ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE No.: Toronto 4810 998 24 48132324 4810 998 24 48132325
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
YATHUNANTHEN SATHIYAKANTHAN
Before Justice Hafeez S. Amarshi
Oral judgment: February 27, 2026
Written reasons for sentence released on: March 2, 2026
Counsel: J. Porter, counsel for the Crown Y. Obouhov, counsel for Yathunanthen Sathiyakanthan
H.S. Amarshi J.:
A. Introduction
1Yathunanthen Sathiyakanthan smuggled a package of contraband, worth tens of thousands of dollars, into the Toronto South Detention Centre. He was employed as a correctional officer at the time. A second package containing drugs and weapons was further located in his vehicle along with a large amount of cash.
2He pled guilty to breach of trust by a public officer, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, in this case multiple ceramic blades, and possession of oxycodone and hydromorphone for the purposes of trafficking.1
3The Crown proceeded by indictment.
4The plea proceeded by way of an agreed statement of facts, which was filed as an exhibit at the sentencing hearing. In addition, a pre-sentence report was prepared and filed, as were seven-character reference letters from family, friends, and a former employer. A defence book of authorities and a Crown sentencing chart were also provided.
5The Crown is seeking a three-year period of custody, citing as paramount sentencing principles in this case the need to emphasize denunciation and general deterrence.
6The defence seeks a conditional sentence order, arguing that Mr. Sathiyakanthan's prospects for rehabilitation are excellent, and that the principles of proportionality and restraint — together with the impact of his incarceration on his pregnant wife and their expected child — support a sentence served in the community.
B. Circumstances of the Offence
7Mr. Sathiyakanthan began working as a correctional officer at the Toronto South Detention Centre (TSDC) in June 2023. He resigned in October 2024 following his arrest.
8On October 18, 2024, Mr. Sathiyakanthan was assigned to Unit A2A at the institution. During his morning break, he drove his personal vehicle — a 2020 Audi — to a nearby by Cineplex Cinemas parking lot, where an unidentified woman entered his vehicle, handed him two packages, and left.
Package #1 — Delivery into the Institution and Search
9The offender concealed one package in his correctional jacket and brought it back into TSDC. He placed it in the video booth for Unit A2A and left the area. Inmate Konstantine Merianos retrieved the package from the video booth. Mr. Merianos was incarcerated at the time for human trafficking related offences. He shared his cell with Kai Wilson, who was incarcerated on firearm and drug charges.
10The shared cell was subsequently searched. A cell phone, Mr. Merianos was trying to conceal was located in his shorts. He further surrendered a sock containing 53.84 grams of marijuana, tobacco, and a lighter. Officers further found a USB cable and 26.82 grams of marijuana on the cell floor.
11Mr. Wilson denied having contraband, but a sock fell from his boxers containing 42.07 grams of shatter, 6.37 grams of hashish, 33.21 grams of MDMA, tobacco, and a mini cell phone.
12Mr. Sathiyakanthan admits all these items came from the package he brought into institution and left in the video booth. He was paid $5,000 to bring in the contraband.
Institutional street value
13According to the agreed statement of facts marijuana sells at ten times the street value in jail ($50–$100 per half gram, $100–$250 per gram), making the 80.66 grams of marijuana seized worth between $8,000–$20,000. MDMA sells at $800–$1,000 per gram in jail and was worth between $26,400–$33,000. Shatter, which contains a high concentration of THC, and is a more potent form of marijuana sells at $200–$400 a gram and is worth between $8,400–$16,800. The total value of the drugs alone in package #1 ranged between $42,800–$69,800.
Items found on Officer Sathiyakanthan
14The officer’s correctional jacket was searched, and it contained his personal cell phone and a brand-new cell phone charger still in its wrapper. On his person an iPhone, and an Audi key fob was located. Staff are prohibited from having any communication devices inside the secure area of the jail.
Items found in the Audi
15Police searched his vehicle and found his driver's licence, bank cards, vehicle ownership documents, and a receipt dated September 28, 2024, for a $2,000 cash deposit into a BMO account with a balance of $17,443.24. They also found $15,000 in Canadian currency in the glove box and $272 USD in a wallet. Mr. Sathiyakanthan admits this cash was payment for bringing contraband into the TSDC.
Package #2 — Found in the trunk
16A second package was located in the trunk of Mr. Sathiyakanthan’s vehicle. It contained 3 ceramic blades (4", 4.5", and 6" in length), 28.32 grams of oxycodone pills, 2.18 grams of hydromorphone pills, 109.14 grams of marijuana, tobacco, 2 mini cell phones, 2 charging cables, 3 lighters, and rolling papers. The marijuana had a jail value between $10,900–$27,250. The offender admits he was also given this package to bring into the detention centre in exchange for a cash payment.
Prior smuggling activity
17Mr. Sathiyakanthan further admits he had brought packages into TSDC for inmates on at least three prior occasions.
C. Circumstances of the Offender
18I have the benefit of a comprehensive pre-sentence report (PSR) which detailed much about Mr. Sathiyakanthan’s background. The report was supplemented by submissions from Mr. Obouhov. The offender is 30 years old. He resides just outside of Toronto with his wife and her family.
19Mr. Sathiyakanthan’s family fled Sri Lanka for India to escape that country’s civil war. The offender was born in Sri Lanka. His father immigrated to Canada in 1996 followed by his mother five years later. His two younger siblings were born in Canada.
20In the report Mr. Sathiyakanthan describes his childhood in Sri Lanka as difficult in the absence of a father figure.
21He had a stable upbringing in Canada. His parents encouraged participation in soccer, cricket, and Indian classical music. He describes a close and warm relationship with his parents and siblings.
22His father worked at a furniture factory and more recently as a contractor and ride-share driver. His mother worked part-time work.
23Upon review of the report, I have concluded that Mr. Sathiyakanthan has a tight-knit and supportive family. He was recently married in 2024. His spouse described being "upset and surprised" by his actions. She is currently supporting the family’s finances. She is pregnant with the couple’s first child.
24Mr. Sathiyakanthan generally earned good grades in high school and was active in extracurricular activities. He has a bachelor’s degree criminology and psychology and a Police Foundations diploma. He previously applied to become a police officer but was unsuccessful.
25Since his arrest the offender has been enrolled in a skilled trades college, studying to be a HVAC technician. He is currently unemployed. He has no history of abusing alcohol or drugs.
26Multiple members of Mr. Sathiyakanthan’s family were interviewed by the PSR writer, and they described him in consistently positive terms. The offender described himself as "dependable, passionate, reliable, empathetic, and trustworthy." He volunteers at a local farmer’s market and is engaged with his local temple and derives a spiritual benefit.
27When asked to explain his actions that brought him to court, he described his conduct as "impulsive and stupid" and said he was not thinking of the long-term effects. He acknowledges his actions were "morally wrong."
28Following his arrest, Mr. Sathiyakanthan acknowledged he was experiencing mental health difficulties and expressed a desire to engage in counselling.
29Mr. Sathiyakanthan has no criminal record. This is his first encounter with the criminal justice system.
D. Character References
30Seven-character reference letters were filed with this Court. They come from his wife, father, brother, mother-in-law, two close friends, and a former employer.
31Several themes emerge consistently across all seven letters. Mr. Sathiyakanthan is variously described as reliable, honest, and deeply committed to the people around him. The letters were thoughtful, and candid. I accept the letter writers understand the gravity of these offences and continue to support this offender and would assist in his rehabilitation.
32His wife's letter is particularly note-worthy. Pryanga Sathiyakanthan acknowledges the seriousness of the charges but described his conduct as entirely out of character. She believes he has genuinely learned from this experience. She notes that he has been volunteering in the community and is actively looking for more ways to contribute.
E. Sentencing Principles
33Section 718 of the Criminal Code instructs the goal of any criminal sentence is to “protect society, contribute to respect for the law and help maintain a just, peaceful, and safe society."
34Sentencing judges attempt to achieve this goal by imposing just sanctions that address one or more of the traditional sentencing principles that are also contained in the Criminal Code. These include denunciation, general and specific deterrence, rehabilitation, making reparation to victims of crime, and promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders and an acknowledgment of the harm they have caused the community, and specific victims in our community.2
35A fundamental principle of sentencing is that the sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. This is achieved by identifying and considering the aggravating and mitigating factors and circumstances of the offence and the offender bearing in mind the established principles of sentencing including those set out in section 718.2 of the Code.
36In addition, the Court must always be mindful of the principle of restraint.3 The impact on any victim must also be considered. It is in this context and in considering these principles, goals, objectives and factors, that the Court determines a fit sentence that will best achieve the sentencing objectives and is similar to sentences imposed in similar cases.4
37I further note that sentencing is a highly individualized process. It is driven by the facts of every offence and the unique characteristics of every offender. Sentencing principles must be applied to the unique circumstances of the case. This means that, for the sentence I impose to be appropriate, it must be tailored to Mr. Sathiyakanthan’s circumstances, and the circumstances of the offence he has committed.
F. Relevant caselaw
38Both the Crown and defence referenced multiple cases in support of their respective positions. Of note, the parties agree they have collectively identified all of the relevant Canada-wide jurisprudence in this area, which numbers about a dozen cases. Although I have reviewed all of the cases, I will only refer to a few:
39R. v. Taylor, 2013 NLCA 42 – the Newfoundland Court of Appeal determined that the appropriate range for correctional officers smuggling drugs into institutions is between 2.5 to 5 years. The Court emphasized as a significant aggravating factor the breach of trust. In Taylor, the corrections officer purchased contraband, specifically — 3 ecstasy pills, under 100 grams of marijuana, 31 oxycodone pills, 38 morphine pills, and 5 clonazepam pills — intending to bring them into the jail for an inmate. The drugs were found in his vehicle. The trial court imposed 16 months’ jail. The Court of Appeal ultimately upheld the custodial term, while noting that a fit sentence in the circumstances would have been 36 months jail.
40R. v. Moore, 2009 BCSC 1926, upheld 2011 BCCA 36, (British Columbia) – a correctional officer at the North Fraser Regional Corrections Centre smuggled 98 grams of marijuana plus 14 joints, 196 ecstasy pills, 16.05 grams of steroids, and 211 grams of tobacco into the jail and passed them to an inmate. The total drug value was $20,628 and he was paid $3,000 for the delivery. He had no criminal record and was convicted after trial. He was relatively young and had worked as a corrections officer for 7 years. The court found his actions involved considerable thought, discussion, foresight, and planning, that he had numerous opportunities to reflect and make different choices, and that there was no element of duress. He was sentenced to 4 years. The British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld the sentence in a brief endorsement.
41R. v. Gaber, 2016 YKSC 50, (Yukon) – a correctional guard attempted to bring 59 Ritalin pills into the Whitehorse Correctional Centre. He was paid a few hundred dollars each time and had been doing it for a year before being arrested. He was 48 years old, had worked as a guard for 5 years, had a wife and two daughters, no criminal record, and was convicted after trial. He lost his job, had to declare bankruptcy, and suffered from anxiety and depression. The court found he was motivated by financial gain, that the offence was planned and deliberate, and that the breach of trust was aggravating, but also that he was at low risk to reoffend and a good candidate for rehabilitation. He received 2 years for possession for the purpose of trafficking Ritalin.
42R. v. Bell, 2005 ONCJ 438, (Ontario) – a correctional officer at the Don Jail was found to have 285 grams of marijuana, 112 grams of hashish, 3.23 grams of cocaine, and straight razors. He was convicted of attempted breach of trust and possession for the purpose of trafficking after trial. He had no criminal record and had worked as a guard for 15 years. He lost his job. He was sentenced to 36 months. The court stated that a fit sentence ranged from 3 to 4 years.
43The defence submitted cases in the reformatory range and one case, where a conditional sentence was imposed:
44R. v. Bertoli, 2013 ONCJ 763, (Ontario), – a correctional officer at the Toronto West Detention Centre was arrested while bringing 149 grams of marijuana, 750 mL of alcohol, and 5 oxycodone pills into the jail. He was paid $700. He had no criminal record and entered an early guilty plea. He was 34 years old and expressed remorse. Further he attempted to extricate himself from the situation. Mr. Bertoli completed over 1,000 hours of community service and lost his job. The defence filed 29 letters of support. The court imposed an 18-month sentence emphasizing the need for denunciation and deterrence.
45R. v. Voykin, 1996 19980 (Alberta) – a correctional employee brought 14 grams of marijuana into a jail. She had no criminal record and pled guilty. She received 6 months jail plus 2 years probation.
46R. v. Spence, 2014 SKQB 171 (Saskatchewan) – an Aboriginal Liaison Officer at the Saskatchewan Penitentiary was befriended by an inmate who initially said he would protect her from other inmates, then later said she would be harmed if she didn't bring in drugs for him. She made 3–4 deliveries and was paid at least $1,050 total. When stopped in her vehicle, police found a package containing 10 grams of cocaine and 19 grams of marijuana; a second package concealed in her vagina contained 37 grams of marijuana. She was 26 years old, had no criminal record and pled guilty. There were a number of mitigating circumstances that the court considered including the fact the offender may have been acting under duress. Further she was suffering from depression at the time. Despite these factors, the court rejected a conditional sentence order, imposing a period of imprisonment for 18 months and held that a jail sentence was required to denounce bringing drugs into a penal institution and to deter others.
47R. v. Johnstone, 2014 ABQB 647, (Alberta), a 21-year-old correctional officer at the Edmonton Remand Centre pled guilty to trafficking marijuana, hashish, and cocaine into the institution on two occasions after an inmate with Hells Angels connections threatened him and his mother. The court accepted Mr. Johnstone, received no compensation and found an element of duress, which was corroborated by intercepted text messages. Accordingly, the Court found his moral blameworthiness to have been attenuated and imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day.
G. Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances
48The Criminal Code mandates consideration of all relevant aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
49I find the following aggravating factors:
(i) The breach of trust is profound. Mr. Sathiyakanthan exploited his position of authority as a corrections officer and the access it afforded him to do the very thing he was duty-bound to prevent.
(ii) This was not an isolated incident. The offender admits that he had brought packages into the TSDC for inmates on at least three prior occasions. His actions involve a repeated and premeditated course of criminal conduct.
(iii) The nature and quantity of the contraband was serious. The total jail house value of the drugs across both packages was in the range of $53,700 to $97,050. It exceeds the value in almost every case I reviewed.
(iv) Package # 2 located in the offender’s vehicle contained ceramic blades. This is very serious and represented the potential for grave harm to both inmates and corrections staff. Although it did not comprise the agreed statements of facts so I will not overemphasize this point, the fact that blades were ceramic was likely designed to evade the TSDC’s metal detection systems. Further, the two individuals, who were the recipients of the package were dangerous inmates facing serious criminal charges including firearm and drug charges. They actively attempted to conceal the contraband.
(v) Mr. Sathiyakanthan was motivated by financial gain. He was paid $5,000 for the October 18, 2024, delivery. Police found $15,000 in cash in his glove box and a recent $2,000 cash deposit into his bank account. He acknowledges receiving this cash as payment for bringing contraband into the TSDC.
50In mitigation:
(i) Mr. Sathiyakanthan is a first-time offender. He has no prior criminal record.
(ii) He entered a relatively early guilty plea in this matter. The matter was previously adjourned for a pre-sentence report to be prepared. By pleading guilty he has saved court resources in a busy jurisdiction. Further, once his conduct came to light, he was cooperative and forthcoming with the police investigation.
(iii) I accept he is remorseful and deeply regrets his actions. The report outlines consistent expressions of remorse. When addressing this Court, the offender acknowledged his actions destroyed everything he had built and that he has a strong desire to become a better person. I deemed his comments to be genuine.
(iv) Mr. Sathiyakanthan is young, and I find there are prospects for rehabilitation. He holds a bachelor’s degree and is pursuing HVAC certification. He has been volunteering and actively seeking employment. I find there is a low risk of reoffence, although it is clear that Mr. Sathiyakanthan would not be permitted to work in a correctional institution.
(v) There are collateral consequences. He has lost his employment, which was to be excepted, and there are financial challenges. His wife is the sole earner in the family.
H. A conditional sentence is not appropriate
51Mr. Obouhov submits that a community-based sentence order is appropriate in this case. The offences before this Court do not carry a mandatory minimum and a conditional sentence is available if I deem a sentence of less than two years is warranted.
52However, the availability of a conditional sentence does not end the inquiry. Section 742.1 also requires that the court be satisfied that serving the sentence in the community would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in ss. 718 to 718.2.
53The defence cites R. v. Johnstone, 2014 ABQB 647, as having persuasive value. Johnstone stands as the only reported case involving a correctional officer smuggling drugs into a custodial facility where a conditional sentence was imposed. However, the circumstances in Johnstone were fundamentally different from those before this Court as Mr. Obouhov conceded. The offender had been threatened by an inmate and his vehicle vandalized on multiple occasions. The Court found that Mr. Johnstone received no compensation, and it was this combination of duress and the absence of financial motivation that led Justice Ouellette to conclude the offender’s moral blameworthiness was sufficiently limited to justify reducing what would have been a four-year sentence to two years less a day, served conditionally.
54None of those circumstances exist here. Mr. Sathiyakanthan was neither threatened nor coerced. He was paid more than $5,000. He made at least three prior deliveries before his arrest. His conduct was sustained, deliberate, and financially motivated. It clearly involved an element of planning.
55The defence further cites R. v. Hamilton, 2003 2862 (ON SC), [2003] O.J. No. 532, although the facts are distinguishable, counsel cites the principles as relevant. Hamilton was not a case involving a correctional officer, but two women who pleaded guilty to importing cocaine as couriers. The sentencing judge heard extensive evidence about the social context of drug importation and systemic and background factors affecting the offenders. Expert evidence was called. The conditional sentences imposed by Justice Hill were grounded in highly specific factual findings in that case— including the offenders’ poverty, histories of abuse, systemic disadvantage as black women and the conscripted nature of their involvement in drug smuggling.
56Mr. Sathiyakanthan is in very different circumstances. He was in a position of privilege and trust and had agency these women lacked.
57The principles from Hamilton regarding proportionality and individualized sentencing are relevant. When this analysis is applied to Mr. Sathiyakanthan, the result does not favour a conditional sentence. There are no exceptional circumstances that exist beyond rehabilitative efforts that would justify a departure from the sentencing range outlined in the cases I have reviewed. Neither would a conditional sentence adequately denounce the gravity of Mr. Sathiyakanthan’s conduct, nor deter others in positions of trust tempted by monetary gain to facilitate drug trafficking in our custodial institutions.
58As I have noted, a conditional sentence would only be a consideration if a reformatory term was imposed, which I have determined is not appropriate.
I. Determination of a fit sentence
59I have concluded a penitentiary sentence is warranted in these circumstances. Mr. Sathiyakanthan’s actions were extremely serious. There is a well-established nexus between drug trafficking and violence. That combination is particularly combustible in a closed facility. The introduction of illicit narcotics at the TSDC in significant quantities, as was the case here, fuels the potential for violence, disorder and intimidation. The inmate population is vulnerable by the circumstances of their incarceration. This offender directly contributed to a dangerous environment for everyone inside the institution. Mr. Sathiyakanthan had unique access at the TSDC. He was entrusted with the keeping the facility safe and secure for inmates and staff, he did precisely the opposite.
60Further aggravating were the contents of the second package in his vehicle which included more drugs and ceramic blades.
61The breach of trust is profound in this case and is a statutory aggravating factor under s. 718.2(a)(iii) of the Criminal Code.
62The weight of the jurisprudence is clear, that the paramount sentencing principles to be emphasised in these circumstances is denunciation and general deterrence. Given the potential monetary incentives, a clear message is required that correctional officers involved in the smuggling of contraband items will face serious sanctions and jail is warranted except in the most exceptional circumstances.
63I recognize the mitigating circumstances in this case. Mr. Sathiyakanthan is relatively young. He is remorseful and has strong family support. The prospects for rehabilitation are promising, and the risk of recidivism is low.
64I further recognize that he is an expectant father, who will miss the birth of his child and the precious start of his child’s life. It is a weighty consideration; however, I am cautious not to unduly prioritize rehabilitation over the primary sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence.
65The moral blameworthiness in these circumstances is high as is the need for general deterrence. Mr. Sathiyakanthan was motivated by greed, his conduct recurrent.
66That said, the mitigating factors in this case, which I deem significant, have reduced what would otherwise be a more substantial sentence.
J. Conclusion
67I am imposing a 26-month sentence in this case:
Count 1 — Breach of Trust by Public Officer (s. 122 CC): 26 months’ imprisonment.
Count 2 — Possession for the Purposes of Trafficking (s. 5(2) CDSA): 26 months’ imprisonment, concurrent to count 1.
Count 3 — Possession of Offensive Weapons (s. 88(1)(2) CC): 26 months’ imprisonment, concurrent to counts 1 and 2.
68Upon his release from custody, Mr. Sathiyakanthan will be bound by a probation order for a term of 18 months with the following conditions:
Keep the peace and be of good behaviour; he is to appear before the court when required; notify the court or probation officer of any change in name, address, or employment.
Report to a probation officer in person within 72 hours of his release from custody. Thereafter at all times as directed by the probation officer;
No contact with Seda Hasan, Kai Wilson, or Konstantine Merianos;
No weapons as defined by the Criminal Code, except for the purposes of employment;
Take counselling as directed by a probation officer for mental health concerns and provide related supports. Sign any releases to enable the probation office to monitor enrollment, attendance and completion of those programs;
69In addition, there will be a s. 109 order for 10 years. DNA sampling is ordered as a primary designated offence for possession of oxycodone for the purposes of trafficking.
70Pursuant to s. 743.21 of the Criminal Code, Mr. Sathiyakanthan shall have no contact with Seda Hasan, Kai Wilson, or Konstantine Merianos.
71Pursuant to s. 462.37(1) of the Criminal Code, I order the forfeiture of the following property seized in connection with the offences: $15,000 Canadian currency and $272 United States currency found in Mr. Sathiyakanthan's vehicle on October 18, 2024. I am satisfied that this property is the proceeds of crime and that the offences were committed in relation to that property.
72Pursuant to s. 462.37(3) of the Criminal Code, as the funds derived from Mr. Sathiyakanthan's prior deliveries of contraband into the Toronto South Detention Centre on at least three occasions preceding the offence date cannot be made subject to a forfeiture order, I impose a fine in lieu of forfeiture in the amount of $5,000. In default of payment within 24 months of the date of his statutory release, Mr. Sathiyakanthan shall serve 30 days imprisonment, consecutive to any other sentence imposed.
73I want to thank both counsel for their fulsome and thoughtful submissions in this matter.
H.S. Amarshi J.
Footnotes
- Contrary to ss.122 and 88 of the Criminal Code and s.5 (2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
- Section 718 (a) to (f) of the Criminal Code.
- Section 718.2 (c) to (e) of the Criminal Code.
- Sentencing principles as summarized by Justice Paciocco, as he then was, in R. v. Casselman, [2014] ONCJ 198 at para. 3.