.

Aggravating:

Mr. Sacchetti’s prior criminal record, including the one conviction and sentence for the same offence of possession for the purpose of trafficking, is not an aggravating factor, but it is a factor bearing on the analysis of the need for specific deterrence and rehabilitation prospects. He had completed the conditional sentence for that offence a little over a year before he committed this subsequent offence, and he is now also before the court for the serious firearms offence and breached the weapons prohibition order.

Analysis:

The court bears in mind the guiding comments of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, [2015] S.C.J. No. 64. In that judgment, the court stated that sentencing ranges are primarily guidelines, not hard and fast rules. Even if an appellate court has established a range, it may be that a fact pattern may arise which is sufficiently dissimilar to past decisions that the range must be expanded. Sentencing ranges are nothing more than summaries of the minimum and maximum sentences imposed in the past, which serve in any given case as guides for the application of all the relevant principles and objectives. However, they should not be considered averages, let alone straightjackets, but should instead be seen as historical portraits for the use of sentencing judges, who must still exercise their discretion in each case. Accordingly, a sentencing range is not a straightjacket to the exercise of discretion of a sentencing judge. Each crime is committed in unique circumstances by an offender with a unique profile. Everything depends on the gravity of the offence, the offender’s degree of responsibility and the specific circumstances of each case. Sentencing ranges must in all cases remain only one tool among others that are intended to aid trial judges in their work.

The court specifically considers para. 73.

In 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada noted in R. v. Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 206 (S.C.C.),

at para. 43 that:

“No one sentencing objective trumps the others and it falls to the sentencing judge to determine which objective or objectives merit the greatest weight, given the particulars of the case.”

Sentencing is highly individualized: see R. v. Suter, 2018 SCC 34. As the court stated in para. 4:

“A delicate balancing of the various sentencing principles and objectives is called for, in line with the overriding principle that a ‘sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender’ (s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code). Accordingly, there will be cases where the particular circumstances of the offence and/or the offender call for a sentence that falls outside of the normal sentencing range. This is one such case.”

In 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46, [2021] S.C.J. No. 46, in the majority judgment at para. 10 noted that proportionality is the organizing principle for the court in imposing a fair, fit and principled sentence. Proportionality is the fundamental principle. Sentences must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender, and the unique circumstances of each case. Parity and individualization are important, yet secondary principles. The demands of proportionality must be calibrated by reference to the sentences imposed in other cases. Individualization is central to the assessment of proportionality in that it demands consideration of the individual circumstances of each offender, as set out in para. 12.

As often stated by appellate courts considering sentence appeals, every case has its unique features relating to the offender or the offence. The court has reviewed all of the cases referred to by the defence and by the Crown. The absence of mention by this court does not mean that this court has not considered a particular case. It simply reflects the court’s view that the circumstances in those cases are not of assistance in considering the appropriate sentence in this case.

The principle of proportionality is also codified in the Criminal Code, which states that the sentence imposed by the court must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender (see s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code).

Further, the court bears in mind that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the objectives of denunciation; deterrence (both generally and specifically for the offender); separation of the offenders from society where necessary; rehabilitation; to provide reparation for harm done to victims or to the community; and to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community (see s. 718 of the Criminal Code). The court bears in mind any applicable sentencing principles as set out in s. 718.2, and as well, the principles of parity, totality and judicial restraint in considering a sentence of deprivation of liberty or imprisonment, as set out in s. 718.2(b) through (e). The emphasis of the court in considering those various objectives depends on the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the offender.

The court considers the nature of the offence, together with the circumstances of the offender.

The court has also noted an additional factor related to Mr. Sacchetti’s family. As noted above, there is no doubt that the penitentiary sentence which the court will impose on Mr. Sacchetti, whether as submitted by the defence or as submitted by the Crown, or anything in between, will have a significant impact on Mr. Sacchetti’s three children, who are 7, 5 and 2 years of age, and on his wife. The author of the presentence report noted that the children miss their father. His wife indicated that he is a good father. Their relationship had some issues, and they were separated just prior to the subject offences, but he and his wife have now reconciled. The court would note that she was here earlier today. The family has, of course, been living separate and apart from Mr. Sacchetti since he was arrested well over a year ago. Nonetheless, this is something which the court considers pursuant to the direction of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in R. v. D.B., 2025 ONCA 577.

Nature of offence:

The court has reviewed in detail all of the cases submitted by the defence, a number of which are referred to below. The court has also reviewed in detail all of the cases submitted by the Crown, a number of which are referred to below.

The Crown has taken a slightly different approach than the defence in presenting case law regarding the nature of the offences. The Crown has separated the sentences for types of offences, being weapons prohibition breach sentences, possession of prohibited firearm sentences, possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine in the 978.96 gram range, the purity of cocaine and cutting agents, the toxic combination of possessing drugs and guns, and adjusting for totality, and in consecutive versus concurrent sentences. The court will review those cases in the reasons relating to the particular topic in the reasons.

In a sense, the court finds that approach to the review of cases of greater assistance to the court, as set out by the Crown, if the court is inclined to impose a consecutive rather than a concurrent sentence, albeit adjusted for totality.

Consecutive versus concurrent sentences:

As a result, the court will first deal with the preliminary issue as to whether the sentences should be or could be concurrent, or whether they need to be consecutive sentences for the drug offences and the possession of the firearm, together with the firearm prohibition charge.

On this point, one of the cases cited by the defence was R. v. Delchev, 2014 ONCA 488, at paras. 33 to 35. In that case the court noted that it was a matter of discretion by the sentencing judge and that the judge had found that the firearm was not a tool of the trade. The court would note that this case preceded a number of subsequent Court of Appeal cases below, which the court is going to refer to and follow.

In R. v. Crevier, 2015 ONCA 619, the court found that gun offences and drug offences have different legally protected interests, and as a result, that the sentences for these types of offences should be consecutive. The court considered the serious safety concerns surrounding the possession of a firearm alongside illicit drugs. The court also relied upon the principles set out by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in R. v. Wong, 2012 ONCA 767, particularly at paras. 11 and 13.

In R. v. Wisdom, 2024 ONSC 4047, the court considered the issue at paras. 34 and 35. The court considered R. v. Crevier and also R. v. Mar, [2018] O.J. No. 270, at para. 27, together with R. v. Graham, 2018 ONSC 6817, at para. 43, which was affirmed at the Ontario Court of Appeal, 2020 ONCA 692, together with R. v. Owusu, 2024 ONSC 671, at paras. 24 to 25. As Justice Code noted, the issue had long been decided that the s. 95 firearm sentence and drug trafficking offences should be served consecutively, and that this triggers the totality principle: see s. 718.2(c) and R. v. Chisholm, 1965 CanLII 211 (ON CA), [1965] 4 C.C.C. 289, at p. 291. Similarly, the court in Wisdom also found, at para. 36, that sentences for violations of s. 109 weapons prohibition orders should also be dealt with by way of consecutive sentences, which also triggers the totality principle. The court in Wisdom, at para. 59, set out two alternate ways in which to apply the totality principle in that case. The court preferred the Crown’s approach to determining a total sentence based on consecutive components of the individual sentences, then reducing it in light of totality, to lead to a sentence which reflected the overall culpability of the offender.

While the defence has submitted various cases which impose concurrent sentences, the sentences did not really deal with the reasoning and rationale for imposing the sentences in that way, in light of the appellate case law setting out the principles that they should be consecutive. Accordingly, the court found the defence sentence cases, most of which are set out below, as not of assistance to this court on the rationale as to whether to apply a consecutive or concurrent sentence for the various offences in this case.

Accordingly, this court agrees with Justice Code that the law is settled at the appellate level in Ontario that sentences for drug trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking offences should be consecutive to sentences for possession of a loaded firearm and consecutive to a sentence for breach of a s. 109 firearms prohibition order.

However, it is important that where the court imposes consecutive sentences for these offences, to consider the important principle of totality. See R. v. Wisdom, 2024 ONSC 4047 and R. v. England, 2024 ONCA 369.

Sentence for possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine in the 978.96 gram range (which is just under 1000 grams or just under one kilo of cocaine):

Before reviewing the cases submitted by counsel, it is noteworthy to recall past guiding judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada in relation to trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking, particularly in relation to Schedule I drugs. It is also significant to consider the type of trafficker Mr. Sacchetti was in this case. The Crown takes the position that he was not a low-level trafficker. The defence agrees that he was not an addict trafficker. The Crown submitted at one point that he was a large-scale trafficker, although at one point appeared to back down to the point where he may be somewhat less than that. This court would note that Mr. Sacchetti was a mid-level trafficker given all of the circumstances of the facts in this case, which the court has considered very carefully. This includes the quantities, the types of drugs and the vast choices of drugs that he had, and the other materials that he possessed for the purpose of trafficking. The court also considers the quantities as significant.

Courts have renewed emphasis on deterrent sentences for drug trafficking-related offences. Courts are eminently aware of the dangers posed to society by drug crime and the importance of deterrent sentences for drug traffickers. In R. v. Smith, (1987) 1987 CanLII 64 (SCC), 34 C.C.C. (3d) 97 (S.C.C.), Lamer, J. noted:

“Those who import and market hard drugs for lucre are responsible for the gradual but inexorable degeneration of many of their fellow human beings as a result of their becoming drug addicts...such persons, with few exceptions...should, upon conviction, in my respectful view, be sentenced to and actually serve long periods of penal servitude.”

The Supreme Court of Canada further considered drug offences in Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1. S.C.R. 982 (S.C.C.). Cory, J. wrote of the social and economic costs of illicit drug use in Canada and stated at pages 1039 to 1040:

“The costs to society of drug abuse and trafficking in illicit drugs are at least significant if not staggering. These include direct costs such as healthcare and law enforcement, and indirect costs of lost productivity.

In Canada, the total cost to society of substance abuse has been estimated to be $18.45 billion annually (Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, The Costs of Substance Abuse in Canada: Highlights (1996), at p. 2). Of this amount, the cost flowing from illicit drugs is $1.4 billion (McKenzie & Single). In 1992 there were 732 deaths, 7,095 hospitalizations and 58,571 hospital days in Canada attributable to illicit drugs (McKenzie & Single). Mortality from illicit drugs is less than for alcohol and tobacco, but tends to involve younger victims (Costs of Substance Abuse in Canada, supra, at p.6).

These significant and often tragic consequences serve to emphasize that the harm caused by trafficking in illicit drugs is very properly a matter of grave concern in Canada, as it is throughout the world.”

The court would note that that case was in 1998, 27 years ago.

Subsequently, as noted by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Pearson, (1992) 1992 CanLII 52 (SCC), 77 C.C.C. (3d) 124, the court stated:

“Drugs are responsible for 70 to 80 percent of prison terms: crimes resulting from the application of narcotics legislation (possession and trafficking); crimes committed under the influence of alcohol and other drugs (rape, violence and homicide); crimes committed to obtain drugs (theft and prostitution).”

In the context of its consideration of the bail provisions relating to trafficking in narcotics, the Supreme Court noted:

“Most offences are not committed systematically. By contrast, trafficking in narcotics occurs systematically, usually within a highly sophisticated commercial setting. It is often a business and a way of life. It is highly lucrative, creating huge incentives for an offender to continue criminal behaviour.”

More recently, in 2021, 23 years after Pushpanathan, the Supreme Court of Canada again considered the dangers posed by trafficking in hard drugs and the impact it has in Canada, in R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 24, 2021 S.C.C. 24, at paras. 87 to 89, stating as follows:

“[87] The dangers posed by trafficking in hard drugs, such as heroin and cocaine, have long been recognized in Canada. Over the past few decades, however, society’s awareness of the true gravity of trafficking in such drugs has grown to the point that we are reminded, on a daily basis, of the death, destruction, and havoc it causes in communities across Canada.

88Trafficking in such substances causes both direct and indirect harms to society. Directly, the distribution and abuse of hard drugs leads to addiction, debilitating adverse health effects, and, all too frequently, death by overdose. As Lamer, J. (as he then was) astutely observed, where addiction and death occur - as they so often do - those who oversee the distribution of these drugs are personally ‘responsible for the gradual but inexorable degeneration of many of their fellow human beings.’ (R. v. Smith, 1987 CanLII 64 (SCC), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045, at Introduction).

89Trafficking also leads indirectly to a host of other ills, including an increase in all manner of crime, committed by those seeking to finance their addiction, as well as by organized crime syndicates (Pushpanathan v. Canada, (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1998 CanLII 788 (SCC), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, at paras. 85-87, per Cory J., dissenting, but not on this point; R. v. Kang-Brown, 2008 SCC 18, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 456, at para. 184, per Deschamps J., dissenting, but not on this point). Given that much of this criminal activity is violent, trafficking has come to be understood as an offence of violence, even beyond the ruinous consequences it has for those who abuse drugs and in the process, destroy themselves and others.”

Appellate courts have spoken often about the principles as related to trafficking and trafficking-related offences. Deterrence and denunciation are clearly the primary principles.

As it relates to cocaine, in R. v. Bajada, 2003 CanLII 15687 (ON CA), [2003] O.J. No. 721 (C.A.), the court quoted from Sentencing, 5th ed.(Toronto: Buttterworths, 1999), Clayton C. Ruby states under the heading “Cocaine” at p. 865-866:

“Cocaine used to be regarded by the courts as a drug which is somewhat more serious than marijuana but less serious than heroin. However, due to the existence of crack cocaine and intravenous cocaine users, this attitude seems to be changing. More recent sentences for cocaine seem on par with those imposed for heroin possession or trafficking.”

In R. v. Hamilton and Mason, (2004) 2004 CanLII 5549 (ON CA), 186 C.C.C. (3d) 129 (Ont. C.A.) at paras. 104 to 113, the court noted that:

“The immense direct and indirect social and economic harm done throughout the Canadian community by cocaine is well known.”

The court cited Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998), 1998 CanLII 778 (SCC), 160 D.L.R. 4th 193 (S.C.C.) at pp. 235-37 per Cory, J. in dissent on another issue and in R. v. Smith, (1987) 1987 CanLII 64 (SCC), 34 C.C.C. (3d) 97, at 123-24.

In this case, there were additional facts read into the record to be considered on sentence for the possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine. More particularly, the facts related to possession by Mr. Sacchetti of 286.43 grams of methamphetamine and 118.76 grams and 16.44 grams of heroin and tramadol.

It is important to note the qualities of the other Schedule I drugs to truly appreciate the nature of the substances and the severity of offences related to trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking in those other substances. As courts have indicated over the years, methamphetamine is highly addictive.

In R. v. Holt, (1983) 1983 CanLII 3521 (ON CA), 4 C.C.C. (3d) 32 (Ont CA), which was affirmed at the Supreme Court of Canada, 4 C.C.C. (3d) 320, the court referred to R. v. Ward, (1980) 1980 CanLII 2882 (ON CA), 56 C.C.C. (2d) 15, at p 18. In that judgment, Martin J.A., speaking for the court, recognized methamphetamine as one of the more dangerous drugs, stating:

“The principle has been clearly expressed by this court on many occasions, and by other appellate courts in Canada that, save in exceptional circumstances, a custodial sentence is required to be imposed following a conviction for trafficking in the more dangerous drugs, of which methamphetamine is one. We are of the view that there were, at the time of sentencing, no exceptional circumstances which justified a departure from that principle in the present case, having regard to the nature of the drug, the quantity involved and the obvious commercial nature of the transaction. The fact that the offender had, during the interval between the commission of the offence and his trial, rid himself of his drug dependency, was a mitigating circumstance but not an exceptional circumstance, nor was the fact that he was at the time of sentence gainfully employed an exceptional circumstance, although it was a factor which was entitled due weight.”

Over the years, methamphetamine has been moved from the less serious Schedule III, to the more serious Schedule I of the CDSA.

As a result, the offence is now subject to the more serious punishment of life imprisonment. In other words, Parliament has reflected its view that methamphetamine is even more serious than was recognized by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Holt and Ward, when the maximum punishment was only 10 years imprisonment.

Heroin has long been recognized as a highly addictive and serious drug, and trafficking in this Schedule I substance has been found time and time again to be deserving of very serious jail sentences, and for trafficking sentences in the penitentiary range.

Mr. Sacchetti was also in possession of GHB, over 4000 grams in quantity. The nature of this drug has also been commented upon in judgments in the past, again more often in cases related to possession for the purpose of trafficking and trafficking of the drug. In R. v. Paper, 2010 ONCJ 88, [2010] O.J. No. 1131, which was affirmed at the Court of Appeal, 2011 ONCA 56, [2011] O.J. No. 261 (C.A.), it was noted that GHB is a central nervous system depressant that makes the person sleepy, slows down breathing and heart rate. It is made in illicit laboratories. It is usually sold as a liquid in small vials. It can be slipped into drinks and its sedative effects can prevent victims from resisting sexual assault. It can also cause amnesia. GHB has gained popularity as a club drug among young people for its euphoric and sedative effects. There is only a slight difference between a dose which produces the desired effects and one which puts the user at risk. It is a potent sedative which can cause users to fall into a deep coma-like sleep for several hours. Convulsions can occur during the sleep. Users may vomit while sleeping and choke.

In addition, Mr. Sacchetti was also in possession of 1273.38 grams of oxycodone. Oxycodone is one of the most serious and addictive of drugs, being a Schedule I drug, s. 1(29) of the Schedule. The range of penalty for this offence is also life imprisonment. It is a drug which has become much more common over the last two decades, and this court, as a frontline court dealing with drug cases in Toronto, has seen time and time again the ills it causes in peoples’ lives, parallel to what has been stated by the Supreme Court of Canada for other Schedule I drugs. The problem with oxycodone is that the users often start by taking it for pain, often caused by injuries, and migrate into becoming users of street-level oxycodone and other Schedule I drugs. Ironically, it could be said that is what happened to Mr. Sacchetti, although it is not entirely clear on the record before this court. Nonetheless, of all people, Mr. Sacchetti would have known the addictive nature of this drug and how its users can often migrate to take other more dangerous Schedule I drugs.

Further, the court has a significant concern about anyone who possesses many types of drugs across the spectrum available for trafficking. In this case, the choices of types of drugs, as listed above, and also included marijuana, ranges across the spectrum of less to much more serious types of drugs that someone might want to access and acquire from Mr. Sacchetti. It was, to use an expression, “a drug boutique in a car”. As noted in R. v. Paper, at para. 33, which judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeal:

“This court has a concern when a person sets up a commercial operation which caters to a wide variety of drug tastes, as Ms. Paper did in this case. It exposes a potential customer who might have just wanted the less serious drugs, such as marijuana, to a huge selection of other drugs they might be tempted to try for the sake of variety, or for a more adventurous experience. As noted elsewhere in this judgment, some of the choices offered by Ms. Paper in her ‘drug boutique’ were of highly addictive and dangerous substances.”

This case reflects Mr. Sacchetti as a mid-level trafficker who was engaged in possession for the purpose of trafficking in multiple Schedule I drugs, which he kept in his vehicle as a storage place for a vast selection of choices of Schedule I and other drugs.

Relating to this charge, counsel have focused their research on cocaine, even though the facts read in relate to the far more aggravating situation of the other drugs, including the Schedule I drugs which the court has referred to above.

The court considers R. v. Bajada, 2003 CanLII 15687 (ON CA), [2003] O.J. No. 721 (C.A.). The accused had three prior drug trafficking-related convictions on his record. The quantity of cocaine involved was in excess of 500 grams of cocaine, which is half a kilo of cocaine. The court held that sentences of five to five and one-half years are not uncommon for possession of a substantial amount of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking following an accused’s plea of guilt or where the accused has no prior record. The sentence in that case was upheld. That was 22 years ago.

In R. v. Bryan, 2011 ONCA 273, the court stated the normal range for sentence to be five to eight years’ incarceration for someone without a record convicted of possession for the purpose of trafficking in slightly more than a pound of cocaine, which would be slightly more than 454 grams of cocaine.

In R. v. Amante, 2016 ONCA 18, the court held that a sentence of seven years’ incarceration fell within the appropriate range for an offender who had in the year prior to the subject offence served six months in jail for drug dealing, and where the subject charge related to one kilogram of cocaine.

In R. v. Wawrykiewicz, 2019 ONCA 21, the court considered on a sentence appeal approximately 1.8 kilos of cocaine. The court affirmed Bryan, noting that a five to eight year incarceration sentence is appropriate for first offenders possessing slightly more than a pound of cocaine, which is 454 grams. He also had been in possession of heroin and phenacetin, a cutting agent. He had no prior record but was on bail for similar offences. The overall sentence in that case of 10 years was upheld on appeal. That is an important Court of Appeal case, and the court would note that Mr. Sacchetti had a recent related conviction for possession for the purpose of trafficking shortly before this offence, and that he was in possession of far more types of Schedule I drugs.

The defence referred to the case of R. v. Lynch, 2022 ONCA 109, a Crown appeal where four years had been imposed for possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine, fentanyl and possession of proceeds of crime. The quantity of drugs in that case included 965.01 grams of cocaine, 149.28 grams of MDMA and 41.37 grams of fentanyl. The sentence in that case was increased, on the Crown appeal, to six years’ jail. The court found that the range of sentence for mid-level traffickers of cocaine to be in the range of five to eight years, as per R. v. Maone, 2020 ONCA 461. Fentanyl is more serious than cocaine. The court also relied on R. v. Olvedi, 2021 ONCA 518, to find that sentencing for the purpose of trafficking in fentanyl should be as long or longer than for possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine, and as a result, a sentence of six years’ jail was imposed in that case.

The court has also considered the cases submitted by the defence at the sentencing decision level rather than the Court of Appeal. In that regard the court has considered the following cases. In R. v. Llanos, 2025 ONSC 3986, the defendant was found guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine, fentanyl and methamphetamine, together with possession of brass knuckles. There was no firearm offence in that case. The defence sought Duncan credit for harsh presentence custody conditions. He had a prior criminal record. Counsel agreed that the appropriate range of sentence for the drug offences was four to eight years’ jail. The court considered the unique circumstances of the offender at pages 9 to 10. A sentence of five and a half years’ jail was imposed after consideration of presentence custody credit.

In R. v. Llanos, the court also considered within it R. v. Moore, 2025 ONCA 47, which involved 29.67 grams of fentanyl. Although there was a history of drug addiction, the motivation for the offence was financial. A sentence of five years less five months presentence custody was imposed. The court also considered the Moore case. The court would note, however, that it was a very brief three-page endorsement by the Court of Appeal for fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, with no firearms charges. A sentence of five years less five months presentence custody credit was upheld.

In R. v. Shaikh and Tanoli, 2024 ONSC 774, the court considered a case where the defendant entered a guilty plea to trafficking cocaine to an undercover officer on February 1 of 2022 and again on February 22 of 2022. As part of the agreed facts, it was admitted that these two transactions were part of a course of conduct that went on for five months during an undercover investigation, during which the undercover officer made five separate drug purchases. On February 1, 2022, the officer purchased two ounces of cocaine for $3,200, and on February 22nd he purchased nine ounces for $13,500. The court considered the Duncan credit for the adverse conditions at the Toronto South Detention Centre. The court also made reference to the credit in the R. v. Marshall case, 2021 ONCA 344. The court also considered R. v. Bernard, 2021 ONSC 5817. The guilty plea was an important mitigating factor related to the trial time that it saved the court. The court considered the harsh conditions in the jail in that case and in other cases considered. The court in that case, rather than following the Marshall approach, deducted a further .5 days credit for each day of presentence custody credit. There were deductions from the consecutive sentences pursuant to Duncan credit and further Summers credit and further credit for totality, resulting in a sentence of 774 days, which is approximately 25.4 months’ jail for one accused, and three years and one and a half months for the other accused.

The court has also considered the important principle of totality, as this sentence of possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine will be a sentence that will be imposed with two additional consecutive jail sentences. It will not be a global sentence.

Overall, this court finds that the appropriate range for sentence for the possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine in the amount of 978.96 grams, where the accused has a prior conviction for a similar offence, and where he also had possession of 4075.16 grams of GHB, 286.43 grams of methamphetamine, and 16.44 grams of heroin, together with 248.41 grams of phenacetin, which is a cutting agent, together with very substantial quantities of Canadian currency, all of which place him in the category of a mid-range trafficker, bearing in mind the principle of totality for consecutive sentences and restraint in light of the fact that this will be Mr. Sacchetti’s first jail sentence in a penitentiary, those are all factors which the court considers. Without totality, the court would be of the view that a sentence in the range of seven years’ incarceration is appropriate for this offence given all the aggravating circumstances. However, it is important to consider, and the court applies a reduction to allow for the principle of totality and the mitigating factors as set out above. Accordingly, the court imposes a sentence of six years’ incarceration for that offence. From that sentence, the court will deduct enhanced presentence custody credit, which will be noted below.

Sentence - possession of a loaded restricted firearm, a handgun;

The court has considered the seminal case of R. v. Nur, 2015 SCC 15, 2015 S.C.C. 15. The court considered the nature of true crime guns. The court held that there are guns used as a tool of the criminal trade or by those engaged in criminal conduct or conduct that poses a danger to others. The court held that for this type of offence there should be significant penitentiary sentences. On a first conviction a sentence of three to five years was considered appropriate. While there is no issue in this case that Mr. Sacchetti possessed the firearm for his work in the drug trade, the court also considers comments made in other cases. In R. v. Williams, 2007 CarswellOnt 2074, the court noted that the combination of illegal firearms and illicit drugs creates a highly dangerous and volatile situation with the potential for serious, even fatal, consequences. It is reasonable to infer that the firearm was possessed for no legitimate purpose, and it is reasonable to infer it was intended for protection, intimidation or violence. See also R. v. Mansingh, 2016 ONSC 94, where the court noted that people who carry handguns while selling drugs create a significant nuisance and extreme danger for people in the area.

In R. v. Marshall, 2025 ONCA 692, the court found that for a youthful offender with no record, a sentence of three and a half years for possession of a firearm while engaged in drug trafficking, after a trial, was fit. That sentence was upheld.

In R. v. Abdullahi, 2015 ONCA 549, the court considered sentence on an appeal after a trial. A four year sentence was found to be appropriate, although there were other firearm offences.

In R. v. Patel, 2019 ONSC 6302, the court considered the sentence for a young offender with a record and no exceptional mitigating circumstances. The court held that a three year sentence was appropriate, together with a one year consecutive sentence for possession of that firearm contrary to the weapons prohibition order.

In R. v. Griffith, 2019 ONSC 358, the court imposed a four year sentence for possession of the firearm in what was a true crime context as he was engaged in a drug transaction at the time. He was also sentenced to one year consecutive for being in possession of that firearm contrary to the weapons prohibition order. The drug trafficking offence was consecutive to that sentence, albeit a far less serious drug charge than in the case at bar.

Most of the cases on this point submitted by the defence were from the trial decision level.

In R. v. Aguiar, 2024 ONSC 3372, the court considered a case where there was a guilty plea to two counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine, possession of a firearm, a Glock handgun, contrary to s. 92(1). A search of the vehicle of the accused led to a hidden trap compartment in the trunk that contained 687.3 grams of cocaine, 1421 grams of fentanyl, 567.9 grams of methamphetamine, ammunition for various firearms, a digital scale, plastic wrap packaging with cocaine residue, and a hydraulic press used to press drugs. In a second vehicle for the accused, in hidden trap compartments, police located a .40 calibre Glock handgun, which was a prohibited firearm, and ammunition, 8.4 grams of fentanyl, 584 grams of methamphetamine, 722 Xanax pills, a digital scale, a handgun holster, cell phones, and $31 U.S. currency and $5 Canadian currency. In a dated record, the relevant prior entry was for simple possession of a controlled substance and a $500 fine in 2008. The accused in that case, however, had an unfortunate and difficult childhood, and reference letters spoke well of his character. He was offered employment as a labourer in construction. He had served 397 real days of presentence custody. An agreed-upon enhanced presentence custody amount was calculated in the range of 794 days. There was a very unique circumstance in that case, which is entirely unlike the one at bar. In that case, the police had intercepted many times the conversations between the accused and his lawyer, contrary to the wiretap authorization and contrary to the law, including s. 8 of the Charter. The judge was of the view that without the solicitor/client privilege issue, the appropriate sentence would have been in the range of five to eight years in the penitentiary for the cocaine offences and two to three years for the gun conviction. The judge was of the view, however, that the sentences could be concurrent, as they were found in different vehicles, and there was no evidence the handgun was a tool of the trade in the narcotics trafficking business. The court would note at this point that it is quite different from the case at bar, where there was only one vehicle and the accused was in it. There was also not a situation where he used the firearm as a tool of the trade in drug trafficking. The judge found that it was a relatively sophisticated mid-level trafficking operation. There was the dangerous toxic combination of drugs and a firearm. (See Parranto para. 87 and following.) The offences were motivated by financial greed, as there was no evidence that the accused suffered from an addiction. The court found that there were significant mitigating issues, which are not present in the case at bar, as indicated, related to the Charter and solicitor/client issue. In the end, the court found that the appropriate sentence was one of five years’ imprisonment on a global basis, less presentence custody credit.

The court did not impose a conditional sentence.

Are court staff okay or do you want a personal break?

GIOVANNI SACCHETTI: I could use – I could use the washroom, Your Honour.

THE COURT: Do you want to use the washroom?

GIOVANNI SACCHETTI: Yeah.

THE COURT: That’s fine. Officer, can you take him out to use the washroom and then come back, please. I’ll be here.

... PAUSE IN THE PROCEEDINGS

In R. v. Collins, 2023 ONSC 5768, the court dealt with trafficking in cocaine between March 20th and April 22nd of 2020; possession of a loaded prohibited firearm on September 9th of 2020; possession of a loaded prohibited firearm on September 9th of 2020, contrary to a s. 109 order; possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking on September 9th of 2020; and possession of proceeds of crime on September 9th of 2020. The defence sought a reduction of sentence in relation to Charter violations. The accused had a highly unique and unfortunate series of experiences as a young man. He was 13 years old when his birth mother was murdered, and her dismembered body was found three years later. A year later, when he was 14, his best friend was shot and killed. He had a lengthy criminal record, including a prior for possession for the purpose of trafficking in relation to cocaine and fentanyl. He was also the victim of a shooting. There were other unique circumstances related to the offender outlined in the facts of that case. The Crown sought a lenient sentence of three to five years given all the unique facts in that case, rather than six to eight years in the penitentiary. The court did not find that case to be of assistance to this court given all the unique and extenuating exceptional circumstances in that case.

In R. v. Gurhan, 2024 ONSC 5562, sentence was imposed after a trial where the defendant was found guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine, possession of Percocets, possession of proceeds of crime over $5,000, and possession of a loaded prohibited firearm. Other firearm-related offences were stayed. The defendant was found in a room in a residence with three other males, and he had keys to a vehicle he operated the day before, which was found to contain 64.55 grams of cocaine, 240.68 grams of crack cocaine, and a loaded 9mm handgun. The estimated street value of the drugs was between $29,000 and $54,500. In the room at the residence was a scale, cell phones and cash totaling $8,060. The defendant was 21 years old at the time of the offences, and at the time of sentence he was 24 years old and had no prior criminal record. He was not a drug user. He traveled to Thunder Bay to commit the offences, for reasons not known to the court. The court referred to the problem of offenders coming to Thunder Bay and committing similar offences, where there are vulnerable Indigenous people. The handgun was a tool of the trade of drug trafficking. He helped his grandmother a great deal and had supportive letters from family members. He was enrolled in a college program for a future career and appeared to have good rehabilitative prospects, particularly as a young person. The Crown sought a five year sentence less presentence custody credit. The defence sought a sentence of three and a half to four years less credit for restrictive bail conditions. The court considered R. v. Nur and R. v. Mohiadin, 2021 ONCA 122, which quoted from Nur. In reasons that were not very extensive, the court imposed a global sentence of four and a half years less Downes credit for a restrictive bail. The defendant was clearly very young, and the court finds that there are notable distinguishing factors in that case related to the offender, as compared to the case at bar.

In R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344, Doherty J.A. wrote the judgment for the court. The court considered two sentences imposed by two different judges for this accused. At one point he entered a guilty plea to two charges of possession of a sawed-off semiautomatic shotgun and possession and unsafe storage of the ammunition that could not be used in the shotgun. He was under a weapons prohibition order at the time. The court carefully reviewed the concept of Duncan credit. The court has carefully reviewed this case and not found it to be of great assistance to this case, other than for its general principles and for the enhanced presentence custody credit consideration.

This court has also carefully considered the judgment of R. v. Stephens, 2024 ONCA 793, although it is not summarizing it at this point.

In R. v. Stewart, 2024 ONSC 281, the court considered a case where the defendant had entered a guilty plea to possession of fentanyl and a loaded prohibited handgun, and the defendant was a young black man. An enhanced presentence report was prepared. No portion of this case was highlighted, but the court has considered the case and the comments in it.

In R. v. Thompson, 2025 ONSC 2768, the court considered a sentence where there had been a guilty plea to trafficking in cocaine, three transactions of 2.1 grams, 5.81 grams and 2.53 grams, possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine and possession of a loaded restricted firearm. A search of the bedroom of his residence led to the discovery of 124.76 grams of cocaine, 27.1 grams of MDMA, 122.89 grams of phenacetin, which is a cutting agent, $700 in cash, and a Glock 27 .40 calibre semiautomatic handgun with eight rounds in the magazine and one round in the chamber. There was also a detachable box cartridge magazine loaded with 14 rounds of .40 calibre ammunition, 63 rounds of ammunition of various calibres, including .40 calibre ammunition, and three functioning digital scales. At the time of the offences, the offender was 21 years of age and 24 years of age at the time of sentence. He had no prior criminal record and a promising future as a young person in basketball, but he had encountered challenges and difficulties in the school system. He explained that he had the firearm for protection in the drug trade. His personal circumstances, which included favourable circumstances, were outlined in detail and considered by the court in the reasons. The Crown sought a five year sentence for totality, and the defence sought two years less a day on a conditional sentence. The court specifically noted the Court of Appeal has recognized “denunciation and deterrence assume places of prominence in determining a fit sentence for crimes involving firearms, especially loaded semiautomatic firearms in the possession of drug traffickers”: R. v. Mohammed, 2017 ONCA 691, at para. 6. He had genuine remorse and had made strides towards his rehabilitation. He had spent almost a year on restrictive bail. The court was of the view that the shortest possible sentence that could achieve denunciation and deterrence was one of 30 months’ jail less presentence custody credit in that case.

The court also considered the more dated Court of Appeal case in R. v. Wong, 2012 ONCA 767. This court would note that sentence ranges have evolved in a significant way in the last 13 years, and as a result, this case is of less assistance to the court.

The court has carefully reviewed R. v. Banks, a 2025 judgment referred to by the defence. The court is of the view that this sentence by a trial judge is not in keeping with the proper range of sentence for this type of offence, particularly given the quantity of cocaine, the 98 percent purity of the cocaine, the $30,000 of monies that were seized. The court finds that the sentence imposed in that case is not one which this court will or should follow. It is simply not in keeping with the law, particularly at the appellate level.

The court agrees, considering all of the circumstances, that the firearm was in a car, that there was the extensive amount of ammunition in the magazine and the spent cartridge in the vehicle, that a sentence of four years would have been appropriate for this offence, consecutive. However, the court is mindful of the principle of totality, together with restraint for the first penitentiary sentence and the other mitigating factors in this case.

This was, for Mr. Sacchetti, a first conviction for a firearm or weapons offence. Accordingly, the court finds that a reduced sentence of three years’ incarceration is appropriate, to be consecutive to possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine. As noted earlier, the court is going to be deducting enhanced presentence custody credit from part of the sentence in this case.

Sentence - breach of s. 109 weapons prohibition order:

As it relates to the sentence for breach of the s. 109 prohibition order, the court considers the following: In addition to the cases noted above, which are considered, the Crown has submitted that a sentence of one year consecutive is appropriate, and the defence has submitted that a sentence of six months’ consecutive is appropriate.

While the Court of Appeal for Ontario held in R. v. McCue, 2012 ONCA 773, that a sentence for a weapons prohibition breach can be consecutive or an aggravating circumstance, where there is also a possession of a firearm charge, that principle subsequently evolved. In R. v. Johnson, 2013 ONCA 177 and R. v. Chambers, 2013 ONCA 680 and R. v. Claros, 2019 ONCA 626, the court held that sentences for weapons prohibition breaches should be consecutive. Where consecutive sentences are imposed, however, the court must be mindful of the principle of totality, either by reducing individual sentences for each of the consecutive components of sentence for the offences, or by reducing a total global sentence based upon that principle.

In R. v. Sitladeen, 2024 ONSC 4244, the court stated that the sentence range for weapons prohibition breaches ranges from six months to two years consecutive.

In all the circumstances, including consideration for totality and restraint for the first sentence in the penitentiary, for this to be a consecutive sentence to the other sentences, the court finds that the appropriate sentence in this case for this offence is one of one year consecutive, in light of the range which has emerged from the case law, and also taking into account totality and the factors in mitigation.

The court would note that applying these three sentences together, this would give rise to a sentence of 10 years’ incarceration, less presentence custody credit. The court has within its consideration of the various components to the sentence considered all of the sentencing principles noted above, including mitigation for the guilty plea on the first day of the preliminary hearing the aggravating factors of the additional drugs possessed, the substantial amount of proceeds of crime of $2,910 and $7,180, the type of trafficker that Mr. Sacchetti was, not being a low-level trafficker but being a mid- level trafficker, also considering that he possessed a portion of the drugs for his own use, that the firearm was in a vehicle, and the spent casing in the vehicle, together with the extended handgun magazine capable of holding up to 31 rounds of ammunition, together with there being 142 rounds of ammunition, are all considered with respect to this matter. As indicated earlier, the court considered the principle of totality, given the various offences and the sentence for each of them, in coming to the individual sentences.

Consideration of enhanced presentence custody credit:

In this regard, Mr. Sacchetti has served a period of actual days of presentence custody credit from arrest on August 18th, 2024, continuously through to today, November 7th, 2025, of 447 days.

Summers credit, at one and a half days credit for each of those days, would result in an enhanced credit of 671 days.

The defence seeks further enhanced presentence custody credit arising from the evidence of the harsh conditions of presentence custody as set out in all the materials before the court, and as well, the testimony of Mr. Sacchetti in court earlier today. There is a contradiction in the evidence before the court as to the number of lockdown days, whether full or partial. The records kept by Mr. Sacchetti reflect a higher number of those days over the period of time in which he kept those records. He did not start his records until he had been in custody for several months. And then, for the last several months, the court was advised that his records were seized when the Toronto South Detention Centre went through various cells a number of weeks ago, seizing items that were in the cells.

The Court of Appeal in Marshall has suggested an approach to this crediting process to move away from a technical minute mathematical calculation. The court has considered that very carefully. However, although the court has done that in many other cases before the court, in a case such as this one, where there are consecutive sentences, it makes it very challenging to apply the type of principled approach that Justice Doherty suggested, where the court has three separate consecutive sentences, such as what is before the court now, and considers them specifically for enhanced presentence custody credit. Accordingly, the court is not going to follow, in this one case, the approach suggested by Justice Doherty, which this court greatly respects.

In this case, the Crown and defence have agreed upon Mr. Sacchetti’s records being a representative sample of the rate of having lockdown days. In that regard, the parties have agreed that he has served a total of partial or full lockdown days of 205 days that he was in custody. The court accepts the position of counsel on that.

As it relates to enhanced presentence custody credit for the lockdown days, the court is going to credit 0.5 days, in addition to the Summers credit, for those days in which there are partial or full lockdown days. This would result in a further 103 days of enhanced presentence custody credit. The court does disagree with the defence submission that a further 0.5 days credit should be given for days which are not lockdown days.

Mr. Sacchetti was triple bunked, with there being three inmates in his cell, from April 22nd, 2025, to July 22nd, 2025, for a total of 18 days. Then, from August 23rd, 2025, to September 1 of 2025, he was triple bunked in the cell for 10 days. This totals 28 days. And there have been no days of triple bunking since September 1 of 2025. In total then, he was subject to triple bunking for 28 days.

As it relates to the triple bunking, it is the view of this court, given the evidence in this case, that it is particularly egregious. As the court notes, the cells were made for two inmates. Having one additional inmate added to cells, lying on the floor or on a mattress on the floor next to the toilet, is egregious, not only for that third inmate on the floor, but the other two inmates who may try to negotiate or have to use the toilet in the cell. Accordingly, although not submitted by counsel, the court is going to give a further 28 full days enhanced presentence custody credit for each day of triple bunking. The corrections officials need to have a sufficient number of cells to properly house detainees and inmates.

This would result in Summers credit of 671 days, a further enhanced presentence custody credit of 103 days for lockdowns, and a further 28 days, full days, for triple bunking. This results in a total enhanced presentence custody credit of 802 days.

The court is going to deduct that from the sentence it would otherwise impose on the possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine of six years. Six years - and the parties can let me know if my math is wrong - is 2,190 days. The court subtracts from that the enhanced presentence custody credit of 802 days, and this would result in a sentence of 1,388 days jail. This is roughly equivalent to a sentence of three years, which is 1,095 days, and 293 days, or three years and just under 10 months in jail. That is reduced from the six year sentence that he otherwise would have been given.

The sentence for possession of the firearm will remain at three years’ incarceration, to be consecutive, which is 1,095 days.

The sentence for the breach of the weapons prohibition order of one year incarceration, consecutive, is a further 365 days.

This would result in a total sentence of 1,388 days, plus 1,095 days, plus 365 days, which gives rise to a total of 2,848 days.

This is a total sentence of approximately seven years, which is 2,555 days, and 293 days, or seven years and just under 10 months.

There will also be ancillary orders.

There will be a s. 109 weapons prohibition order for life.

There will be an order that a DNA sample be taken from the accused for each offence before the court, all of which are secondary designated offences.

There is also going to be an order of forfeiture, which the court will address in a moment.

The court is also going to make a recommendation that Mr. Sacchetti receive any counseling for drug dependency as may be deemed appropriate.

Now, on the prohibition order, is what I’ve been handed, Mr. Forte, which is the draft prohibition order, the subject of agreement of the Crown and defence?

M. FORTE: It is.

THE COURT: All right. Accordingly, given that the parties have agreed with respect to what should be forfeited to the Crown and what should be returned to the accused, the court will agree to that and sign the order.

Accordingly, the following items, which are under category B, are offence-related property which are subject to forfeiture pursuant to s. 490.1(1), and they include the following: The Glock .22 firearm, one round of 9mm ammunition, the over-capacity magazine, nine rounds of ammunition in the magazine, 10 rounds of .40 calibre ammunition, the grey reusable bag, the Ziploc bag, 1273.38 grams of oxycodone and 118.76 grams of heroin. That is together with $910 in Canadian currency, 0.55 grams of cocaine, 0.61 grams of oxycodone, and the cell phone, which is particularized by a property tag number. That is together with two rounds of .40 calibre ammunition, three rounds of 9mm ammunition, drug packaging, scales, spoons, scales, boxes, safe, gun kit, Allen key, box cutters, plastic boxes, brown paper bag, pliers, vacuum seal bags, two Google phones, 94 vape pens, ammunition box and bags, 76 rounds of 9mm ammunition, and 41 rounds of .22 ammunition.

In addition to that, the items listed under C, which I’m about to read out, are to be returned to the lawful owner, and that includes $2,000 of the Canadian currency seized from Mr. Sacchetti, which is the lawful property of Veronica Adams. Earlier the court was advised that is with respect to money which this person, Veronica Adams, is owed, but nonetheless, is generally what would have been considered proceeds of crime. The Crown is simply giving up its right to having forfeiture of that money.

Under C2, are items either unlawfully in the possession of Mr. Sacchetti - under C2 there are no categories.

Property listed in A, B and C2 are to be forfeited to Her Majesty the Queen, as indicated, but most specifically, the following is to be returned to Mr. Sacchetti: Samsung S9 phone, five watches, gold bracelet, Gucci bag, keys, Good Life bag, black T-shirt, and tire wrench. That property was lawfully possessed by Mr. Sacchetti, and it is property that is also jointly owned by Mr. Sacchetti’s wife, Monica Sacchetti.

What about the other funds?

Y. BRAR: That’s under C1, I believe, Your Honour.

THE COURT: Sorry?

Y. BRAR: The funds that are going to the other person.

THE COURT: That’s the 2,000. What about the other money?

Y. BRAR: The other money’s listed under the forfeited items.

THE COURT: $7,000? Where is that listed?

Y. BRAR: It should be there.

THE COURT: The only money I see listed here is the $2,000 that the Crown has agreed go to this lady.

Y. BRAR: I’m sorry, Your Honour, I’m just going to pull it up.

THE COURT: I’m waiving the victim fine surcharge.

Y. BRAR: Oh, sorry, the second quantity of money seems to have been cut off, so I’ll just send Your Honour a new copy, but it’s the nine - the one - item number 10 under B, it says $910 in Canadian currency. And then I’ll just get the other [indiscernible].

THE COURT: I’m asking you about the $7,180.

Y. BRAR: Yes, Your Honour, it should be the last item on the – oh, it should be the last item, but I think it got cut off by the box. I’ll just fix it. Sorry. Thank you for catching that.

And Mr. Sacchetti’s passport is also being returned to him. I just realized I didn’t include that because it wasn’t listed under - THE COURT: Why don’t I give this -

Y. BRAR: - property.

THE COURT: - back to you, because I want to make sure that he’s able to get everything -

Y. BRAR: Yes, I agree.

THE COURT: - and it’s properly being listed.

Does anyone have any concern with my math? I’m open to that. It’s fairly late in the day, and I’ve been working on this for a significant period of time, and I had to rush at the end with the math. So, if I’ve made a mathematical error, please let me know. I do need to sign the committal warrant, Mr. Forte, before he goes, so that’s why I want to make sure there’s no mistake.

It’s possession for the purpose of trafficking, also the s. 95 possession of prohibited weapon can be the subject and should be the subject of the s. 109 weapons prohibition for life.

Madam Crown, in terms of the 109 weapons prohibition order -

Y. BRAR: Yes, Your Honour.

THE COURT: - are you submitting that it should also be imposed for life in relation to the breach of the prohibition order section? I’m trying to find that in the section, and I can’t get my hands on it.

Y. BRAR: Yes, Your Honour. I’ll give you the section of the Code. It’s s. 109(3).

THE COURT: No, I know it’s for life, but I’m saying can it be - or should it be imposed for the offence of breaching the prohibition order?

Y. BRAR: Oh, for the breaching -

THE COURT: Right. I don’t -

Y. BRAR: - offence as well?

THE COURT: - see that listed.

Y. BRAR: Yes, that would be s. 109(1)(d), “An offence that involves a firearm,” et cetera, et cetera, “and” -

THE COURT: I know. That’s the offence of possession, right?

Y. BRAR: No, it says, “And they were prohibited by an order made under the Act in (d)”.

THE COURT: All right. You’re right. Okay, so it’s all three, yeah. Did you have any comment on that, Mr. Forte?

M. FORTE: No, Your Honour.

THE COURT: Okay. Thanks.

So, are you printing out that forfeiture order on the clerk’s computer, or what are you doing?

Y. BRAR: Yes, I’m going to send it to Madam Clerk in a moment.

THE COURT: Okay.

Y. BRAR: I’ve sent Madam Clerk the amended draft forfeiture order, which should now have everything that’s mentioned in the ASF included. I added Mr. Sacchetti’s passport to the items being returned to him and just the other drugs and bullets and the quantity of cash to the items being forfeited.

THE COURT: I haven’t gone back and done the math. I think you said 2,000 as compared to 2,910; I just saw that again. 2,910 was -

Y. BRAR: Yes.

THE COURT: So, there’d be the 910 plus the 7,000 figure; is that what you have?

Y. BRAR: Yes. The 910 was already listed, Your Honour; it was the 7,000 -

THE COURT: Oh, just that one.

Y. BRAR: - that was missing because it was the items that weren’t on -

THE COURT: Okay.

Y. BRAR: - the exhibit list we were using, so I just fixed them.

THE COURT: Fine. Thank you. After you print that, can you show it to Mr. Forte to see if he’s in agreement with it?

M. FORTE: I know there’s items missing that are seized evidence. They’re not in the ASF, Your Honour. They’re part of the seized items. I don’t know what’s going to happen to them, sunglasses and trinkets and such, if they’re going to be destroyed or not, but certainly, that’s not an exhaustive list of all the property in the possession of the police.

THE COURT: Well, if you need another order, if you - if there are other items that your client or his family want, I’m not here on Monday, but I could deal with it on Wednesday. I would consider I still have jurisdiction then, but don’t ask me six months from now because I can’t stretch it that far.

Y. BRAR: If his family goes to ask for his belongings from the police, usually the police will contact the Crown to ask if those items were contemplated in court.

So, I just want to be very clear for the record the - any sunglasses, trinkets or other gold jewellery, they’re vaguely mentioned in the list of items, but anything like that we would be saying should be returned to Mr. Sacchetti’s family.

M. FORTE: I would just suggest, for what it’s worth - and I apologize to Mr. Sacchetti and his family; I haven’t been much assistance to them, obviously; the sentence imposed is exactly what the Crown was seeking, despite two days of submissions - but I would suggest, on this very minor point, that we would just say “anything not included in property to be forfeited should be returned to Mr. Sacchetti”. Various clothing.

As Your Honour said, the car was lived in. There’s dozens of items that I’m not going to sift through, it should just go back to his family -

THE COURT: All right. Do you want to just –

M. FORTE: - in my submission.

THE COURT: I’ll ask the clerk to pass you the order and then the two of you, three of you, can just say what you want to put there.

M. FORTE: That would -

Y. BRAR: Yeah.

M. FORTE: - be my submission. Anything not included to be forfeited explicitly should be returned to Mr. Sacchetti’s family. His wife specifically is the person -

THE COURT: Right, I don’t want them going down to the property office and being told they have to go away and come back. So, let’s try to do it the way you’ve suggested it so it’s just one trip.

M. FORTE: Right. Which is why I think it should read “all of the property should be returned to his family”.

Y. BRAR: I’ve just added to the end of the list, “And any other personal items seized and any other property in the vehicle.”

M. FORTE: Thank you.

THE COURT: So, you just hand wrote it? I’ll initial it -

Y. BRAR: Yes.

THE COURT: - if that’s what you want to do, and we’ll copy it for everybody, rather than having make her print it again.

M. FORTE: Thank you.

THE COURT: So, if you could copy this then for the Crown and defence.

Now, I know they have to take him for the DNA, Mr. Forte, but I know that you may well want to see him for a few minutes. Do you want to see him -

M. FORTE: No need to see him.

THE COURT: - on the way out?

M. FORTE: Thank you, Your Honour. I’ll see him at the jail.

THE COURT: Okay.

M. FORTE: Thank you.

THE COURT: Thank you, Madam Clerk.

CLERK OF THE COURT: Sorry, Your Honour, are the other charges withdrawn?

Y. BRAR: Yes, all remaining counts on all existing Informations are withdrawn.

THE COURT: Thank you for reminding us, Madam Clerk.

All right, all remaining counts before this court are to be marked withdrawn on the Informations before the court.

You can be excused if you wish. I’m going to be here for a little while with the clerk.

M. FORTE: If I may be excused, Your Honour?

THE COURT: Yes.

M. FORTE: Thank you.

Y. BRAR: Your Honour, if my colleague and I could also be excused?

THE COURT: Yes, absolutely.

Y. BRAR: Thank you. Have a lovely weekend.

THE COURT: Thank you. You too.

Y. BRAR: Good luck, Mr. Sacchetti.

Certification

FORM 3

ELECTRONIC CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPT (SUBSECTION 5(2))

Evidence Act

I, Susan Murphy, certify that this document is a true and accurate transcript of the recording of R. v. Giovanni Sacchetti, in the Ontario Court of Justice, held at 10 Armoury Street, Toronto, Ontario, taken from recording 4810_703_20251107_093303 6_BROWNBE.dcr, which has been certified in Form 1.

December 22, 2025

(Date) (Signature of Authorized Person)

Susan Murphy

ACT ID: 3874324289

A certificate in Form 3 is admissible in evidence and is proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the transcript is a transcript of the recording of evidence and proceedings in the proceeding that is identified in the certificate.

R. v. Sacchetti, 2025 ONCJ 696

Case Summary

APPEARANCES:

THE FACTS:

A. Circumstances of the offence:

B. Circumstances of the offender:

LEGAL PARAMETERS

POSITIONS OF CROWN AND DEFENCE ON SENTENCE:

MITIGATING AND AGGRAVATING FACTORS:

Analysis:

Nature of offence:

Consecutive versus concurrent sentences:

Sentence for possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine in the 978.96 gram range (which is just under 1000 grams or just under one kilo of cocaine):

Sentence - possession of a loaded restricted firearm, a handgun;

Sentence - breach of s. 109 weapons prohibition order:

Consideration of enhanced presentence custody credit:

Evidence Act

R. v. Sacchetti, 2025 ONCJ 696

Case Summary

APPEARANCES:

THE FACTS:

A. Circumstances of the offence:

B. Circumstances of the offender:

LEGAL PARAMETERS

POSITIONS OF CROWN AND DEFENCE ON SENTENCE:

MITIGATING AND AGGRAVATING FACTORS:

Analysis:

Nature of offence:

Consecutive versus concurrent sentences:

Sentence for possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine in the 978.96 gram range (which is just under 1000 grams or just under one kilo of cocaine):

Sentence - possession of a loaded restricted firearm, a handgun;

Sentence - breach of s. 109 weapons prohibition order:

Consideration of enhanced presentence custody credit:

Evidence Act