Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CR-19-90000032 DATE: 20190523 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN – and – MARCO MARIC Defendant

Counsel: B. Gluckman, for the Crown G. Grill, for the Defendant

HEARD: January 11 and April 15, 2019

REasons for sentence

H. McArthur J.:

Introduction

[1] On January 11, 2019, Marco Maric pleaded not guilty to one count of conspiracy to traffic in cocaine. A 10-page Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”) was filed pursuant to s. 655 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. On the basis of the ASF, I was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that for approximately two months, between April 29, 2016 and June 28, 2016, Mr. Maric conspired with a number of other individuals to traffic in cocaine. As a result, I found him guilty.

[2] The sentencing hearing took place on April 15, 2019 and I reserved my reasons. These are my reasons for sentence.

Circumstances of the Offence

[3] By the end of April 2016, Mr. Maric had become a principle target of an overlapping Toronto Police Services and London Police Services investigation into a cocaine trafficking network operating between Toronto and London.

[4] The police discovered that Unit 3802 - 85 Queen’s Wharf Road, Toronto was associated to Mr. Maric. On May 3, 2016, the police were granted a general warrant pursuant to s. 487.01 of the Criminal Code to covertly enter and search this apartment. They secretly searched the apartment three times in May.

The Covert Searches in May 2016

[5] On May 4, 2016, the police searched the apartment associated with Mr. Maric and found approximately 40 kilograms of cutting agents used to dilute cocaine. They also found 8.9 grams of cocaine, a money counter, drug packaging materials and a cocaine press.

[6] On May 10, 2016, the police again searched the apartment. This time, they found an empty “Metro” shopping bag and an empty grey “Nike” shoe box. The police had previously seen these items when executing a general search warrant at another address on May 5. On that date, the Nike shoe box was in the Metro bag and sealed with tape. Inside the shoe box, the police located 10 bundles of cash, totaling $100,000. Also inside of the Metro bag was a white plastic shopping bag that contained four more bundles of cash, totaling $20,000.

[7] On May 26, 2016, the police searched the apartment again, and found approximately four kilograms of cocaine. The cocaine that was packaged had “LEO” written on it in black marker. This was consistent with writing police would later see on cocaine seized from a different address on June 28, 2016.

The Video and Audio Probes in June 2016

[8] On June 2, 2016, police were granted a Part VI authorization and associated general warrants. As a result, in addition to being permitted to covertly enter and search the unit, the police were also allowed to monitor the activities inside the apartment with video and audio probes.

[9] Over the next three weeks, the police monitored and observed the activities inside the apartment. The video and audio probes yielded a large number of intercepts that demonstrated Mr. Maric’s involvement in distributing cocaine. This included observations of Mr. Maric and his associates counting large sums of money, packaging cocaine, and discussing counter-surveillance techniques and impending drug deals.

[10] On June 7, 2016, Mr. Maric was captured on the video and audio probes with a man later identified as Mikhail Lennox. Mr. Maric removed cocaine from a black bag, packaged the cocaine using a vacuum sealer and handed it to Mr. Lennox. Mr. Maric instructed Mr. Lennox on where to deliver the cocaine and how much money to collect. He also instructed him on counter surveillance techniques to avoid police detection.

[11] On June 8, 2016, Mr. Maric was captured on the video and audio probes with three men (Ethan Eckstein, Giovanni Raimondi and Garho Chan) counting a large sum of money. Mr. Maric entered the apartment with a bag, opened the bag and began to toss bundles of money at each of the men. All four men then started to count the money. A money counter could be heard operating in the background intermittently for approximately an hour.

[12] On June 11, 2016, Mr. Maric was captured on the video and audio probe telling Mr. Lennox that he was “so pumped to make money” and that “next week we are really busy.” Mr. Maric instructed Mr. Lennox that they would be jockeying and borrowing cars. On June 12, 2016, Mr. Maric was also overheard explaining to Mr. Lennox how to operate a PGP Blackberry Phone, which cannot be intercepted by the police.

[13] On June 18, 2016, Mr. Maric was captured on the video and audio probes instructing Mr. Lennox on pricing “9 packs” of cocaine, which is common terminology for nine ounces.

[14] Later that night and into the early morning hours of June 19, 2016, Mr. Maric was captured on the video and audio probes packaging cocaine with Mr. Lennox. Mr. Maric was seen placing cocaine inside white plastic bags and sealing them with the vacuum sealer.

[15] On June 20, 2016, police again covertly searched the apartment. They found approximately 1.5 kilograms of cocaine and $5,900 in Canadian currency. The cocaine had “10B” written on it in black marker. This was consistent with writing police would later see on cocaine seized from a different address on June 28, 2016. The police also discovered that the cutting agent seen in May was a few kilograms lighter than before.

[16] On June 24, 2016, the police learned that Mr. Maric was expecting a large delivery of cocaine. He was intercepted on the video probe telling Mr. Lennox that they have “50 birds” coming in next week. Birds is a common term in the drug subculture for a kilogram of cocaine. He also said that nine people were in on the deal and that if it did not happen on Monday (June 27) then Tuesday (June 28) for sure.

The Surveillance on June 27, 2016

[17] On June 27, 2016, the police saw Mr. Maric leave his residence with another male, who drove Mr. Maric around the corner to where Mr. Lennox’s unoccupied GMC Traverse was parked. Mr. Maric got into the Traverse and drove to a Boston Pizza parking lot at 3090 Wonderland Road, London.

[18] Mr. Eckstein was waiting in his GMC Acadia in the parking lot. Mr. Maric spoke with Mr. Eckstein through the driver’s window. Within minutes, the male who had driven Mr. Maric to the Traverse drove into the parking lot and Mr. Maric got into the passenger side of his car. Officers followed this car as it returned to Mr. Maric’s residence.

[19] When the police returned to the Boston Pizza parking lot an hour later, Mr. Eckstein’s Acadia and the Traverse were gone. An Infiniti car that was registered to Mr. Lennox, however, was in the lot.

[20] Through a tracking warrant, the police determined that Mr. Eckstein’s Acadia had gone to a plaza on Paramount Drive in Stoney Creek before returning to London.

[21] Then, just before 11:00 p.m., the police saw Mr. Eckstein drive his Acadia into the Boston Pizza parking lot. Mr. Lennox exited the Acadia and got into his Infiniti. Then both cars left the area.

[22] Mr. Eckstein then went to Mr. Maric’s London residence, where he stayed for about an hour. He then left and drove back to the Boston Pizza parking lot. He was there for about three minutes before returning to Mr. Maric’s.

The Surveillance on June 28, 2016

[23] At 1:00 a.m. on June 28, 2016, the police found Mr. Lennox’s Traverse parked unoccupied in the parking lot of 815 Paramount Drive in Stoney Creek. Based on their observations, the police believed that the Traverse had been dropped off in the plaza to be filled up with drugs.

[24] The police set up surveillance on the Traverse. At 9:58 a.m., a male later identified as Sinisa Manojlovic drove into the Paramount Drive parking lot in a black Toyota RAV4, registered to Tan Hien Quanh. He parked the RAV4 beside the Traverse. He then got a set of keys from a compartment on a Seado parked nearby. He then got into the Traverse and drove it to a nearby townhouse complex, where he drove into the garage and closed the door.

[25] About 45 minutes later, the garage door opened and the Traverse drove out of the garage. The Traverse was now being driven by a male later identified as Jovo Miscevic. He drove the Traverse back to the Paramount Drive parking lot and parked it beside the Seadoo.

[26] Minutes later, Mr. Manojlovic arrived in the lot driving a Dodge Ram. He and Mr. Miscevic hitched the Seadoo trailer to the Dodge Ram and shook hands. Then Mr. Manojlovic drove away in the Dodge Ram, while Mr. Miscevic remained behind.

[27] At around the same time, other officers were conducting surveillance on Mr. Lennox and Mr. Eckstein. They were seen meeting in a plaza parking lot in London. Mr. Eckstein then got into Mr. Lennox’s Infiniti and the men drove towards the Paramount Drive parking lot.

[28] At 11:35 a.m., a white Mercedes, registered to Tang Mui Ly Quanh, entered the Paramount Drive parking lot and drove towards the Traverse and RAV4, which were still parked there. The car drove slowly, almost came to a complete stop beside both cars, then turned around and drove back in the direction from where it had come.

[29] At 11:38 a.m., police saw Mr. Miscevic walk towards the Traverse and the RAV4. He stood between the two vehicles while texting on his phone and looking around.

[30] At 11:39 a.m., police saw Tang Hien Quanh walk towards Mr. Miscevic, and then their hands meeting. Mr. Quanh then walked to the front driver’s side door of the RAV4 and put two bags into the front of the vehicle.

[31] At 11:41 a.m., Mr. Eckstein and Mr. Lennox drove into the Paramount Drive parking lot and parked just west of the RAV4 and Mr. Quanh. Mr. Miscevic approached the passenger side and spoke with Mr. Lennox and Mr. Eckstein through the window. At that point, officers arrested all four males.

The Searches of the Vehicles and the Apartment Associated with Mr. Maric

[32] Police then obtained search warrants for the RAV4 and the Traverse. In the RAV4, police located a kilogram of cocaine inside a satchel on the front passenger seat. Officers also located a large metal box under the trunk. They pried it open and located 36 vacuum sealed packages of cocaine weighing a total of 42.4 kilograms. Some of the cocaine packages had “LEO” written on them in black marker. It is agreed between the Crown and defence that this amount of cocaine was not destined for Mr. Maric.

[33] In the Traverse, the police found a similar large metal box under the trunk. They pried it open and found nine vacuum sealed packages of cocaine, weighing a total of 10.5 kilograms. It is agreed that this cocaine was destined for Mr. Maric.

[34] The police also executed a search warrant at Unit 3802 - 85 Queen’s Wharf Road, the apartment associated with Mr. Maric. They found about 100 grams of cocaine, a hydraulic press, a money counter, a scale and approximately 25 kilograms of cutting agents. Mr. Maric was arrested later that day.

The Price of Cocaine in 2016

[35] In 2016 the price of cocaine in the Toronto and London areas was approximately $80 to $100 per gram. A kilogram of cocaine sold for about $38,000 to $53,000.

Circumstances of the Offender

[36] Mr. Maric is 34 years old. He is married and has a four-and-a-half-year-old daughter.

[37] Mr. Maric has a criminal record, but it is dated and unrelated. In 2009 he was convicted of fail or refuse to provide a sample and fail to comply with bail. He received a total fine of $1,250. In 2010, Mr. Maric was convicted of having a restricted weapon (a butterfly knife) and fail to comply with bail. He was sentenced to a total fine of $1,500.

[38] Mr. Maric was born in Sarajevo and is an only child. When he was seven years old, war broke out. Mr. Maric’s family was trapped for three years in Sarajevo, where they endured horrific conditions. The family routinely did not have enough food, and water was scarce. They often hid in a dark apartment to avoid snipers. Once, their family dog was shot after they let him go on the balcony. Mr. Maric was not able to attend school during this time.

[39] When Mr. Maric was about 10 years old, his family fled to Croatia. Although it was safer, things were still very difficult for Mr. Maric. He was bullied daily because of his Bosnian roots and his accent.

[40] The family arrived in Canada as refugees just days before Mr. Maric’s 12th birthday. Neither he nor his parents spoke English.

[41] Mr. Maric’s father got a job delivering newspapers and Mr. Maric helped out with the deliveries. After a few years of helping to deliver papers and fliers, Mr. Maric started working as a stock boy at a grocery store. Following that, Mr. Maric worked at a restaurant, first as a bus boy and then as a server.

[42] In 2004, Mr. Maric went to Fanshawe College to study business. Unfortunately, he had to leave after his first year for financial reasons. Mr. Maric then began to work doing drywalling and landscaping. In 2007, Mr. Maric started his own landscaping business with two employees.

[43] Although he was doing well, Mr. Maric wanted to upgrade his education so that he could move away from manual labour. As a result, in 2011, Mr. Maric went back to Fanshawe College. It was there that he met his wife. Mr. Maric graduated in 2013 with degrees in both business and business entrepreneurship. After graduation, Mr. Maric started his own web design business called Forest City Vision. Things went well at first. Unfortunately, over time Mr. Maric wound up getting deeply into debt.

[44] In May 2016, Mr. Maric’s mother, wife and daughter went to Estonia to visit family. It was during their absence that Mr. Maric participated in the conspiracy for which he has been found guilty.

[45] Mr. Maric spent 110 days in pre-sentence custody before being granted bail on October 14, 2016. He was then on a very strict house arrest bail for approximately 17 months, where he was not permitted to leave his home unless he was in the presence of his a surety or his lawyer, but even then, he was only allowed out with his surety or lawyer for the purposes of emergency medical issues, medical appointments (if notice was given to the police 48 hours in advance), court attendances, meetings with his lawyer, or other occasions if approved in writing by the police. There was no exception for employment. Mr. Maric was required to wear a GPS monitor. Mr. Maric was also prohibited from accessing the internet unless he had a surety present in the same room. The bail review judge released Mr. Maric with reasons to follow. Unfortunately, those promised reasons were never provided. As a result, there is no explanation for why the restrictive internet term was imposed. Given that there was no suggestion that Mr. Maric’s crimes involved internet access, it is unclear why this term was deemed necessary. In any event, the internet condition was varied in April 2017 to allow Mr. Maric to access the internet, but prohibiting him from erasing his browsing history. The electronic monitoring requirement was also removed.

[46] After 17 months on this very restrictive house arrest, Mr. Maric’s bail was again varied in March 2018. While he was still on a house arrest bail, there were more exceptions. In addition to the exceptions set out above, Mr. Maric was also allowed out of his home for the purposes of employment. His bail was also varied to allow him to drive his young daughter to daycare or other pre-arranged activities, as well as to attend French classes, so that Mr. Maric would be able to assist his daughter to become bilingual.

[47] Following the sentencing hearing, I was advised that Mr. Maric’s bail was varied on May 1, 2019, to delete the house arrest condition. Thus, Mr. Maric was on house arrest for 927 days.

[48] Mr. Maric addressed the court at the end of his sentencing hearing. In a moving and emotional way, he expressed how sorry he is for his crime. Having seen and heard Mr. Maric throughout these proceedings, I accept that he is genuinely remorseful.

Position of the Parties

[49] The Crown argues that a fit and proportionate global sentence is in the range of 10 to 12 years. Such a sentence, he argues, is required to give voice to the paramount sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence.

[50] The defence counters that a sentence in the range of seven to eight years is appropriate. This sentence, he submits, reflects the many mitigating factors in this case and Mr. Maric’s rehabilitative potential.

[51] Both sides agree that any sentence should be reduced to account for pre-sentence custody. There is also no dispute that Mr. Maric should receive enhanced credit because he endured numerous lockdowns while jailed at the Toronto South Detention Centre. Based on the information and documents Mr. Maric provided, both sides submit that Mr. Maric should be credited with a total of 220 days for pre-sentence custody.

[52] Both sides also agree that any sentence should be reduced to account for the time spent on house arrest bail: R. v. Downes, 2006 ONCA 3957, [2006] O.J. No 555 (C.A.), at para. 37. The Crown argues that Mr. Maric should receive .25 for every day on house arrest, which would amount to 232 days. Defence counsel counters that Mr. Maric should be given credit for .33 for every day on house arrest, which would amount to 306 days.

Sentencing Principles and Objectives

[53] Before turning to my analysis regarding what I view as the appropriate sentence in this case, I propose to briefly address the relevant sentencing principles and objectives.

[54] The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society. This is achieved by imposing “just sanctions” that reflect one or more of the traditional sentencing objectives: denunciation, general or specific deterrence, separation of offenders from society where necessary, rehabilitation, reparations for harm done to victims or to the community and promotion of a sense of responsibility in offenders and an acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community.

[55] How much emphasis a court places on each of these objectives will vary according to the nature of the crime and the circumstances of the offender. As noted recently in R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, at para. 58, the “determination of a just and appropriate sentence is a highly individualized exercise that goes beyond a purely mathematical calculation. It involves a variety of factors that are difficult to define with precision.”

[56] The fixing of a fit sentence must always take into account the combined effects of the circumstances of the offence with the unique attributes of the specific offender: R. v. Hamilton, 2004 ONCA 5549, [2004] O.J. No. 3252 (C.A.), at para. 87. This is reflected in the proportionality requirement, which is described in s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code as the fundamental principle of sentencing: a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

[57] In addition to proportionality, the Criminal Code lists a number of other principles to guide sentencing judges. The parity principle is set out in s. 718.2(b) which provides that a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances. Given the highly individualised sentencing process, however, sentences imposed for offences of the same type will not always be identical: R. v. Mann, 2010 ONCA 342, at para. 17; Lacasse, at para. 58.

[58] The totality principle is addressed by s. 718.2(c). A sentencing judge who orders an offender to serve consecutive sentences must ensure that the combined sentence is not unduly long or harsh.

[59] The restraint principle is reflected in both ss. 718.2(d) and (e). As the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed in Hamilton, at para. 96, the principle of restraint means that the sentencing court should seek to impose the least intrusive sentence and the least quantum that will achieve the overall purpose of being an appropriate and just sanction: see also R. v. Sharma, 2019 ONCA 274, at para. 23.

[60] Pursuant to s. 718.2(a) of the Criminal Code a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender. I turn now to the aggravating and mitigating factors in the present case.

Aggravating Factors

[61] Mr. Maric has a criminal record. However, given that the record is dated and unrelated, I do not place much weight on this as an aggravating factor.

[62] The conspiracy involved cocaine, a substance that causes significant harm, both to the individuals who suffer from the ravages of addiction, and the community that suffers the ripple effect of crimes committed by addicts in their quest to get money to feed their addictions.

[63] Mr. Maric was motivated by greed. This was an enterprise driven by profit, not addiction.

[64] This was an ongoing conspiracy, not an isolated incident. Over the course of two months, Mr. Maric was involved in cutting cocaine with adulterants, packaging cocaine, and arranging for the distribution of cocaine.

[65] The quantity of cocaine Mr. Maric was involved with is also aggravating. He had four kilograms in the unit associated with him. He also helped broker a deal for approximately 50 kilograms, of which he was to receive 10.5 kilograms.

[66] This was a sophisticated operation, which involved significant planning.

[67] Mr. Maric enjoyed a high ranking position in the drug scheme. He instructed others, such as Mr. Lennox, on where to deliver drugs, how to avoid detection and on pricing.

Mitigating Factors

[68] Mr. Maric did not plead guilty and is not entitled to the mitigation in sentence that he would have been if he had done so. At the same time, by proceeding on the basis of an ASF, he saved the court considerable time and resources. He is entitled to some mitigation in his sentence on the basis of the way in which he conducted this litigation.

[69] Mr. Maric has a solid and long work history. Starting with delivering papers with his father at the age of 12, he has worked at legitimate employment for most of his life.

[70] Mr. Maric has the strong support of his family. His wife and father attended court to show their support. This support will assist Mr. Maric in moving forward in a pro-social way when he is released from custody.

[71] I also note that Mr. Maric’s mother would have attended to show support, but is suffering from cancer. I take into consideration how difficult it must be for Mr. Maric and for his family for him to have to go into custody when his mother is fighting cancer. It is tragic that Mr. Maric will not be able to be with his mother as she battles her illness, and that he may not be there with her when her battle ends.

[72] Mr. Maric is by all accounts a loving father. He has been heavily involved with his daughter’s care. He took French courses so that he would be able to assist his daughter when she enters French Immersion in school. I take that into consideration as well as the impact that his incarceration will have on his young child.

[73] Mr. Maric spent significant time on house arrest bail without incident. This shows his capacity to be pro-social.

[74] Mr. Maric has endured significant hardship, first as a child in a war-torn country, then as a refugee in Croatia, and finally as a newcomer in Canada, arriving without even knowing either official language. Despite that, he managed to obtain an education and establish a business. This speaks to Mr. Maric’s determination, ability to work hard and his resilience. All of these traits will assist him upon his release as he attempts to move forward and be a contributing member of society.

[75] I turn now to my analysis as to what would be a fit and proportionate sentence in this case.

Analysis

[76] It is clear that denunciation and deterrence must be the paramount sentencing considerations for conspiracy to traffic in cocaine. Cocaine causes immense social harm. As noted by the Court of Appeal in Hamilton, at para. 104, the “use and sale of cocaine kills and harms both directly and indirectly. The direct adverse health effects on those who use the drug are enormous and disastrous.” As Code J. noted, in R. v. Duncan et al., 2016 ONSC 1319, at para. 37, “…trial courts bear witness every day to the widespread ravages and criminal consequences of cocaine addiction and cocaine trafficking.”

[77] Given the destructive impact of cocaine, courts must clearly denounce those who would seek to profit off the sale of this substance with exemplary sentences. Further, the courts must send a clear message to those who would traffic in cocaine that they will face significant jail sentences if they do. Given the time Mr. Maric has spent on bail without incident, in my view specific deterrence is not as pressing an objective in this case. That said, given the significant monetary profits related to cocaine trafficking, a message must still be sent to Mr. Maric so that he understands that any such profits are not worth the severe consequences he will face if caught.

[78] On the other hand, rehabilitation is still a relevant sentencing objective in this case. Mr. Maric has shown that he has significant rehabilitative potential. He has strong family support. He is a loving father, husband and son. He has shown that he can be a positive, contributing member of society.

[79] Both sides provided me with cases in support of their respective positions: R. v. Bajada, 2003 ONCA 15687, [2003] O.J. No. 721 (C.A.); R. v. Bryan, 2011 ONCA 273, [2011] O.J. No. 1581 (C.A.); R. v. Muise, 2008 ONCA 665; R. v. Nero, 2008 ONCA 622; R. v. Battista, 2011 ONSC 6394; R. v. Farrell, 2011 ONSC 6252; R. v. Jageshur, 2017 ONCA 15; R. v. Saikaley, 2017 ONCA 374, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, 37689 (30 November 2017); R. v. Duncan et al., 2016 ONSC 1319; R. v. Buttazzoni, 2016 ONSC 1287; R. v. D’Onofrio, 2012 ONSC 195, aff’d 2013 ONCA 145; R. v. Tello, 2018 ONSC 2259; and R. v. Ursino and Dracea, 2019 ONSC 1171.

[80] A review of the cases provided shows that in multi-kilo conspiracy to traffic offences, two of the most significant factors affecting the quantum of sentence are 1) the quantity of drugs involved and 2) the role that the offender played, for example, was he or she a directing mind or merely a courier. This is related to the fundamental principle of proportionality: the more drugs that are involved, the higher the gravity of the offence; the more significant the role played by the offender, the higher the degree of moral blameworthiness.

[81] Here, Mr. Maric was not a mere courier, rather, he held a leadership role in the drug conspiracy. Further, he was dealing with a significant amount of cocaine; he was to receive 10.5 kilograms on June 28 and about a month earlier, police found four kilograms of cocaine in an apartment unit associated with him. Looking at the amount of cocaine involved and Mr. Maric’s role in the conspiracy, I cannot accede to the defence position of seven to eight years. In my view, in light of these factors, the sentence suggested does not give sufficient consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence.

[82] On the other hand, in my view the sentence suggested by the Crown does not give sufficient consideration to the principle of restraint, nor Mr. Maric’s rehabilitative potential.

[83] Balancing the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case, and considering the relevant sentencing principles and objectives, in my view, a fit and proportionate sentence before taking into consideration any pre-sentence custody or time on house arrest bail is one of nine years.

[84] Mr. Maric served 110 days of pre-sentence custody, which should be credited on a 1:1:5 basis for the equivalent of 165 days. Considering the harsh conditions he endured as a result of the numerous lockdowns while in jail, that should be enhanced to 220 days credit. Further, in my view, Mr. Maric is entitled to 260 days for his time on house arrest. Thus, Mr. Maric is entitled to total credit for his pre-sentence custody and time on house arrest bail in the amount of 16 months.

[85] In light of that credit, I am sentencing Mr. Maric to a further seven years and eight months.

Ancillary Orders

[86] Conspiracy to traffic in cocaine is a designated secondary offence. Pursuant to s. 487.051(3)(b) of the Criminal Code, I am satisfied that it is in the best interests of justice to make an order authorizing the taking of samples from Mr. Maric for the purpose of DNA testing. In arriving at this conclusion, I have considered the nature and circumstances surrounding the current offence, Mr. Maric’s criminal record, and the minimal impact that this order will have on Mr. Maric’s privacy and security of the person.

[87] A weapons prohibition pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code also applies. Pursuant to s. 109, Mr. Maric is prohibited from possessing any prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device and prohibited ammunition for life and any firearm (other than one that is prohibited or restricted), cross-bow, restricted weapon, ammunition and explosive substance for 10 years.

[88] Pursuant to s. 16(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19, I also order forfeiture of the powder cutting agents/adulterants (benzocaine, phenacetin, procaine), digital scale, money counter and briefcase (containing vacuum sealed bag of cocaine) seized at Unit 3802 - 85 Queen’s Wharf Road, Toronto, Ontario on June 28, 2016 as offence-related property, to be forfeited to Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada to be disposed of in accordance with the law.

[89] Finally, the Crown seeks forfeiture of $8,500 Canadian currency and $600 US currency seized from Mr. Maric’s home as the proceeds of crime. Mr. Maric is opposed and argues that the money was for a stag party, as evidenced by some notations on the envelope in which the money was found. Having considered the evidence before me and the submissions of counsel, I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the property is the proceeds of crime and that the designated offence for which Mr. Maric was convicted was committed in relation to that property. As a result, I order forfeiture of the currency pursuant to s. 462.37(1) of the Criminal Code.

Justice Heather McArthur

Released: May 23, 2019