ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
MELISSA CARLE
Before Justice J.R. Richardson
Heard on August 20, 2024; May 6, 2026
Reasons for Judgment released on June 16, 2026
Timothy McCann Counsel for the Crown
Michelle O’Doherty Counsel for the Accused
Introduction
1This case is about the appropriate sentence for a female found in possession of, among other things, 28 grams (about one ounce) of fentanyl and almost $5000 in proceeds of crime.
Facts
2On August 24, 2024, Ms Carle pleaded guilty to one count of Trafficking in Fentanyl and one count of Possession of Proceeds of Crime.
3On June 6, 2024, OPP was dispatched to a call for service involving a disturbance with several parties in the City of Pembroke. The Street Crime Unit observed Ms Carle sitting on a bench surrounded by a number of known drug users. She was counting money.
4She then pulled an orange knife from her purse and cut a substance. She surreptitiously passed the substance to one of the persons near her.
5At this point, the police arrested her. Search incident to arrest revealed 28 grams of fentanyl which was in small baggies, 1.5 grams of cocaine, 1 gram of methamphetamine, 7 methamphetamine pills, $95.00 in loose money, $4890 in bundled money, dime bags, the aforementioned orange knife and a cell phone. There were two different colours of fentanyl.
6I made a finding of guilt and on consent, I released the accused on bail to seek treatment in Ottawa.
Ms Carle’s Progress on Bail
7As indicated, when I took her plea, I released Ms Carle with the consent of the Crown. She was required to go to the Elizabeth Fry Society Supervised Bail Housing Program in Ottawa (Lotus House) and report to the bail supervision program. The order included a condition for GPS monitoring.
8I adjourned the matter from time to time to permit Ms Carle to continue to engage in treatment and programming with the intention that this would work in mitigation of her sentence.
9In January 2025, I was advised by her former counsel that she was doing well.
10On April 1, 2025, I was advised that Ms Carle was discharged from Lotus House. I set June 5, 2025 for argument on sentence.
11On April 3, 2025, I ordered that Ms Carle appear before me on April 4, 2025 to deal with the issue of bail as she had been discharged from Lotus House. I was advised that she was going to attend the relapse prevention program.
12On April 4, 2025, Ms Carle appeared before me and she was trying to arrange a new surety. Her counsel suggested that she appear April 15. I advised that she needed supervision and she needed a new address with electronic monitoring, failing which she should go back into custody. I stood the matter down.
13When we resumed, Ms Carle’s former counsel proposed an address on Somerset Street in Ottawa with GPS monitoring. I agreed with the proposal and varied the Order accordingly.
14I adjourned the matter to the same June 5, 2025 date that I had originally set on April 1 with the intention of proceeding with argument on sentence.
15On June 5, 2025, Crown counsel appeared before me and advised me that he was assisting Mr. Gilbert who was not available to appear before me and would be seeking an adjournment. The Crown indicated that he was not opposed to the adjournment as long as there was a waiver of section 11(b) of the Charter. I inquired as to what the reason for the adjournment was. I was advised that there was a disagreement between Ms Carle’s counsel and Ms Carle and he needed to be able to consult with her before he was able to make submissions
16I adjourned the matter to July 21, 2025 at 1:30. I issued a warrant (with discretion) for Ms Carle. I indicated that the sentencing would proceed peremptory.
17On July 21, 2025 I adjourned the matter to July 31, 2025.
18On July 31, 2025, Ms Carle was present. In advance of appearing, her prior counsel filed an Application to be Removed as Counsel of Record on the basis that there was a breakdown in solicitor-client confidence that became apparent when he met with her on July 16, 2025. From the nature of her former counsel’s submissions, it was clear that their relationship had become quite strained and she “required fresh counsel who could probably advance her interests and carry out her instructions going forward.”
19I agreed to the application to remove her former counsel and ordered the matter adjourned to August 8, 2025 to set a new date for sentencing. I also varied her bail order to permit her to reside at a new residence in the same area where she was living. Her former counsel also sought a variation to remove the house arrest condition. I indicated that I would not agree to that and reminded counsel that when I heard the bail issue in April, I was very close to ordering her to go into custody and nothing less than a GPS monitoring condition with house arrest would do.
20I agreed with the Crown’s submissions that the plea went in almost a year ago and the matter had gone on too long.
21Unfortunately, a lengthy Legal Aid process for change of solicitor then kicked in.
22On August 8, September 26, October 15, and October 31, the matter was addressed. Each time, the Court was advised that Ms Carle had done everything that she had to do in order to facilitate change of counsel.
23On November 14, 2025, I was advised that Ms Carle was still waiting for the change of solicitor process. I advised that I was adjourning the matter to January 26, 2026 to proceed with or without counsel.
24On January 26, 2026, Ms Carle did not appear. I issued a warrant for her arrest at 10:15 (court begins in Pembroke at 9:30).
25Later that afternoon, Ms Carle attended by telephone. She stated that she was on Somerset Street in Ottawa. She stated that she could not get a bus to appear in Pembroke. She then asked her boyfriend to speak on her behalf. He advised that the delay was not Ms Carle’s fault and the problem was with Legal Aid. He advised that Legal Aid had indicated that a new lawyer would be named that week. He complained that Ms Carle’s lawyer had dump-trucked her.
26The phone was then passed to someone named “Alex” who identified himself as a caseworker. He indicated that they had been trying to get through for hours and hours, which could not have been possible. He complained that there was black ice in Ottawa. He requested that she appear the following week.
27At this juncture, I asked for someone from the local Legal Aid Office to appear. Legal aid did not answer the phone when called. I asked my clerk to go to their office, which was in the Courthouse, and to ask someone to appear. Ms Boisvert dialled in and checked the notes on the file. Ms Boisvert indicated that Ms Carle had a Legal Aid certificate and her prior counsel had submitted his final bill. Ms Boisvert advised that Ms Carle applied for change of solicitor in August 2025. Ms Boisvert explained that when this happens, the prior solicitor must reply within six weeks. Legal Aid was still waiting for counsel to reply. Ms Boisvert indicated that she would speak to one of her superiors to try to expedite the process by bringing “pressure” on her prior counsel.
28I rescinded the warrant and adjourned the matter to February 3, 2026 for an update on progress with Legal Aid. I ordered Ms Carle to appear in person.
29On February 3, 2026, Crown counsel appeared before me and advised that he had been advised by Legal Aid that a new certificate was issued January 26 (the same day as the previous court appearance) and was sent to Ms Carle on January 29.
30Ms Carle was not on time for her appearance on February 3, 2026. She finally appeared just before noon. She advised that she was in the process of retaining current defence counsel, who could not be present. I adjourned the matter to February 11, 2026.
31On February 11, 2026, current defence counsel appeared on behalf of Ms Carle and advised that she had most of the disclosure. She also had a counsel pre-trial with Crown Counsel. She had to have a meeting with Ms Carle to obtain instructions. The matter was adjourned to March 25, 2026 for sentencing.
32On March 25, 2026, defence counsel advised that Ms Carle was in custody in Ottawa on a new charge. The matter was adjourned to March 31. On March 31, 2026, I adjourned the matter to May 6 for sentencing.
33This record reveals that apart from living at Lotus House between August 20, 2024 and approximately April 1, 2025, Ms Carle did not do anything to advance the cause of her treatment while she was on bail.
34Defence counsel did not advance an argument that pursuant to R. v. Downes, Ms Carle should receive some credit for onerous bail conditions.
35I find that Ms Carle is entitled to approximately two months credit for onerous bail conditions.
36After that she did nothing to re-engage in treatment.
37I accept that the delay between August 2025, when she first contacted Legal Aid to request a change of solicitor, and February 2026, when current defence counsel came on board, was not Ms Carle’s doing in the sense that she was held hostage by the Legal Aid process that requires defence counsel input prior to issuing a new certificate.
38However, she still did not engage in treatment, she was frequently late and she failed to abide by orders to appear in person. I am not prepared to give any credit for this period.
The Criminal Record
39Ms Carle has a criminal record beginning in 2014 and ending in 2020. The record consists of:
a) two convictions for simple possession of a controlled substance;
b) two convictions for fraud under $5000;
c) eleven convictions for theft under $5000;
d) three convictions for Failing to Comply with a Probation Order;
e) two convictions for Failing to Appear;
f) one conviction for Breach of a Release Order.
The Letter of Support
40Ms Carle’s sister, TS, wrote a letter of support for her. She indicated that:
a) Ms Carle’s brother passed away from a heart attack in 2012. Ms Carle did not deal with the grief of his passing. Ms Carle started to turn to drugs shortly thereafter. I note that Ms Carle’s first conviction (for possession of a controlled substance) took place in 2014 which supports TS’s observations;
b) Ms Carle had a stroke while in custody in late April or early May 2026;
c) TS is willing to support Ms Carle receiving help for her addictions in Pembroke;
d) Ms Carle’s son has ADHD;
e) Ms Carle’s son is living with her parents in Pembroke.
The Section 21 Report
41Dr. Julian Gojer, a forensic psychiatrist with the Royal Ottawa Hospital completed a section 21 report in relation to Ms Carle which is dated April 24, 2025. It reveals as follows:
a) Ms Carle’s father is 71 and her mother is 69.
b) She was very close to her brother who died prematurely at the age of 35 after a heart attack. She still grieves her brother’s death.
c) At the time, she reported that she was not close to her sister. That has now evidently changed.
d) Ms Carle’s mother has a history of anxiety and depression, which included an admission to Pembroke Hospital.
e) Ms Carle reported having a learning disability. She managed to complete her high school education.
f) Ms Carle reported being bullied as a child.
g) Ms Carle worked doing babysitting, cleaning a house and cooking in a fast food restaurant. She last worked 13 years before the report was completed.
h) She has been on ODSP for a lengthy period of time. She reported that she went on ODSP after having a “nervous breakdown”.
i) Ms Carle got married when she was 24 years of age.
j) Ms Carle has three children, a boy 14, a girl 13 and her youngest who is five. The two elder children are with her ex-husband. She reported seeing the children frequently.
k) Ms Carle reported that her husband was abusive to her.
l) Ms Carle was living with her partner in Ottawa. He also has a problem with opiates but Ms Carle reported that he had been clean for about four months.
m) Ms Carle started drinking when she was 18 but managed to avoid becoming dependent upon alcohol.
n) At about the same age, she started using drugs, including marihuana, oxycodone, speed, fentanyl, crystal meth and cocaine. She blames her fall into drug use on the breakup with her husband.
o) She reported that she became dependent upon oxycontin after it was prescribed for her following a Caesarian section.
p) She told Dr. Gojer she has tried treatment “but not regularly”.
q) She reported being on methadone for about 14 years.
r) She reported last using illicit drugs in June 2024.
s) She reported wanting to go for treatment but had not applied. She stated that she wanted to go to a residential treatment centre.
t) Dr. Gojer noted that Ms Carle is medically “healthy”.
u) Ms Carle reported being admitted to hospital when she was 18 due to depression, anxiety and suicidal ideation. She was given anti-depressants.
v) She is not on any medication.
w) She has had no formal psychiatric or psychotherapy counselling.
x) Ms Carle had two appointments with Dr. Gojer and was late. He found her easy to talk to.
y) Dr. Gojer diagnosed opiate use disorder in remission. He opined that she did not have any major mental illness.
z) Dr. Gojer opined that Ms Carle should receive residential substance use counselling. She should have probation to ensure that she continues with after care treatment.
The Community Impact of Fentanyl Trafficking in Pembroke and Renfrew County
42In R. v. Hier, 2025 ONCJ 383, I discussed at length the impact that fentanyl traffickers have had in the City of Pembroke and Renfrew County.
43Despite the passage of almost a year since Hier was decided, this problem has not abated.
44For a glimpse of the devastation that just one Fentanyl-related death can cause to a family and community, see my reasons for sentence in R. v. Fortier, not yet reported, a case dealing with manslaughter by trafficking of fentanyl.
45The moral blameworthiness of anyone who sells this devastating and highly addictive drug is extremely high.
Defence Submissions
46Defence counsel submitted that the appropriate sentence is a conditional sentence of 18 months. She acknowledged that such a disposition would be extremely unusual given the amount of fentanyl in issue. She also acknowledged that Ms Carle’s track record causes concern.
47Defence counsel submitted that Ms Carle has a young child who is in care of her parents. She stated that prior to her arrest, Ms Carle was the primary caregiver for her son. She stated that Ms Carle does not use Fentanyl but does use Crystal Meth. She submitted that as drug dealers go, Ms Carle is a low-level addict-trafficker.
48Following her release, Ms Carle regularly saw her son even though she was living at Lotus House in Ottawa. Defence also stated that Ms Carle’s mother is in her late 60s.
49With respect to custodial options, defence counsel noted that if Ms Carle is sentenced to the reformatory, she will serve her sentence at either Quinte Detention Centre in Napanee or the Vanier Centre for Women in Milton. She submitted that neither institution had significant resources for someone with a drug addiction issue.
50Defence counsel argued, however, that if Ms Carle were released on a conditional sentence, the expectation was that she would go to an in-patient treatment centre.
Crown Submissions
51Crown counsel submitted that the appropriate sentence was 30 months less time served. He argued that Ms Carle has been on release for almost two years since her plea was entered, which was ample time for her to complete treatment.
52Crown counsel argued that the passage of time without meaningful action to deal with her drug problem and the section 21 report show that Ms Carle lacks motivation to deal with her drug problem.
53Crown counsel urged me not to lose sight of the fact that Ms Carle was in possession of a significant amount of money, which is indicative of a commercial element to her crime.
Defence Reply
54In reply, Defence counsel pointed out that Ms Carle managed to abide by her conditions for a significant amount of time (August 2024 to March 2026) without reoffence.
55I note that when she appeared before me, Ms Carle was in custody for a breach in Ottawa.
Ms Carle’s Allocution
56Ms Carle wrote a brief letter which was filed as exhibit. She apologized and expressed remorse. She stated that she has learned from the incident.
The Criminal Code Sentencing Provisions
57Section 718 of the Criminal Code states:
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 following objectives:
a) to denounce unlawful conduct in the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;
b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;
c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;
d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;
e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and
f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims or to the community.
58Section 718.1 of the Criminal Code establishes the fundamental principle of sentencing: “A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.”
59Section 718.2 of the Criminal Code sets out “other sentencing principles”:
A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:
(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, or on any other similar factor,
(ii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused the offender’s intimate partner or a member of the victim or the offender’s family,
(ii.1) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person under the age of eighteen years,
(ii.2) evidence that the offender involved a person under the age of 18 years in the commission of the offence,
(iii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim,
(iii.1) evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances, including their health and financial situation,
(iii.2) evidence that the offence was committed against a person who, in the performance of their duties and functions, was providing health services, including personal care services,
(iv) evidence that the offence was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization,
(v) evidence that the offence was a terrorism offence,
(vi) evidence that the offence was committed while the offender was subject to a conditional sentence order made under section 742.1 or released on parole, statutory release or unescorted temporary absence under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and
(vii) evidence that the commission of the offence had the effect of impeding another person from obtaining health services, including personal care services,
shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances;
(b) a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances;
(c) where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh;
(d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and
(e) all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders.
Sentencing Principles in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
60Section 10 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act states:
(1) Without restricting the generality of the Criminal Code, the fundamental purpose of any sentence for an offence under this Part is to contribute to the respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society while encouraging rehabilitation, and treatment in appropriate circumstances, of offenders and acknowledging the harm done to victims and to the community.
(2) If a person is convicted of a designated substance offence, the court imposing sentence on the person shall consider any relevant aggravating factors including that the person
(a) in relation to the commission of the offence,
(i) carried, used or threatened to use a weapon,
(ii) used or threatened to use violence,
(iii) trafficked in a substance included in Schedule I, II, III, IV or V, or possessed such a substance for the purpose of trafficking, in or near a school, on or near school grounds or in or near any other public place usually frequented by persons under the age of 18 years, or
(iv) trafficked in a substance included in Schedule I, II, III, IV or V, or possessed such a substance for the purpose of trafficking, to a person under the age of 18 years;
(b) was previously convicted of a designated substance offence, as defined in subsection 2(1) of this Act, or a designated offence, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Cannabis Act;
(c) used the services of a person under the age of eighteen years to commit, or involved such a person in the commission of, the offence.
(3) If, under subsection (1), the court is satisfied of the existence of one or more of the aggravating factors enumerated in paragraphs (2)(a) to (c), but decides not to sentence the person to imprisonment, the court shall give reasons for that decision.
(4) A court sentencing a person who is convicted of an offence under this Part may delay sentencing to enable the offender
(a) to participate in a drug treatment court program approved by the Attorney General; or
(b) to attend a treatment program under subsection 720(2) of the Criminal Code.
Caselaw
61In R. v. Loor, 2017 ONCA 696, Justice Laskin stated at paragraph 50, “…generally, offenders – even first offenders – who traffic significant amounts of fentanyl should expect to receive significant penitentiary sentences”.
62In R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46, Justices Moldaver and Côté stated as follows with respect to fentanyl at paragraph 93 and 94:
As grave a threat as drugs such as heroin and cocaine pose, that threat pales in comparison to the one posed by fentanyl and its analogues. Indeed, over the past decade, fentanyl has altered the landscape of the substance abuse crisis in Canada, revealing itself as public enemy number one.
Synthetically produced and readily available on the illicit market, fentanyl is an extremely dangerous and powerful painkiller and sedative. As with other opioids, such as heroin and morphine, it is a highly addictive substance, which, when taken outside of controlled medical environments, puts its users at risk of serious harm, including brain damage, organ damage, coma, and death. Fentanyl’s potential for harm is, however, significantly greater than other opioids. It is, for example, estimated to be 80‑100 times more potent than morphine and 25‑50 times more potent than pharmaceutical grade heroin. Given its strength, a lethal dose will often be less than two milligrams, an amount as small as a single grain of salt (R. v. Smith, 2016 BCSC 2148, 363 C.R.R. (2d) 365, at para. 24). The risk of overdose and death from fentanyl is thus extremely high, particularly for naïve users or where it is taken in combination with other substances, such as alcohol or other opioids.
63In R. v. Hillier, 2021 ONCJ 634, the accused was 26 years old. He was arrested for breaching his release order and incident to arrest, police located 28 grams of fentanyl, 19.7 grams of methamphetamines, 9.2 grams of cocaine and $1098.60 in cash. Given the evidence that the accused used oxycodone and Percocet, Justice Javed found that the accused was a user-trafficker, not an addict-trafficker. The accused had a criminal record which included convictions for criminal record, which included convictions for possession of a controlled substance, breaching court orders, and possession of property obtained by crime over $5000. The accused failed to follow through with a substance abuse counselling program.
64Before deduction for pre-sentence custody, Justice Javed found that a sentence of four and a half years was appropriate.
65In R. v. Bieber, 2022 ONCJ 53, the 25-year old first-time offender pleaded guilty to impaired driving, possession of property obtained by crime, possession of weapons dangerous to the public peace, and possession of fentanyl for the purposes of trafficking. The police stopped the vehicle because of bad driving and arrested the accused for impaired driving. When they searched the vehicle, they located six cellular phones, cannabis, 14.1 grams of purple fentanyl, 57.2 grams of methamphetamine, 47.4 grams of cocaine, three alprazolam tablets, three hydromorphone tablets 76 dilaudid pills and $415 in cash. The accused had attempted treatment on prior occasions without success. He was essentially and addict-trafficker. He reported being sober for over a year and offence-free for 15 months on bail.
66Justice March found that the appropriate sentence, before reduction for conditions of pre-sentence custody and anticipated conditions as a result of COVID-19 was 42 months.
67In R. v. Beauparlant, 2022 ONSC 4686, the accused was convicted of three counts of possession of a controlled substance for the purposes of trafficking, possession of a butterfly knife and possession of proceeds of crime ($1850). Police responded to the report of a collision where the driver of one of the vehicles had fled. The police came upon the accused, who matched the description of the driver, and arrested him for fail to remain. They located 38 grams of fentanyl on his person.
68The Pre-sentence report revealed that the accused started using marihuana, Xanax and Ecstasy at a young age. He then graduated to oxycodone, Percocets, hydromorphone and cocaine. He conceded guilt after his Charter application failed. He had an extremely supportive family and no criminal record. Justice Broad declined to find that the accused was an “addict-trafficker” and sentenced the accused to five years in the penitentiary, before deduction for presentence custody and other credits.
69In R. v. Richer, 2022 ONSC 6872, the 35-year-old mother of one child was found guilty of trafficking in one ounce (28 grams) of fentanyl by a jury. She was employed full-time at a retirement home. She was said to be addicted but overcame her addiction prior to conviction. She also returned to school to obtain qualifications to start a new career, disassociated herself from prior associates and prioritized her relationship with her 12-year-old son.
70Despite this, Justice McCarthy found that in attempting to deflect blame for her crime on her partner during the trial, she “continues to lack insight into the gravity of her offence and the devastating impact fentanyl can have on users.” Justice McCarthy found that a conditional sentence was not appropriate and that, “If Sarah Richer were to be handed anything less than a penitentiary sentence, the principles of deterrence and denunciation would be frustrated.” The accused received a four year sentence.
71In R. v. Tonkin, 2023 ONSC 2139, Justice Nakatsuru sentenced a 21-year-old first-time offender found in possession of 55.62 grams of cocaine, 27.15 grams of fentanyl, 20.41 grams of marijuana, and 110.10 grams of a cutting agent to a total sentence of 29 months. His Honour imposed a sentence of 15 months concurrent for the cocaine. He entered a guilty plea and expressed remorse. He had letters of support and was known to be a hard worker. The accused was a commercial trafficker, not an addict.
72In R. v. Calzada-Preciado, 2025 ONCJ 717 Justice Brown sentenced a 49-year-old first time offender found in possession of 5.37 grams of blue/red fentanyl, 2.86 grams of green fentanyl, 6.43 grams of purple fentanyl, 17.7 grams of crystal methamphetamine and $850 in Canadian currency to 32 months in custody. He suffered from depression and PTSD and used illicit substances to self medicate. He attempted out-patient treatment with a psychiatrist at CAM-H. He pleaded guilty on the first day of trial and expressed remorse.
73The Crown had sought a sentence before reduction for pre-sentence custody of 36 months and defence had sought a conditional sentence. Justice Brown rejected a conditional sentence on the basis that the accused “had done less than he could have done in terms of rehabilitation” while on bail. Justice Brown found that the accused did not demonstrate the sort of “exceptional circumstances” necessary in order to get the benefit of a conditional sentence.
74All of these cases support the general proposition that denunciation and deterrence are the primary sentencing considerations in cases of this nature.
75Of course there are exceptions to carceral sentences for fentanyl trafficking. In R. v. Gallant, 2025 ONCJ 238 at paragraphs 45 to 55, Justice Jones catalogued a number of cases where conditional sentences were imposed for Possession of Fentanyl for the Purposes of Trafficking, including R. v. Maki, 2023 BCSC 2470, R. v. Gordon, 2023 ONCJ 157, R. v. Williams, 2023 ONCJ 259, R. v. Nacinovich, 2020 ONSC 7604, R. v. Han, 2022 ONCJ 343, R. v Russell, 2023 ONCJ 133, R. v. Hugh, 2024 ONSC 6135, R. v. Benjamin, 2025 ONCJ 129, and R. v. Hall, 2024 ONCA 664.
76All of those cases, with the exception of Maki, involved significantly smaller quantities of fentanyl than Ms Carle was found with.
77In each case, the Court sentenced an offender who had made great strides to turn their life around. As I will discuss below, that is not Ms Carle either.
Summary of Mitigating Factors
78I find the following factors are mitigating:
a) Ms Carle entered a guilty plea and accepted responsibility.
b) Ms Carle has expressed remorse.
c) Ms Carle was addicted to the substances she was selling.
d) Ms Carle has been addicted for at least 15 years. She has never dealt with the death of her brother.
e) Ms Carle has been on bail for 18 months and has not reoffended.
Summary of Aggravating Factors
79I find the following factors are aggravating:
a) The quantity of fentanyl seized, one ounce (28 grams) is significant, particularly for a community like Pembroke.
b) The amount of money seized is also significant, bordering on $5000. Although I find that Ms Carle was addicted to the substances she was selling, it is also clear that she was a commercial trafficker.
c) Ms Carle has done nothing to rehabilitate herself despite having ample opportunity to do so while on bail. I find that she is not sincere in her desire to enter into rehabilitation. It is nothing but a last-ditch effort to avoid incarceration.
Collateral Factors
80The following factors are collateral:
a) Ms Carle would appear to have some health problems. There is no evidence before me, however, that those problems cannot be managed while she is in custody.
b) Ms Carle has a young child. Despite this, the child has been in the custody of Ms Carle’s parents for a significant period. It is not in the best interests of that child that the child be returned to her care until Ms Carle has received significant treatment for her addiction.
The Appropriate Sentence
81In my view, there is nothing exceptional about Ms Carle’s case that warrants her being among the elite group of offenders who have been granted conditional sentences because they have engaged in herculean tasks to turn their life around.
82Balancing all of these factors, in my view, the sentence sought by the Crown is generous and a sentence of 30 months, less credit for time served, and the two months of Downes credit I alluded to earlier is the sentence I impose.
Post-Script
83Prior to completing this sentencing, Defence Counsel advised that Ms Carle had 143 days in Pre-Sentence Custody. With appropriate Summers credit, she would be entitled to 215 days credit. With the Downes credit (60 days) that I gave her pursuant to paragraph 35, Ms Carle would be entitled to 275 days credit. In fairness to Ms Carle, in this case, where after deduction for Pre-Sentence Custody Ms Carle would receive a sentence of about 21 months in the reformatory, I asked Defence Counsel if Ms Carle would rather receive a penitentiary sentence. It is widely known that conditions and treatment resources are better in the penitentiary system than they are in the reformatory.
84After taking a recess for Defence Counsel to obtain instructions. Defence Counsel advised that Ms Carle would prefer to go to the penitentiary instead of the 21-month reformatory sentence.
85I therefore imposed a two-year sentence, followed by one year of probation and Ms Carle received six months credit for Pre-Sentence Custody. I indicated that the sentence on the Proceeds charge was six months concurrent. Ancillary Orders, including 109 and DNA were also granted. A Forefeiture Order and Destruction Order were consented to and granted on a previous date.
86It should be clear that this was simply an accommodation offered by the Court so that Ms Carle could take advantage of better conditions and better treatment options given that the Court was rejecting the Defence submission for a Conditional Sentence and imposing a carceral sentence. It is not intended to prejudice any other rights Ms Carle may have or suggest that this was ultimately a joint submission. This was always a contested sentencing.
Released: June 16, 2026
Signed: Justice J.R. Richardson