Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CR-15-102-00 DATE: 2016-06-17 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN – and – DUSTIN KLAMMER

Counsel: Rachel Jones, for the Crown Kimberly Miles, for the Defendant

HEARD: June 14, 2016

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

HEALEY J. DELIVERED ORALLY

INTRODUCTION

[1] Dustin Klammer was found guilty following a trial on each of three drug related charges - trafficking in fentanyl, possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of currency not exceeding $5,000, knowing that such property was obtained by the commission of an indictable offence - all of which occurred on July 26, 2013.

[2] Mr. Klammer was arrested after selling six patches of fentanyl, each of 100 microgram strength, to an undercover officer through a middleman by the name of Brad Brooker. The officer, Officer Bennett, was led directly to Klammer by Brooker after initial communication between them about when the deal could take place. Eventually, Officer Bennett was advised by Brooker that the deal would occur at a certain time that evening and that his “guy is good”. The officer picked up Brooker at an agreed-upon location, and they drove together to an area of Barrie where they met up with Klammer. Initially, Brooker got out of the vehicle and spoke with Klammer on the sidewalk. Officer Bennett provided Brooker with $460 but did not see any drugs or money being exchanged between Brooker and Klammer. Brooker and Klammer then returned to the passenger side of the vehicle and Klammer was introduced to Officer Bennett. Brooker then asked the officer for another $10, which the officer then saw Brooker immediately pass to Klammer. Brooker then gave Officer Bennett five patches of fentanyl. Brooker had another patch in his hand and told the officer that he was taking one-half of that patch, which was in accordance with their agreement. After they parted ways with Klammer, Brooker took one half of the sixth patch in payment for his participation and gave the remaining one half to the officer.

[3] I have reviewed the material now filed on this sentencing hearing, which was the pre-sentence report and multiple letters containing background information regarding Mr. Klammer, as well as a letter from Mr. Klammer in which he expresses remorse for his criminal activity and requests an opportunity to prove that he can be a contributing member of society.

[4] In addition to my consideration of that material, I have listened to and considered the submissions of counsel and reviewed the case authorities provided by counsel on sentencing.

[5] My duty is to impose a sentence that fits both the offender and the offence. I have to balance the various purposes of sentencing to determine the proper sentence in this case.

[6] The objectives of sentencing include:

• denouncing unlawful conduct
• deterring Mr. Klammer and other persons from possessing and trafficking in illegal drugs
• separating offenders from society when necessary
• assisting in the rehabilitation of offenders
• providing reparations for harm done to victims or the community as much as possible, and
• promoting a sense of responsibility and acknowledgment of harm done on the part of the offender.

[7] A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. A sentencing judge is also to take into account the principle that the sentence imposed should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances. This is to ensure that unjustified, substantial differences in sentences do not exist between similar offences and offenders.

[8] Sentencing decisions for offences related to fentanyl are an increasingly common development in the law given its more recent emergence as a frontrunner as a common street drug. The chart attached as Appendix A to these reasons for sentence summarizes some of the unreported and reported decisions primarily from this jurisdiction. While each sentence differs according to the facts of that particular case, including the amount and strength of the fentanyl possessed by the offender, cases that have involved close to the amount of fentanyl sold by Mr. Klammer have typically attracted a penitentiary sentence.

[9] Mr. Klammer has a history of drug use, and a history of struggles with anxiety and depression. His drug use appears to have started at the age of 23 when he fell out of a tree in the course of operating a tree business, which he appears to have successfully operated following his graduation from high school until the time of his accident. He was prescribed pain medication, to which he developed an addiction.

[10] Prior to this offence, Mr. Klammer had no criminal record. However, while he was on release pending trial, he was caught selling two oxycodone pills. In June 2015 he was sentenced to one year of probation for that trafficking offence. His pre-sentence report, dated May 16, 2016, indicates that he has reported to probation on a monthly basis as directed and provided confirmation of his involvement with community agencies and doctors addressing substance abuse issues, as well as his depression, anxiety and health problems. Nonetheless, he continued, as of February 2016, to test positive for cocaine weekly in the methadone treatment program in which he has attended regularly from September 2014 to the date of the presentence report, and his random tests for fentanyl were also positive. Nonetheless, a report from the addiction clinic indicates that Mr. Klammer has not missed one of his appointments since September 2014, or his daily dose of methadone. In March 2016 he told the probation officer that he had had three negative tests, however he admitted to relapsing in April and testing positive for cocaine. His lifelong family physician confirms that he has a long history since adolescence of recurring anxiety and depression and disabling panic attacks, including some suicidal ideation on and off over time. His chronic drug dependency has interfered with obtaining a reliable psychiatric diagnosis and treatment. He is currently actively participating in counselling related to substance abuse through the local branch of the John Howard Society.

[11] Mr. Klammer does demonstrate some motivation to attempt to end his drug dependency, but he is obviously fighting against a very strong foe. Prior to developing this dependency he was doing quite well, having graduated from highschool and operating his own business as an arborist, employing others. He has close ties to his mother, sister and nephew, with whom he resides, and also has the emotional support of his father. He is also involved in a church organization and the pastor has provided a letter of support speaking to his contributions to others less fortunate. Even the two pharmacies which Mr. Klammer attends to fill his prescriptions for medications prescribed by his family doctor have provided letters indicating that he is polite and respectful when attending the pharmacies, and compliant in taking his medications.

[12] Yet, even while I must take into consideration Mr. Klammer's personal struggles and his unfortunate relapses, the facts of this case, and the resulting convictions, indicate an individual who was doing more than possessing for his own use, and who was profiting from the sale of fentanyl. Also, even though only one transaction was involved, the conversation between Officer Bennett and Brooker, and the actions of Mr. Brooker in leading the officer directly to an area where Klammer could be located, lead to an inference that this was not the first drug deal that Mr. Klammer had ever transacted.

[13] In this case I consider the aggravating and mitigating factors that have been brought to my attention in the materials filed or in the submissions of counsel.

[14] The mitigating factors in this case are that: (a) Mr. Klammer had no criminal record at the time of these offences, although acquired one while waiting for these charges to be dealt with; (b) Mr. Klammer has expressed his remorse for these offences; and (c) Mr. Klammer has exhibited some intention, not successfully so far, of recognizing and battling his addiction.

[15] Aggravating factors include: (a) The quantity and strength of the fentanyl sold by him; (b) His continued use of drugs in contravention of his bail conditions; and (c) His sale of oxycodone and conviction for trafficking of that drug while his trial on these charges was pending.

[16] Defence counsel in this case suggests a custodial sentence of two years plus one day, relying on the precedents set out in R. v. Toth-Dogaru, 2014 ONSC 4631, R. v. Rak, 2015 ONCJ 543; R. v. Gatfield, 2015 ONCJ 5019, R. v. Medeiros-Sousa, 2014 ONCJ 626 and R. v. Corbett, 2015 ABPC 212. In each of these cases, the accused entered a guilty plea, which was not the case for Mr. Klammer.

[17] The Crown seeks a period of four years’ incarceration, relying on the principles set out the line of cases involving trafficking of heroine such as R. v. Farizeh, R. v. Bahari and R. v. Pimentel, and also the more recent decisions involving trafficking of fentanyl from this jurisdiction and elsewhere in which sentences involving penitentiary time have been imposed, which are summarized in Schedule A.

[18] The facts of this case most closely align with those of R. v. Miller, 2014 ONCJ 399 in which an offender with a minor unrelated record was sentenced to 33 months in custody for one count of trafficking 14 patches of fentanyl, each of 50 microgram strength, and R. v. McMahan and Edwards, 2014 ONSC 7290 in which 15 patches of fentanyl were trafficked, of varying strengths, for which a sentence of 32 months was imposed on each of two counts, to be served concurrently. However, in each of these cases the offender admitted guilt and so received a reduction in sentence for that fact. Mr. Brooker, who led Officer Bennett to Mr. Klammer, was prosecuted on a charges arising from this fact situation and later incidents. He received a sentence of four years for two counts of trafficking in fentanyl and one count of trafficking in hydromorphine, involving 23 patches of varying strengths and 22 pills, on a plea (R. v. Brooker, 2014 ONCJ 250).

[19] In this case the principles of general deterrence and denunciation of the offences committed are to be given primary consideration. The dangers that fentanyl poses to our community will recognized by this court. These dangers have been repeatedly outlined in the available sentencing decisions. Courts, in some of the cases reviewed, have relied on the evidence of Dr. Karen Woodall, a toxicologist and forensic scientist, who gave evidence that fentanyl is an opiod drug that can be up to 100 times stronger than morphine and 20 times stronger than heroin, and in recent years there has been an increasing number of deaths from individuals who abuse fentanyl: R. v. Miller, supra; R. v. McMahan and Edwards, supra. Other traffickers, even the lower level ones such as Mr. Klammer was, must hear and learn that possession and trafficking of fentanyl will not result in leniency from the court. In addition, specific deterrence must be given attention in this case, given Mr. Klammer’s inclination to continue to be involved in the drug culture, both by using and selling since the time of his arrest for these offences.

[20] In imposing the sentence that I am, I am taking into account that the criminal process, the conviction and this sentence will also have their own denunciatory and deterrent effect. Given Mr. Klammer’s overall poor mental health, the evidence on sentencing indicates that he has felt these effects more keenly than others might have. But despite the many good reports of Mr. Klammer’s contribution to the community and to the workforce, these offences and all of the circumstances surrounding them call for a sentence that will denounce such conduct and deter Mr. Klammer, and others in the future, from acting similarly. However, I am also taking into account that Mr. Klammer has a drug dependency, for which he needs to continue to seek help. A sentence that allows him to return to the community to seek ongoing treatment for both his drug dependency and mental health struggles as soon as possible will provide him with the best opportunity for reform.

[21] Mr. Klammer has asked the court for an opportunity to prove that he can be a good role model and a contributing member of the community, and to straighten out his life. If he is sincere, the first thing that he must do is to take responsibility for his crimes by serving the sentence that this court will impose, and to comply in all respects with the treatment opportunities that will be offered to him in prison. It will be up to him to decide which path to take when he is released. I encourage him to use this harsh lesson as a reason to change and to be the role model that he wants to be for his nephew and others, because I recognize that Mr. Klammer is not a bad person, only that he has chosen to do unacceptable things. The evidence filed on sentencing shows that he has it in him to do much better things with his life.

[22] Mr. Klammer, please stand up.

SENTENCE

[23] You are sentenced to a period in custody of 33 months, on all three counts concurrently. There is no pre-trial custody to credit.

[24] The defence consents to the appropriateness of the ancillary orders. Pursuant to s. 490.012 of the Criminal Code you shall be required to provide a DNA sample.

[25] Under s.109 of the Criminal Code you are prohibited from possessing any firearm, other than a prohibited firearm or restricted firearm, and any cross-bow, restricted weapon, ammunition and explosive substance for your lifetime.

HEALEY J. Released in Open Court: June 17, 2016

NOTE: As noted in court, on the record, this written ruling is to be considered the official version and takes precedence over the oral reasons read into the record. In the event of any discrepancies between the oral and written versions, it is the written ruling that is to be relied upon.

Appendix A: Summary of Fentanyl Sentencing Decisions

| Case Name | Charge(s) --- title: "R. v. Klammer" court: "Ontario Superior Court of Justice" citation: "2016 ONSC 4038" date_judgement: "2016-06-17"

COURT FILE NO.: CR-15-102-00 DATE: 20160617 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN – and – DUSTIN KLAMMER Rachel Jones, for the Crown Kimberly Miles, for the Defendant HEARD: June 14, 2016 REASONS FOR SENTENCE HEALEY J. DELIVERED ORALLY INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] Dustin Klammer was found guilty following a trial on each of three drug related charges - trafficking in fentanyl, possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of currency not exceeding $5,000, knowing that such property was obtained by the commission of an indictable offence - all of which occurred on July 26, 2013. [ 2 ] Mr. Klammer was arrested after selling six patches of fentanyl, each of 100 microgram strength, to an undercover officer through a middleman by the name of Brad Brooker. The officer, Officer Bennett, was led directly to Klammer by Brooker after initial communication between them about when the deal could take place. Eventually, Officer Bennett was advised by Brooker that the deal would occur at a certain time that evening and that his “guy is good”. The officer picked up Brooker at an agreed-upon location, and they drove together to an area of Barrie where they met up with Klammer. Initially, Brooker got out of the vehicle and spoke with Klammer on the sidewalk. Officer Bennett provided Brooker with $460 but did not see any drugs or money being exchanged between Brooker and Klammer. Brooker and Klammer then returned to the passenger side of the vehicle and Klammer was introduced to Officer Bennett. Brooker then asked the officer for another $10, which the officer then saw Brooker immediately pass to Klammer. Brooker then gave Officer Bennett five patches of fentanyl. Brooker had another patch in his hand and told the officer that he was taking one-half of that patch, which was in accordance with their agreement. After they parted ways with Klammer, Brooker took one half of the sixth patch in payment for his participation and gave the remaining one half to the officer. [ 3 ] I have reviewed the material now filed on this sentencing hearing, which was the pre-sentence report and multiple letters containing background information regarding Mr. Klammer, as well as a letter from Mr. Klammer in which he expresses remorse for his criminal activity and requests an opportunity to prove that he can be a contributing member of society. [ 4 ] In addition to my consideration of that material, I have listened to and considered the submissions of counsel and reviewed the case authorities provided by counsel on sentencing. [ 5 ] My duty is to impose a sentence that fits both the offender and the offence. I have to balance the various purposes of sentencing to determine the proper sentence in this case. [ 6 ] The objectives of sentencing include: • denouncing unlawful conduct • deterring Mr. Klammer and other persons from possessing and trafficking in illegal drugs • separating offenders from society when necessary • assisting in the rehabilitation of offenders • providing reparations for harm done to victims or the community as much as possible, and • promoting a sense of responsibility and acknowledgment of harm done on the part of the offender. [ 7 ] A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. A sentencing judge is also to take into account the principle that the sentence imposed should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances. This is to ensure that unjustified, substantial differences in sentences do not exist between similar offences and offenders. [ 8 ] Sentencing decisions for offences related to fentanyl are an increasingly common development in the law given its more recent emergence as a frontrunner as a common street drug. The chart attached as Appendix A to these reasons for sentence summarizes some of the unreported and reported decisions primarily from this jurisdiction. While each sentence differs according to the facts of that particular case, including the amount and strength of the fentanyl possessed by the offender, cases that have involved close to the amount of fentanyl sold by Mr. Klammer have typically attracted a penitentiary sentence. [ 9 ] Mr. Klammer has a history of drug use, and a history of struggles with anxiety and depression. His drug use appears to have started at the age of 23 when he fell out of a tree in the course of operating a tree business, which he appears to have successfully operated following his graduation from high school until the time of his accident. He was prescribed pain medication, to which he developed an addiction. [ 10 ] Prior to this offence, Mr. Klammer had no criminal record. However, while he was on release pending trial, he was caught selling two oxycodone pills. In June 2015 he was sentenced to one year of probation for that trafficking offence. His pre-sentence report, dated May 16, 2016, indicates that he has reported to probation on a monthly basis as directed and provided confirmation of his involvement with community agencies and doctors addressing substance abuse issues, as well as his depression, anxiety and health problems. Nonetheless, he continued, as of February 2016, to test positive for cocaine weekly in the methadone treatment program in which he has attended regularly from September 2014 to the date of the presentence report, and his random tests for fentanyl were also positive. Nonetheless, a report from the addiction clinic indicates that Mr. Klammer has not missed one of his appointments since September 2014, or his daily dose of methadone. In March 2016 he told the probation officer that he had had three negative tests, however he admitted to relapsing in April and testing positive for cocaine. His lifelong family physician confirms that he has a long history since adolescence of recurring anxiety and depression and disabling panic attacks, including some suicidal ideation on and off over time. His chronic drug dependency has interfered with obtaining a reliable psychiatric diagnosis and treatment. He is currently actively participating in counselling related to substance abuse through the local branch of the John Howard Society. [ 11 ] Mr. Klammer does demonstrate some motivation to attempt to end his drug dependency, but he is obviously fighting against a very strong foe. Prior to developing this dependency he was doing quite well, having graduated from highschool and operating his own business as an arborist, employing others. He has close ties to his mother, sister and nephew, with whom he resides, and also has the emotional support of his father. He is also involved in a church organization and the pastor has provided a letter of support speaking to his contributions to others less fortunate. Even the two pharmacies which Mr. Klammer attends to fill his prescriptions for medications prescribed by his family doctor have provided letters indicating that he is polite and respectful when attending the pharmacies, and compliant in taking his medications. [ 12 ] Yet, even while I must take into consideration Mr. Klammer's personal struggles and his unfortunate relapses, the facts of this case, and the resulting convictions, indicate an individual who was doing more than possessing for his own use, and who was profiting from the sale of fentanyl. Also, even though only one transaction was involved, the conversation between Officer Bennett and Brooker, and the actions of Mr. Brooker in leading the officer directly to an area where Klammer could be located, lead to an inference that this was not the first drug deal that Mr. Klammer had ever transacted. [ 13 ] In this case I consider the aggravating and mitigating factors that have been brought to my attention in the materials filed or in the submissions of counsel. [ 14 ] The mitigating factors in this case are that: (a) Mr. Klammer had no criminal record at the time of these offences, although acquired one while waiting for these charges to be dealt with; (b) Mr. Klammer has expressed his remorse for these offences; and (c) Mr. Klammer has exhibited some intention, not successfully so far, of recognizing and battling his addiction. [ 15 ] Aggravating factors include: (a) The quantity and strength of the fentanyl sold by him; (b) His continued use of drugs in contravention of his bail conditions; and (c) His sale of oxycodone and conviction for trafficking of that drug while his trial on these charges was pending. [ 16 ] Defence counsel in this case suggests a custodial sentence of two years plus one day, relying on the precedents set out in R. v. Toth-Dogaru , [2014] O.J. No. 4631 (S.C.J.) , R. v. Rak , [2015] O.J. No. 5182 (O.C.J.) ; R. v. Gatfield , [2015] O.J. No. 5019 (O.C.J.) , R. v. Medeiros-Sousa, [2014] O.J. No. 4515 (O.C.J.) and R. v. Corbett , 2015 ABPC 212 , [2015] A.J. No. 1080 (A.B.P.C.). In each of these cases, the accused entered a guilty plea, which was not the case for Mr. Klammer. [ 17 ] The Crown seeks a period of four years’ incarceration, relying on the principles set out the line of cases involving trafficking of heroine such as R. v. Farizeh , [1994] O.J. No. 2624 (C.A.) , R. v. Bahari , [1994] O.J. No. 2625 (C.A.) and R. v. Pimentel , [2004] O.J. No. 5780 (S.C.J.) , and also the more recent decisions involving trafficking of fentanyl from this jurisdiction and elsewhere in which sentences involving penitentiary time have been imposed, which are summarized in Schedule A. [ 18 ] The facts of this case most closely align with those of R. v. Miller (11 August 2014), Barrie 14-0857 (Ont. C.J.) in which an offender with a minor unrelated record was sentenced to 33 months in custody for one count of trafficking 14 patches of fentanyl, each of 50 microgram strength, and R. v. McMahan and Edwards (18 December 2014), Kitchener CR-14-8170 (Ont. S.C.) in which 15 patches of fentanyl were trafficked, of varying strengths, for which a sentence of 32 months was imposed on each of two counts, to be served concurrently. However, in each of these cases the offender admitted guilt and so received a reduction in sentence for that fact. Mr. Brooker, who led Officer Bennett to Mr. Klammer, was prosecuted on a charges arising from this fact situation and later incidents. He received a sentence of four years for two counts of trafficking in fentanyl and one count of trafficking in hydromorphine, involving 23 patches of varying strengths and 22 pills, on a plea (15 May 2014), Barrie 14-0851 (Ont. C.J.). [ 19 ] In this case the principles of general deterrence and denunciation of the offences committed are to be given primary consideration. The dangers that fentanyl poses to our community will recognized by this court. These dangers have been repeatedly outlined in the available sentencing decisions. Courts, in some of the cases reviewed, have relied on the evidence of Dr. Karen Woodall, a toxicologist and forensic scientist, who gave evidence that fentanyl is an opiod drug that can be up to 100 times stronger than morphine and 20 times stronger than heroin, and in recent years there has been an increasing number of deaths from individuals who abuse fentanyl: R. v. Miller , supra ; R. v. McMahan and Edwards , supra . Other traffickers, even the lower level ones such as Mr. Klammer was, must hear and learn that possession and trafficking of fentanyl will not result in leniency from the court. In addition, specific deterrence must be given attention in this case, given Mr. Klammer’s inclination to continue to be involved in the drug culture, both by using and selling since the time of his arrest for these offences. [ 20 ] In imposing the sentence that I am, I am taking into account that the criminal process, the conviction and this sentence will also have their own denunciatory and deterrent effect. Given Mr. Klammer’s overall poor mental health, the evidence on sentencing indicates that he has felt these effects more keenly than others might have. But despite the many good reports of Mr. Klammer’s contribution to the community and to the workforce, these offences and all of the circumstances surrounding them call for a sentence that will denounce such conduct and deter Mr. Klammer, and others in the future, from acting similarly. However, I am also taking into account that Mr. Klammer has a drug dependency, for which he needs to continue to seek help. A sentence that allows him to return to the community to seek ongoing treatment for both his drug dependency and mental health struggles as soon as possible will provide him with the best opportunity for reform. [ 21 ] Mr. Klammer has asked the court for an opportunity to prove that he can be a good role model and a contributing member of the community, and to straighten out his life. If he is sincere, the first thing that he must do is to take responsibility for his crimes by serving the sentence that this court will impose, and to comply in all respects with the treatment opportunities that will be offered to him in prison. It will be up to him to decide which path to take when he is released. I encourage him to use this harsh lesson as a reason to change and to be the role model that he wants to be for his nephew and others, because I recognize that Mr. Klammer is not a bad person, only that he has chosen to do unacceptable things. The evidence filed on sentencing shows that he has it in him to do much better things with his life. [ 22 ] Mr. Klammer, please stand up. SENTENCE [ 23 ] You are sentenced to a period in custody of 33 months, on all three counts concurrently. There is no pre-trial custody to credit. [ 24 ] The defence consents to the appropriateness of the ancillary orders. Pursuant to s. 490.012 of the Criminal Code you shall be required to provide a DNA sample. [ 25 ] Under s.109 of the Criminal Code you are prohibited from possessing any firearm, other than a prohibited firearm or restricted firearm, and any cross-bow, restricted weapon, ammunition and explosive substance for your lifetime. _______________________ HEALEY J. Released in Open Court: June 17, 2016 NOTE: As noted in court, on the record, this written ruling is to be considered the official version and takes precedence over the oral reasons read into the record. In the event of any discrepancies between the oral and written versions, it is the written ruling that is to be relied upon. Case Name Charge(s) Amount of Fentanyl Strength of Patches Prior Criminal Record Sentence Imposed R. v. Poirier 2014 ONSC 5200 Simple possession of fentanyl; heroin trafficking; methamphetamine trafficking; cocaine trafficking. “small quantity” (specific amount not indicated) unknown Yes: simple possession (2002), 2 trafficking charges (2006); trafficking (2008); trafficking (2011). 60 days in custody for fentanyl, served concurrently to 6 years of incarceration for heroin trafficking, 3 years incarceration for methamphetamine trafficking, and 1 year for cocaine trafficking (10 year global sentence). R. v. Shearer 2015 ONCA 355 Trafficking of fentanyl (appeal focused on other issues, so there is little information regarding the fentanyl) unknown unknown unknown 14 months imprisonment R. v. Marchese 2015 ONCJ 126 Simple possession of fentanyl 4 patches unknown No Conditional discharge on completing 12 months of probation, which includes: statutory terms, reporting to a Probation Officer, and attending counselling for substance abuse. R. v. Smith 2015 ONSC 4604 Three counts of trafficking, which involved two drugs: fentanyl and buprenorphine. unknown unknown Yes: possession and theft (2008) and a drug related charge in 2012. Global sentence of four and a half years (division of sentence among charges not specified). Weapons ban and DNA order also made. R. v. Griffin 1996 CarswellOnt 5654 (OCJ) (upheld on appeal: 1997 CarswellOnt 2049 ) Possession of fentanyl for purpose of trafficking. 38 tablets 8 milligrams Yes: robbery, possession of stolen property, fraud, possession of a narcotic. Three years in custody. R. v. McArthur 2016 ONCJ 244 Uttering a forged document, possession of a hydromorphine for purpose of trafficking, and fraud 600 hydromorphine pills, 60 fentanyl patches unknown No Two years in custody and three years of probation. Breakdown is as follows: • uttering forged documents, six months’ imprisonment to be followed by three years’ probation; • theft of the prescription forms, six months’ imprisonment concurrent, three years’ probation concurrent; • possession of the hydromorphine for the purpose of trafficking, eighteen months’ imprisonment consecutive, three years’ probation concurrent; and, • defrauding the Ontario Drug Benefit Plan, three months’ imprisonment concurrent, three years’ probation concurrent. R. v. Brooker unreported Two counts of trafficking in fentanyl and one count of trafficking in hydromorphine. See next column. • 6 patches of 100 micrograms • 9 patches (no amount of fentanyl indicated) • 22 pills (18 milligrams each) • 8 patches, 100 micrograms each Yes, but not specified Global sentence of four years. R. v. Loor unreported Three counts of tendering a forged document, three counts of trafficking fentanyl. 45 patches 100 micrograms each Several convictions for drug offences Six years in custody, less one year and 169 days of pretrial custody R. v. Corbett 2015 ABPC 212 Trafficking, careless use of firearm, possession of restricted firearm, breach of recognizance, possession for purpose of cocaine, possession for purpose of fentanyl, possession of stolen property. 328 pills unknown No 9 months, which was found to have been satisfied by pretrial custody. No warrant of committal. Probation. Weapons prohibition. R. v. Medeiros-Sousa 2014 ONCJ 626 Theft and three counts of trafficking in oxycodone, hydromorphine, fentanyl. 58 patches (in addition to hydromorphine and oxycodone pills) unknown No Global sentence of two and a half years, to run concurrently on both counts. DNA order and weapons ban, as well as restitution. R. v. Baks unreported 23 charges of trafficking in oxycodone and fentanyl and 23 charges of forging prescriptions for those substances. 990 patches 100 micrograms No Nine year global sentence, divided as follows: • 3 years for one count of trafficking oxycodone; • 5 years for 22 counts of trafficking fentanyl, served concurrently; and, • 4 years for 23 counts of prescription forgery, served consecutively, less pre-trial custody of 3 months. *Sentence varied to 6 years on appeal. R. v. Cloutier unreported One count of trafficking fentanyl. 2 patches 75 micrograms each No 27 months in custody. 10 year weapons prohibition. DNA order. R. v. Enn-Liberty unreported Four counts of trafficking fentanyl and four counts of breaching probation. unknown unknown unknown Six years, less one year for pre-trial custody. 30 days for breaching custody, served consecutively. Lifetime weapons ban. DNA order. R. v. Gatfield unreported One count of trafficking fentanyl. 2 patches Each 100 micrograms, though one was only ¾ full. No 30 months in custody. 10 year weapons ban. DNA order. R. v. McMahan & Edwards unreported Two counts of trafficking fentanyl. 15 patches Two at 75 mcg, two at 100 mcg, four at 50 mcg, and seven at 25 mcg. Yes: possession of marijuana and a fail to appeal charge. 32 months on each count, to be served concurrently. Victim fine surcharge; 10 year weapon ban; DNA order; forfeiture order. R. v. Miller unreported One count of trafficking fentanyl. 14 patches 50 micrograms Yes: one impaired driving charge. 33 months in custody; 10 year weapons ban; victim surcharge fine; DNA order. R. v. Rak 2015 ONCJ 543 One count of trafficking fentanyl. 1 patch 50 micrograms Yes: drug trafficking offences, among other Time served. Pre-trial custody was 434 days, which amounts to 651 on an enhanced credit basis (i.e. 21.75 months). 12 month probation, lifetime weapons ban, and DNA order. R. v. Toth-Dogaru [2014] O.J. No. 4631 Two counts of possession of controlled substances: fentanyl and hydromorphine. 12 patches Seven at 100 mcg and five at 75 mcg (plus 26 30 milligram hydromorphine pills). No Pre-trial custody of 60 days (90 days on enhanced credit). Time served, plus two years probation. *Two months later, accused plead guilty to possession of 30 patches of fentanyl at 100 mcg each. Sentenced 4 months for fentanyl, 30 days for breach of recognizance. Pre-trial custody: 201 days. Time served. No probation. ( 2015 ONSC 480 ).