ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE No.: Toronto Information No. 4810 998 24 48108314 Information No. 4810 998 24 48132470 Information No. 4810 998 25 50000773 Information No. 4810 998 25 50005298
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
LLOYD WILLIAMS
Before Justice André Chamberlain
Heard on September 26 and November 27, 2025
Reasons for Sentence read on December 18, 2025
released on January 23, 2026
Anna Martin Counsel for the Crown
Herman Jackson Counsel for the accused Lloyd Williams
Chamberlain J.:
1Having initially elected a trial before a judge and jury in the Superior Court of Justice, Lloyd Williams re-elected on September 26, 2025, to be tried before me on a global resolution of all his charges before the Court. He has been found guilty of the following:
(1) From March 3, 2024:
(a) Possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking: 5(2) Controlled Drug and Substances Act (CDSA).
(b) Possession of proceeds of crime over $5,000: 354(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.
(2) From October 25, 2024:
(a) Possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking: 5(2) CDSA.
(b) Possession of Proceeds of Crime under $5,000: 354(1)(a).
(3) From January 4, 2025:
(a) Possession of Cocaine for the purpose of trafficking: 5(2) CDSA.
(b) Possession of Proceeds under $5,000: 354(1)(a).
(4) From February 15, 2025:
(a) Fail to comply with release order: 145
2The findings of fact revealed the following: The neighbourhood surrounding the Toronto intersection at Dundas and Sherborne has been deeply troubled for many years. The population of this neighbourhood is significantly overrepresented by many marginalized communities, and because of poverty, a lack of resources and community supports, as well as the often criminal and antisocial behaviour that frequently accompanies such struggling neighbourhoods, this community has faced many challenges. These ongoing challenges include overrepresentation in poverty, substance use and addiction issues, mental health challenges, significant populations who are unhoused and hungry, and overrepresentation in the criminal justice system as victims and perpetrators of crime. There has also been a significant overrepresentation of people with significant health challenges, including overdoses and deaths.
3As often happens in these vulnerable communities, people seeking to take advantage of the vulnerable swoop in and drive many of the criminal problems, including drug trafficking, which enables property crimes to feed drug addictions and the resulting violence that too often accompanies these activities. As a result, a significant police presence is a feature of activities in that area.
4On March 3, 2024, officers from the 51 Division Major Crime Unit were conducting surveillance at Sam’s Food Store at 256 Sherbourne Street using a closed-circuit television camera. They observed several hand-to-hand transactions between individuals that appeared to involve drugs. At 9:57 p.m., officers arrested Lloyd Williams and, during a search incident to arrest, found 32.43 grams of crack cocaine in four separate packages, 43 hydromorphone pills, and $5,198 in proceeds.
5Mr. Williams was released on bail on March 15, with conditions that included house arrest. On October 25, 2024, officers on bicycles observed Mr. Williams in the community and, knowing he was under house arrest, arrested him for breaching his release order. As part of the search incident to arrest, they found two packages of crack cocaine totalling 114.63 grams and $2,162.00 in proceeds.
6Once again, Mr. Williams was granted bail, subject to the condition that he be fitted with a GPS tracking device through Recovery Science and that he not attend Sam's Food Store at 256 Sherbourne Street. On January 4, 2025, Recovery Science reported that his GPS tracking device placed him near 256 Sherbourne Street. He was arrested once again, and upon arrest, a digital scale, 24.11 grams of crack cocaine, 20.33 grams of powder cocaine, and $465 in proceeds were found on him.
7He was again released following his arrest, this time with a residential surety, with the condition that he be fitted with a GPS tracking device provided by Recovery Science. On February 15, he argued with his surety, removed the GPS device, and left the home. Attempts to contact or locate him were unsuccessful, and a warrant was issued for his arrest. He was arrested on May 14, 2025, and has been in custody since then.
The Position of the Parties
8The Crown argues that a total sentence of 6 ½ years is appropriate. They would break it down as follows:
(1) The March 3, 2024, offences, 1 year for the possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine and 8 months concurrent on the proceeds.
(2) The October 25, 2024, offences, 3 ½ years on the possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine, consecutive, and 8 months concurrent on the proceeds.
(3) The January 4, 2025, 18 months on the possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine, consecutive, 6 months concurrent on the proceeds.
(4) On the failure to comply with the release order, 6 months concurrent.
9Defence argues for a total sentence of two years less pre-trial custody, allocated as follows:
(1) The March 3, 2024, offences, four months on the drug charges and 4 months concurrent on the proceeds.
(2) The October 25, 2024, offences, one year two months on the drug charges, consecutive, and 2 months concurrent on the proceeds.
(3) The January 4, 2025, 6 months on the drug charges, consecutive, 60 days concurrent on the proceeds.
(4) On the failure to comply with the release order, he requests a concurrent sentence, given the circumstances of the breach, namely that he was attempting to arrange medical care.
Lloyd William’s Background
10Lloyd Williams is 44 years old and identifies as Mi’kmaq and Black. He traces his Black heritage to his mother, who may have been Jamaican. He traces his Indigenous background to his father, but supporting agencies have not been able to confirm that connection. He lived in Nova Scotia as a child and moved to the Jane and Finch neighbourhood as a youth. He lived with his father for about a year and a half, but his father struggled with alcohol and drug use. He spent some time in care as a youth.
11I accept that Loydd Williams is Indigenous. Mr. Williams has a support letter from Native Child and Family Services, which cites his past involvement in their concurrent disorders case-management program, which serves individuals struggling with addictions and mental health concerns.
12He also has significant health concerns, having been diagnosed with epilepsy at age 8. His family reported that he was having seizures as early as 3 years of age. He continues to struggle with seizures and reports that his seizures and current medication regimen have not been managed appropriately while in custody. He's asked repeatedly that his medications be adjusted, given the success he's had in the past with other medications. These requests have been ignored. As a result, he's been hospitalized numerous times. He's been trying to schedule an MRI to address some serious headaches, which give him a great deal of concern, and he's complained that he's not been able to get any assistance in doing this. Numerous remands have been marked for medical attention but have been ignored by the institution.
13I am mindful of the precedent set by this court, noting the lack of appropriate medical care provided to the accused persons in the custody of provincial institutions, which have a fiduciary duty to provide care to inmates who lack the freedom to make their own choices about medical treatment. This ongoing substandard care of individuals continues to be a stain on the provincial institutions responsible for treating inmates, at a minimum, in a humane and dignified manner.
14Lloyd Williams has nine children in total: two stepchildren and seven biological. The youngest is just 10 months old, and the others range in age from 22 months to 3 years, including 9-year-old twins, two 10-year-olds, and a 16-year-old. One of his 9-year-olds is on the autism spectrum. He states that he provides support as a father to his children and that any lengthy absence would have a significant impact on their health and well-being.
15Lloyd Williams has had limited education and did not complete high school, though he maintains he is usually gainfully employed. He's worked in construction, waste management, and other manual labour or handyman roles. He often signs up with agencies that provide access to more casual labour, though he notes he hasn’t been able to work since March 2024 due to various charges and house arrest requirements. He also participated in some very limited programming they provide in the institutions, which in this case was a financial literacy program in June 2025.
16As of November 27, 2025, he had spent 300 real days in pre-trial custody; 93 of those days were in lockdown, either partial or full, and 21 times during that period, he was triple-bunked in his cell, meaning that a cell designed for two inmates with two beds is used to have a third inmate housed who sleeps on a mattress on the floor. He has since served an additional 20 days of pre-trial custody. I'm prepared to consider and apply the fact that, in essence, at least a third of his time has been under some form of lockdown, and that some of those days would have been made more difficult by his triple bunking. I should note that 5 days of pre-trial custody are not available in this calculation, as he was serving a sentence on other charges at the time.
17Lloyd Williams admits he struggles with substance use and that he is addicted to the very kinds of drugs which he sells.
18Lloyd Williams has a lengthy and related criminal record that includes significant entries for violence, which are troubling and deeply concerning to the court. His early youth entries from 1994 to 1999 include violence and drug entries, though they are admittedly diminished in impact by their dated nature. Since 2001, he has amassed close to 40 separate entries, many with multiple charges, and many related drug charges for trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking. It is also worth noting that in 2021 and 2024, he was convicted of serious domestic assault charges.
The Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances
19The aggravating circumstances include:
(1) The significant weights of the drugs involved were 32 grams of crack cocaine in March 2024, 114 grams of crack cocaine in October 2024, and finally, 24 grams of crack cocaine and 20 grams of powder cocaine in January 2025.
(2) Lloyd Williams targets a neighbourhood filled with vulnerable people already struggling with poverty, addiction and mental health issues, who too often find themselves in compromising positions, putting their health and well-being at risk in an attempt to obtain the means to feed their addictions.
(3) He is clearly profiting from his dealings in drugs: the proceeds from the three incidents over ten months total more than $7,800.
(4) Mr. Williams has a lengthy and related criminal record with few gaps. He has shown no indication of changing his criminal behaviour.
(5) That he committed many of these offences while on bail for similar offences is deeply troubling and suggests little motivation to change that behaviour.
20There are also many significant mitigating circumstances to consider:
(1) Lloyd Williams has entered guilty pleas, suggesting he is taking responsibility and demonstrating remorse for his actions.
(2) These pleas save the time and resources that would have been required to run up to five separate trials, three of which could have been before a judge and jury. These are important considerations in Mr. Williams’ favour.
(3) Some of these later offences involve early pleas, though admittedly, the older offences, given the re-election, cannot be considered particularly early.
(4) Lloyd Williams’s tragic childhood and history, living with a parent who was struggling with alcohol and drug addiction, and having spent some time in care.
(5) Mr. Williams’ long-time struggle with epilepsy since childhood has affected him significantly and has been aggravated by his time in custody.
(6) Lloyd Williams’ Indigenous ancestry is a significant mitigating factor.
(7) I note that Mr. Williams has nine children, whom he continues to support and remains involved in their lives. The impact on his children should he be incarcerated for a further period needs to be considered.
The Law
21The Crown relies on a series of cases, some of which essentially challenge an accused person’s reliance on the Gladue principles for lack of an established and confirmed connection to a specific Indigenous community. I am satisfied that Lloyd Williams has established a connection to Indigenous ancestry, despite Aboriginal Legal Services' refusal to assist Mr. Williams because they were unable to confirm his Indigenous ancestry. They state at page two of their letter of refusal, filed as exhibit 2 at this sentencing hearing:
This letter should not be read in any way as stating that Mr. Williams is not an Indigenous person; we are not in a position to draw such a conclusion. Neither should this letter be read as stating that there may not be relevant Gladue issues at play in this case. The fact that we are not able to prepare a Gladue Report for Mr. Williams does not mean that there are no Gladue-related issues that counsel may wish to raise with the Court.
22It is not unusual for Indigenous people who have struggled under the yoke of colonialism in this country and its intergenerational impact to have lost connections to their roots and community. For years, we were taught to be ashamed of Indigenous culture and practices. Many people have lost touch with their roots and ties to the community. Mr. Williams has a support letter from Native Child and Family Services, which cites his past involvement in their concurrent disorders case-management program. This program serves individuals struggling with addictions and mental health concerns.
23I do not have evidence of the criteria used by Native Child and Family Services, as a service provider, for screening, if any, of a client’s indigeneity. So, despite the lack of a confirming connection to the Mi’kmaq community, I view his connection to Native Child and Family Services as indicative of his connection to Indigenous heritage.
24Further, markers of the effects of intergenerational trauma, including poverty, familial addiction, struggles with education and mental health, and over-representation within the criminal justice and child welfare system, are often present when Indigenous identity is confirmed. Whether my assessment of his connection to the Indigenous Community is correct, he deserves consideration for the reduced moral blameworthiness associated with these challenges.
25The unfortunate consequence of the disconnection between the person before the court and their Indigenous heritage means that there will be limited to no history of the specific "background factors which may have played a part in bringing the particular Aboriginal offender before the courts,” other than the loss of heritage and connections because of colonial practices. R. v. Gladue, 1999 679 (SCC), [1999] 1 SCR 688, at para. 93(6)(A).
26I would also briefly comment on the recent spate of news stories about the “pretendian” crisis facing our community. For years, many Canadian non-indigenous people shamed and devalued Indigenous people and culture. We now find that significant parts of the community have come to appreciate the teachings and gifts that Indigenous people bring on many fronts. In many circles, our language, culture and traditions have been embraced, and places that used to exclude us because we were “Indians” now make space and encourage Indigenous participation and engagement.
27But lately, many people whom the Indigenous community embraced as indigenous have been proven to have little or no real biological connection to Indigenous communities or Peoples. Whether through fraud or misinformation about their background and a reckless disregard for thoroughly researching their ancestry, they have worked to establish themselves as Indigenous people and have been embraced by artistic communities, academic institutions, and many employers, whether in the private or public sector. As we find ourselves being much more critical of those who displace Indigenous people from lucrative and prominent positions in society, I think it is important to distinguish that there is no advantage to being an Indigenous person appearing in the criminal justice system.
28The Gladue Court in Toronto has become very busy, and we are stretched for resources and have very long sitting days. We know that some who appear before us may have questionable connections to Indigenous communities. Where that is plainly obvious, it should be challenged. But we must also give the benefit of the doubt to individuals who honestly believe and provide a credible basis for that belief, usually through their counsel, who should be satisfied that they have a reasonable basis for believing their client is in the right court.
29The backlash against the actors who benefit from prominent positions and lucrative situations is real, and it is a critical discussion that must be had. Courtrooms in this very large urban centre, where so many of the people who come before us are disenfranchised in so many ways, in a country where generations of Indigenous children were removed from their families and communities, either through the residential school system, the Sixties Scoop, or the current crisis of the over-representation of Indigenous children in the child welfare system, are not the place to resolve this issue of identity fraud.
30But the burden on the courts to address sentencing for Indigenous people cannot be set aside because people appearing before the court cannot establish a confirmed Indigenous connection. If they honestly believe they have a credible connection to Indigenous heritage, then the Court must address the impact on the individual before the court as best it can, as the Supreme Court stated at paragraph 92 of the Gladue Decision:
Section 718.2(e) requires the sentencing judge to explore reasonable alternatives to incarceration in the case of all aboriginal offenders. Obviously, if an aboriginal community has a program or tradition of alternative sanctions, and support and supervision are available to the offender, it may be easier to find and impose an alternative sentence. However, even if community support is not available, every effort should be made in appropriate circumstances to find a sensitive and helpful alternative. For all purposes, the term “community” must be defined broadly so as to include any network of support and interaction that might be available in an urban centre. At the same time, the residence of the aboriginal offender in an urban centre that lacks any network of support does not relieve the sentencing judge of the obligation to try to find an alternative to imprisonment. (Emphasis added)
31I agree we need to be better at ensuring the few resources we have are made available to the Indigenous people who need them. But we can’t do so at the cost of excluding those who might have been alienated from their culture and communities by ongoing colonial practices.
32With respect to the sentencing principles, the Crown relies on a series of cases that suggest the weight of the Schedule 1 substance, in this case cocaine, and the repeated breaches involving further ounce-level amounts while on release for the initial arrest on these drug charges, cry out for a 6 ½-year sentence, even in consideration of Lloyd Williams’ mitigating personal background. Given his record of similar and related offences and his consistent involvement with the criminal justice system, with very few, if any, significant gaps during his adult life, the Crown argues that the sentence is warranted and justified.
33Mr. Williams’ counsel argues that, in addition to the significant mitigating health and personal circumstances, there are two legal considerations that should mitigate his sentence, bringing it down to an upper reformatory range, namely, the impact and harm a lengthy prison sentence will have on his family, and secondly, that Mr. Williams is addicted to the very drugs he sells, and as an addict-trafficker, he is entitled to significant mitigation.
34Mitigation for addict traffickers applies to cases where addicts agree to purchase a small amount of a street drug from their dealer on behalf of someone unknown to the dealer. They usually ask for the money up front, get a good deal from their dealer, and then chip off a portion of the drugs they have purchased for their own personal use, as a means of feeding their addiction. It is widely recognized that addict traffickers are not making a financial profit from their activities. It is a subsistence level of the drug trade that functions to supply both the purchaser, often an undercover officer in cases before the court, and the addict trafficker with a small amount of the drug they are addicted to. It is a means of feeding their addiction. They are not in it for financial profit.
35This is not the case with respect to Lloyd Williams. I do not deny that he is addicted to cocaine and likely other substances as well. However, the amounts of drugs he had in his possession on each of the three occasions he was arrested were substantial. In March 2024, it was just over 1 ounce; in October 2024, over 4 ounces; and in January 2024, close to 2 ounces. These amounts make him a mid-level trafficker. The proceeds seized from him over those three events, totalling over $7,800, strongly suggest that this endeavour is for profit. Lloyd Williams is not trafficking small amounts of cocaine simply to feed his addiction.
36You can be an addict, and you can be a trafficker. Still, when the enterprise involves a mid-level dealer, notwithstanding his addiction, who is making a significant profit from his criminal enterprise, you do not get the benefit of being considered an addict-trafficker as a mitigating factor.
37With respect to the position that I should consider the impact of further incarceration on his family, I agree I should consider the facts before me in consideration of any sentence I might impose. Lloyd Williams’ counsel cites R. v. Habib, 2024 ONCA 830, at paragraphs 42, 43 and 45:
42As recognized in R. v. Spencer (2004), 2004 5550 (ON CA), 72 O.R. (3d) 47 (C.A.), at para. 46, leave to appeal refused, [2005] S.C.C.A. No. 4, it is an unfortunate reality that sentencing defendants to prison often harms their families. Family members are deprived of the defendant’s love and care and suffer the emotional pain of separation. They must often assume the added burdens of the breadwinning and caregiving responsibilities that the defendant formerly performed. Further, they may suffer financial hardship, educational deprivation, and even the loss of the family residence. See R. v. Nikkanen (1999), 1999 7339 (ON CA), 140 C.C.C. (3d) 423 (Ont. C.A.), at paras. 14-15, leave to appeal refused, [1999] S.C.C.A. No. 624; R. c. G.G., 2023 QCCA 305, 87 C.R. (7th) 383, at paras. 24, 33, 37 and 53. As well, being unable to care and provide for their families increases the severity of incarceration for defendants. See R. v. Collins, 2011 ONCA 182, 104 O.R. (3d) 241, at para. 41.
43The courts have been careful not to let these consequences overwhelm the other principles of sentencing. See R. v. Dent, 2023 ONCA 460, 167 O.R. (3d) 161, at para. 124. As emphasized in Spencer, these consequences are not an excuse to overlook the harm that the defendant’s criminal conduct caused victims of crime, or the importance of protecting those victims and society, or the need for denunciation and deterrence. See at paras. 46-47. Likewise, family separation may have a reduced impact on the sentence if its effects on defendants and their families are less strong. See R. v. L.C., 2022 ONCA 863, 421 C.C.C. (3d) 227, at paras. 21 and 25; Dent, at para. 125. Further, these consequences cannot justify imposing a disproportionate sentence. See L.C., at para. 24. Thus, this court has sometimes imposed or affirmed significant prison sentences to respect the other principles of sentencing even after accounting for family separation consequences, as in Spencer, L.C., and Dent.
45Thus, depending on the facts, family separation consequences may justify a sentence adjustment – even a significant one – or a departure from the range. See L.C., at para. 21; Collins, at paras. 39-43; and R. v. Forsythe, [1976] O.J. No. 1026 (C.A.), at paras. 5-6. This is true even for grave offences that require deterrence and denunciation, as in Spencer, where the court considered that the defendant had “much to offer her children” in setting the sentence.[5] See at paras. 48-49; see also R. v. Wellington (1999), 1999 3054 (ON CA), 43 O.R. (3d) 534 (C.A.), at pp. 538-540; Collins, at paras. 41-42. Failure to consider these consequences is an error in principle that usually impacts the sentence and justifies appellate intervention. See R. v. Simoes, 2014 ONCA 144, at para. 14; Nguyen, at para. 6.
38If the argument, even in part, surrounds the provision of financial support, the position of a reduction in sentence because of the consequences imposed on the family by the incarceration cannot be mitigated if even part of that financial support involves benefitting from the proceeds of crime.
39However, I note that with nine children, some still infants and toddlers, and one needing additional support because he is on the spectrum for autism, there may be consideration for some reduction in sentence. However, I note that no evidence suggests the type of support he provides, beyond financial support, which I have already ruled cannot be factored in, given how Lloyd Williams was gaining his money.
40I accept that some of his children are infants or toddlers, and that any assistance must benefit the mother who cares for them. However, I note that Lloyd Williams has already jeopardized his ability to be with his children and provide support by his repeated re-offending while on bail and strict house arrest conditions, and finally by his house arrest with a surety.
41Finally, I note that in 2021 and 2024, he was convicted of serious domestic assault charges, including assault by choking. His troubled past relationship, which led to domestic assaults, suggests a diminished value in the support he provides to his children and family. Those charges are not before me, and I am not punishing him further for those offences. I simply note that I can give less consideration to his claim that his children and their mother will suffer familial harm from his incarceration, given his past and these criminal acts.
42Lloyd Williams is entitled to mitigation, to a greater or lesser extent, for these and the other mitigating circumstances. However, the seriousness of these offences and the blatant disregard for release orders, as evidenced by repeatedly engaging in the same drug-trafficking behaviour as a mid-level trafficker and by taking advantage of vulnerable populations, cannot be mitigated to the point of making the sentence unfit.
43We cannot get away from the fact that these were serious trafficking offences. They demand a proportionate response.
Analysis
44I recognize and acknowledge the significant mitigating factors that have strained Lloyd Williams' life and, by their very nature, reduced his moral culpability. Growing up with parents who lacked the necessary supports and appeared to struggle, so they were unable to parent him as he needed, led to some time in care. Being hampered by a significant medical condition, such as epilepsy, has presented its own challenges as well, which continue to plague him.
45These challenges have led him to develop addictions to cocaine and perhaps other substances. I recognized these as challenges that have made life as an adult difficult for him as well. However, the mitigation is limited, as it does not reach the significant levels required to be considered an “addict trafficker” in the classic sense.
46I also recognize that his further incarceration will have a negative impact on his family. I have already dismissed the financial impact on his family because the Court cannot condone the notion that the loss of proceeds from a drug trafficking enterprise can be considered mitigating.
47I do, however, understand that the loss of any personal support he may have provided to the women with whom he is parenting will be difficult for those families. But I cannot discount what, at a minimum, is a fit sentence in these circumstances, to a time-served sentence, because of this unfortunate impact on the family.
48I also recognize his plea and his decision to forgo his right to a trial on these matters as significantly mitigating, and he receives credit for that.
49However, I cannot discount that, although he has his own vulnerabilities, his mid-level drug dealing preyed on an already very vulnerable population. He was moving weighty amounts of drugs and making substantial profits. The sentence I impose must reflect that reality and the harm he is causing in that community.
50His total sentence will be as follows: (the application of the enhanced credit for time served will be noted below)
(1) The March 3, 2024, offences, 1 year on the possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and 8 months concurrent on the proceeds.
(2) The October 25, 2024, offences, 2 years on the possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, consecutive to the other possession for the purpose, and 6 months concurrent on the proceeds.
(3) The January 4, 2025, 15 months on the possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, consecutive to the other possession for the purpose counts, 3 months concurrent on the proceeds.
(4) On the failure to comply with the release order, 3 months consecutive.
Lloyd Williams will be sentenced to a total of 4 ½ years, with time served credited.
51The time served will be calculated as follows:
(1) Lloyd Williams has spent 320 actual days in pre-trial custody.
(2) He is entitled to pre-trial credit of 1.5 days per day spent in custody, totalling 480 days.
(3) For the total and partial lockdown days, the days he was triple bunked, the lack of proper medical treatment as needed, and his incarceration in these substandard conditions, he will be granted an additional 180 days of pre-trial credit.
(4) Lloyd Williams’ total pre-trial credit will be 660 days, or 22 months.
52Having been sentenced to 4 ½ years (54 months), less 22 months of pre-trial custody, he will serve an additional 2 years and 8 months (32 months).
53There will also be a section 109 order prohibiting his possession of weapons for life. The requested forfeiture order is granted.
Released: January 23, 2026
Signed: Justice André Chamberlain