Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CR-23-50000469-0000 DATE: 2024-03-01 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING – and – ISIAHA GORDON-BROWN Defendant

Counsel: Susan Adams and Colin Sheppard, Counsel for the Crown Craig Zeeh and Emmett Brownscombe, Counsel for the Defence

HEARD: January 12, February 9 and 23, 2024

M.A. CODE J.

Reasons for Judgement

A. Overview

[1] The accused Isiaha Gordon-Brown (hereinafter, Gordon-Brown) was charged in a 21 count Indictment with numerous firearms, drugs, and criminal organization offences. Five of these counts charged only Gordon-Brown’s co-accused, Cejai Gordon, who is Gordon-Brown’s half brother. The trial of this Indictment was set for September 9, 2024 and it was scheduled to last four weeks with a jury.

[2] Gordon-Brown was one of 31 accused persons charged in 17 separate Indictments, who brought a single s. 8 Charter Application relating to the admissibility of wiretap evidence at their pending trials. Two wiretap authorizations granted by Kelly J. in March and May 2022 resulted in evidence that the Crown sought to rely on at all 17 of these trials. The police investigation that led to the wiretap authorizations was known as “Project Venom”. It was focused on the alleged criminal activities of a group known as the “Jungle Gang”, which was located mainly in the Lawrence Heights neighbourhood of Toronto.

[3] I heard the s. 8 Charter Application during a three week period in December 2023 and January 2024. During the last week of this hearing, Gordon-Brown abandoned the one Charter issue that he had been pursuing. The issue was arguable but was unlikely to lead to a remedy that would have had any significant impact on Gordon-Brown’s pending trial. I held a judicial pre-trial (JPT) in chambers and a potential resolution was discussed. Shortly after this JPT, Gordon-Brown abandoned his s. 8 Charter Application, re-elected trial by judge alone, and entered guilty pleas before me to five counts in the Indictment.

[4] My written Reasons for Judgement, dismissing the joint s. 8 Charter challenge to Kelly J.’s authorizations, was released immediately after Gordon-Brown entered his guilty pleas on January 12, 2024. The nature of Gordon-Brown’s abandoned Charter argument concerned an alleged failure to properly “minimize” some privileged phone calls with his lawyer. The argument is summarized in my written Reasons dismissing the s. 8 Charter Application. See: R. v. Abudu and 30 Others, 2024 ONSC 297 at paras. 42-46. Gordon-Brown seeks mitigation of his sentence as a result of resolving the case and abandoning an arguable Charter Application, well in advance of trial.

[5] The five counts in the Indictment to which Gordon-Brown pleaded guilty alleged trafficking in cocaine (count three), trafficking in fentanyl (count four), possession of a 50 round firearm drum magazine (count five), possession of a loaded restricted handgun (count 17), and possession of proceeds of crime (count 20). He pleaded not guilty to one additional count on which he was arraigned. That count alleged that his now admitted drug trafficking activities were “for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization” (count two). Although he pleaded not guilty to this count, he agreed to conduct a short one day judge alone trial on an Agreed Statement of Fact (ASF) which would attach the numerous relevant exhibits (the various wiretaps, seizures, social media posts, and police reports). The sentencing hearing and the judge alone trial on the “criminal organization” count were conducted together, at a long one day blended hearing on February 23, 2024. I reserved judgement on both the sentencing issue and the trial issue. Needless to say, counsel deserve a great deal of credit for the very responsible, efficient, and effective way in which they conducted these proceedings. That credit will be reflected in my analysis of the appropriate sentence.

[6] These are my Reasons for Judgement on the “criminal organization” trial issue and on the sentencing issue.

B. Facts

[7] The facts relating to the five counts on which Gordon-Brown pleaded guilty are set out in an ASF that was filed at the time of the guilty pleas (Exhibit 1).

[8] The first “Project Venom” wiretap authorization was granted by Kelly J. on March 11, 2022. Gordon-Brown was one of the main named targets. About one month later, on April 14, 2022, the police utilized general warrant powers which formed part of the wiretap authorization, in order to search a Toronto storage locker belonging to Gordon-Brown. The storage locker contained drug paraphernalia such as a digital scale, plastic bags, a vacuum sealing system, a mixer, methylsulphonylmethane, and cooking utensils. In addition, the locker contained a .40 calibre Smith & Wesson 50 round drum magazine, which is a “prohibited device” within the meaning of ss. 92(2) and 84(1). This drum magazine was fully loaded with .40 calibre ammunition and there was additional ammunition in a plastic bag. The evidence found in the storage locker supports Gordon-Brown’s guilty plea to the count five “prohibited device” offence. In addition, it supports some of the inferences that also emerge from wiretaps filed in relation to the “criminal organization” issue, namely, that Gordon-Brown had the capacity to mix or cut or cook drugs and that he had the sophistication to store incriminating evidence away from his residence and his car.

[9] The second “Project Venom” wiretap authorization was granted by Kelly J. on May 9, 2022. Five days later, on May 14, 2022, the police executed a search warrant on a residence in Sault Ste. Marie. They seized 10.5 grams of cocaine, a digital scale, mail addressed to Gordon-Brown, cash, two laptops, and five cell phones. Gordon-Brown admits that he was renting this residence and that he possessed the seized items for the purpose of trafficking. This evidence seized in Sault Ste. Marie supports Gordon-Brown’s guilty plea to the count three offence of cocaine trafficking “in the Toronto Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario”. The wiretaps filed in relation to the “criminal organization” issue include discussions about this May 14, 2022 search and seizure, about certain drugs that were not seized by the police, and about the implications of this seizure for others located in Toronto (which I will refer to later in these Reasons).

[10] The most significant evidence relating to the count three cocaine trafficking and count four fentanyl trafficking offences emerged from the wiretaps. These two counts in the Indictment covered the three and a half month period during which the wiretaps were authorized, that is, from March 11th to June 27th, 2022. There was a significant admission in the ASF (Exhibit 1, para. 13) summarizing this body of evidence, as follows:

As disclosed in the wiretap intercepts, Mr. Gordon-Brown was trafficking fentanyl and cocaine from March 11, 2022 to June 27, 2022. He was selling cocaine at the multiple ounce and ounce level and in smaller increments. He was running a drug program in Sault Ste. Marie and selling cocaine and fentanyl there as well. Mr. Gordon-Brown discussed buying fentanyl up to the kilogram level, and was buying it at the multi-ounce level, including ½ kilograms (18 ounces) and 9-packs (9 ounces). He was selling it at the multi-ounce level, ounce level, and in smaller increments. In addition, he would personally add cutting agent to the fentanyl to increase the amount of product, thereby increasing his profits.

[11] At the end of the wiretap investigation, on June 28, 2022, Gordon-Brown was arrested. In the days immediately prior to his arrest, on June 24 and 27, 2022, the police made two seizures (and made related arrests) that were both connected to Gordon-Brown. These two incidents were discussed in the wiretaps filed in relation to the “criminal organization” issue and they were the subject of admissions in the ASF (Exhibit 1 at paras. 4-10).

[12] The first incident, on June 24, 2022, involved Gordon-Brown arranging the sale of an ounce of purple fentanyl to a customer for $800. In order to carry out this sale, Gordon-Brown made use of two assistants (referred to as “Male X” and “Female A” in the ASF, in order to prevent any prejudice to their fair trial interests). Gordon-Brown instructed “Male X” where to obtain his fentanyl and where to meet the customer at Fairview Mall. Gordon-Brown also instructed “Female A”, who was holding his “stash”, to meet with “Male X” and to give him the fentanyl. The “Project Venom” investigators attended at the scene of this drug transaction at Fairview Mall and arrested “Male X”. He was in the driver’s seat of a car and the police seized 29.42 grams of purple fentanyl on the driver’s side floor. “Male X” had $800 cash in his hand and there was a scale under the front passenger seat. It is admitted that “Male X” possessed the fentanyl and the $800 proceeds of the sale on behalf of Gordon-Brown. Gordon-Brown’s use of two assistants, in order to carry out this sale, is relevant to the “criminal organization” issue (which I will discuss later in these Reasons). It should also be noted that the police located a loaded .40 calibre Glock firearm under the driver’s seat. It is not alleged that Gordon-Brown possessed this gun but it was the subject of some discussion in the wiretaps. It should also be noted that Gordon-Brown’s customer was searched and was found in possession of 24.41 grams of cocaine and 4.25 grams of purple fentanyl. It is not alleged that Gordon-Brown possessed these drugs. In the aftermath of this June 24, 2022 arrest of “Male X” and the seizure of Gordon-Brown’s fentanyl and his proceeds from the sale, there was discussion in the wiretaps about the implications of these events for others in Toronto. These discussions are relevant to the “criminal organization” trial issue (which, once again, will be analysed later in these Reasons).

[13] The second incident, which occurred on June 27, 2022, involved “Female A”. She had been holding Gordon-Brown’s “stash” at the time of the above June 24, 2022 incident. On the wiretaps, “Female A” told Gordon-Brown that his property was in a silver BMW that was associated with her. Surveillance officers observed Gordon-Brown driving in his Mercedes SUV to the parking lot of “Female A’s” residence and then going with her to the silver BMW. “Female A” retrieved a bag from the BMW, attended at Gordon-Brown’s Mercedes, and then returned the bag to the BMW. The “Project Venom” investigators obtained a search warrant for “Female A’s” residence and for the BMW. In a bag on the back seat of the BMW, they found a Glock 23 handgun with 15 rounds of ammunition in the clip. In a sentry safe in a bag on the back seat, they found 100 grams of powder cocaine, 9.45 grams of fentanyl, 1,306 grams of cutting agent, and a digital scale. Gordon-Brown admits that the gun and the drugs belonged to him and that the drugs were for the purpose of trafficking. No drugs or firearms were seized at “Female A’s” residence.

[14] The above seizure of the loaded Glock handgun provides the factual basis for Gordon-Brown’s guilty plea to the s. 95 firearms offence in count 17. The drug seizures on both June 24th and 27th, 2022 provide further support for the guilty pleas to the counts three and four cocaine and fentanyl trafficking offences. In addition, Gordon-Brown’s use of two assistants and his storage of incriminating evidence at locations other than his residence or his car provides evidence of his sophistication and his level of seniority in the drug business.

[15] After Gordon-Brown’s arrest on June 28, 2022, the “Project Venom” investigators executed a search warrant on his safety deposit box, which was located at a TD Bank branch. The police seized Gordon-Brown’s passport, watches, and jewelry from the safety deposit box. The jewelry included two gold and diamond necklaces with an appraised value of $86,000 and $50,500. Two gold and diamond “Jungle City” pendants with “shots down” insignia (which will be explained later in these Reasons) had an appraised value of $19,800 each. The two Rolex watches retail for over $40,000. It is admitted that the jewelry and watches were valued at approximately $256,100 and that they were obtained from proceeds of crime. This evidence provides the factual basis for Gordon-Brown’s guilty plea to the count 20 possession of proceeds offence. The wiretaps filed in relation to the “criminal organization” trial issue include discussions about these proceeds. The very large quantum of proceeds is relevant to Gordon-Brown’s position in the drug trade hierarchy and to the size and scope of his trafficking activities. Finally, the “Jungle City” pendants with “shots down” insignia are relevant to the “criminal organization” issue.

[16] I do not intend to summarize the factual record relating to the “criminal organization” trial issue in any detail at this stage. It is a very large record and I will refer to its more important parts below, when analysing the ultimate trial issue. In brief summary, the parties negotiated a 56 page ASF (Exhibit 11). In 182 paragraphs and 459 footnotes, the ASF analyses a large body of wiretaps, seizures, social media posts, rap music videos, and police reports that all emerged from the “Project Venom” investigation and that are all appended to the ASF in seven large volumes or appendices (Exhibits 5 to 10 and 13).

C. Analysis

(i) Introduction

[17] As explained above, the proceedings in this matter were a blended sentencing hearing (as the accused had pleaded guilty to five counts in the Indictment) and a judge alone trial (as the accused had pleaded not guilty to one count). It is settled law that there are different rules of evidence at a sentencing hearing and at a trial. See: R. v. Gardiner (1982), 68 C.C.C. (2d) 477 at 514 (S.C.C.); R. v. Albright (1987), 37 C.C.C. (3d) 105 at 111 (S.C.C.); R. v. Gibson, 2012 ONSC 5527 at para. 7, aff’d 2021 ONCA 530. As a result, it was important to apply strict trial rules of evidence when determining the “criminal organization” issue but to apply somewhat more relaxed rules of evidence when determining the sentencing issues. In particular, the wiretaps were carefully assessed in accordance with the hearsay rule, during the trial portion of the hearing, but Mr. Zeeh was allowed to liberally introduce certain kinds of hearsay during the sentencing part of the proceedings. The parties agreed to proceed in this manner, at a single blended hearing, as it was efficient and convenient. Of course, once the trial issue was resolved, all the evidence heard at the “criminal organization” trial could be considered in relation to sentence, depending on the results of the “criminal organization” issue.

(ii) The “criminal organization” trial issue

[18] As explained above, the Crown had Gordon-Brown arraigned on the count two offence of drug trafficking “for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization”. He pleaded not guilty to this offence and put the Crown to strict proof of its elements.

[19] Given the way that the one day judge alone trial proceeded, the disputed issue on this count became relatively narrow. Gordon-Brown had already admitted facts relating to his substantial drug trafficking activities, summarized above, as the basis for his guilty pleas to counts three, four, and 20. In addition, in the ASF filed on the one day trial (Exhibit 11) he made a number of significant admissions, including the following (at paras 1 and 4):

Project Venom was a large-scale investigation into a criminal organization known as the Jungle Gang and its subsets “GGG” or the “Go Getem Gang”, and “FCF” or “Family Comes First”. Members and associates of the Jungle Gang were alleged to be involved in drug trafficking, shootings, and firearms offences, both in the Lawrence Heights area of Toronto (which saw 67 documented shootings and firearm discharge incidents from 2019 to early 2022, 41 involving alleged members and associates of the Jungle Gang), and in various locations in Alberta.

The Jungle Gang has rivalries with other street gangs or “opps” (opposition) in the Toronto area, most notably the Falstaff Marke Gang and the Shots Up Mafia. Many of the 67 shootings linked to the Lawrence Heights area since 2019 are believed to be a consequence of the unrest between the Jungle Gang/GGG and rival street gangs.

[20] In light of the above admitted facts – that Gordon-Brown is a substantial drug trafficker and that the Jungle Gang and its subsets GGG or Go Getem Gang and FCF are a criminal organization and that there are rival gangs – the parties proceeded on the basis that the only live issue at trial on count two was whether Gordon-Brown’s drug trafficking was being carried out “in association with” the Jungle Gang and its subsets. The Crown did not rely on the two other prongs of the s. 467.12 offence, namely, “for the benefit of” or “at the direction of”. In addition, the defence agreed that the Jungle Gang exists and that Gordon-Brown lived and trafficked in Jungle Gang territory in Lawrence Heights. The defence position was that Gordon-Brown was a drug trafficker in Lawrence Heights but that he and his associates in the drug trade were independent of the Jungle Gang.

[21] The one disputed element of the count two offence is, therefore, whether the Crown has proved the “in association with” requirement. The meaning of that statutory term in s. 467.12 is set out in two decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada and the Ontario Court of Appeal. In both cases, the courts adopted the reasons of Fuerst J. in R. v. Lindsay and Bonner (2004), 70 O.R. (3d) 131 at para. 59 (S.C.J.). In the Supreme Court of Canada decision, R. v. Venneri (2012), 286 C.C.C. (3d) 1 at paras. 55-6 (S.C.C.), Fish J. stated the following on behalf of the unanimous Court:

The phrase “in association with” requires a connection between the predicate offence and the organization, as opposed to simply an association between the accused and the organization: see R. v. Drecic, 2011 ONCA 118 at para. 3. In R. v. Lindsay (2004), 70 O.R. (3d) 131 (Ont. S.C.J.), aff’d 2009 ONCA 532, 245 C.C.C. (3d) 301 (Ont. C.A.), the trial judge, correctly in my view, interpreted the phrase “in association with” as follows:

The phrase “in association with” is not impermissibly vague. The phrase is intended to apply to those persons who commit criminal offences in linkage with a criminal organization, even though they are not formal members of the group. The Oxford English Dictionary (10th ed.) defines the phrase “associate oneself with” to mean, “allow oneself to be connected with or seen to be supportive of”. The phrase “in association with” requires that the accused commit a criminal offence in connection with the criminal organization. Whether the particular connection is sufficient to satisfy the “in association with” requirement will be for a court to determine, based on the facts of the case.

[Emphasis added; para. 59.]

As mentioned earlier, an offender may commit an offence “in association with” a criminal organization of which the offender is not a member. Membership in an organization, however, remains a relevant factor in determining whether the required nexus between the offence and the organization has been made out (see Drecic, at para. 3).

Also see: R. v. Lindsay and Bonner (2009), 245 C.C.C. (3d) 301 at para. 23 (Ont. C.A.) where MacPherson J.A. similarly adopted Fuerst J.’s above analysis of the “in association with” requirement, on behalf of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

[22] The Court of Appeal’s decision in R. v. Drecic, 2011 ONCA 118 at para. 3 is also helpful in explaining the meaning of “in association with”:

In particular, the existing jurisprudence from this and other courts establishes that the “in association with” requirement of s. 476.12(1) of the Code will be made out so long as there is a connection or link between the underlying offence and the criminal organization in question. Contrary to the position put forward by the appellant, the criminal organization does not have to be “directly involved” in the underlying offence or play a “direct and integral role in it”. The appellant fairly concedes that the following observation made by Justice Nordheimer in R. v. Bodenstein (unreported July 13, 2010 (ON. S.C.)) is an accurate statement of the law:

In other words, if membership in the organization is part of the reason why the offence is undertaken or if membership in the organization assists in the commission of the offence, then it can be fairly concluded the offence was undertaken in association with the organization.

[23] There was no defence evidence called at trial and there are no witness credibility issues. As a result, the resolution of the “criminal organization” trial issue turns on an assessment of the Crown’s circumstantial evidence. In my view, the most important evidence connecting Gordon-Brown’s drug trafficking to the Jungle Gang and its subsets, GGG or Go Getem Gang and FCF, is the following:

• First, the fact that Gordon-Brown was a substantial drug trafficker in Lawrence Heights, where he lived, is an important initial item of circumstantial evidence. I agree with Mr. Zeeh that this one admitted fact is not determinative, because it is possible that independent drug traffickers could co-exist in Lawrence Heights, together with the Jungle Gang. However, one of the most important rationales for the gang’s very existence, is to protect its lucrative drug trade, within its territory, by driving out rival gangs. The Jungle Gang’s obvious animosity towards rivals, like the Falstaff Marke Gang and Shots up Mafia, tends to suggest that their apparent acceptance of Gordon-Brown’s lucrative drug trafficking business within their territory was due to some degree of connection or association. In this regard, it is an admitted fact in the ASF filed at trial (Exhibit 11 at para. 4) that: “The Jungle Gang has rivalries with other street gangs, most notably the Falstaff Marke Gang and the Shots Up Mafia. Many of the 67 shootings linked to the Lawrence Heights area since 2019 are believed to be a consequence of the unrest between the Jungle Gang/GGG and rival street gangs.” There was no such violent animosity towards Gordon-Brown, which suggests there was some kind of connection or association between him and the gang;
• Second, Gordon-Brown was admittedly in possession of two diamond and gold necklaces designed with the “shots down” insignia and the “Jungle City” name on the two pendants. There may be innocent reasons for purchasing this very expensive decorative jewelry, such as neighbourhood pride, as Mr. Zeeh submitted. However, there is a strong body of evidence establishing that this particular insignia, this particular name, and this particular kind of necklace and pendant is associated with the Jungle Gang. In particular, there is a photograph of prominent Jungle Gang leader, Hassan Ali, posted on Instagram. He is wearing a very similar necklace and pendant to Gordon-Brown’s two necklaces and pendants, with “Jungle City” and the “shots down” hand sign clearly visible on the pendant. The words “my GG” are printed on this photograph. In my view, this particular item of circumstantial evidence is somewhat similar to the Hells Angels regalia that were possessed and worn by the two accused in Lindsay and Bonner;
• Third, Gordon-Brown is depicted in photographs attending the wedding of an apparent Jungle Gang member in Ottawa in 2018. In one large group photograph, many of the wedding attendees can be seen displaying the “shots down” hand sign associated with the Jungle Gang. One known associate of Gordon-Brown in the Toronto drug trade (Jahvon Burke) is amongst those making this hand sign. One prominent leader of the Jungle Gang depicted in this group photograph (Hassan Ali) posted another wedding photograph on his Snapchat account. That particular photograph depicts Hassan Ali and Gordon-Brown standing at the front of a group of males, some of whom appear to be making the “shots down” hand sign. On the bottom of this photograph the word “Jungle” has been superimposed. There are many social media posts associating Hassan Ali with GGG, including pictures of large amounts of cash and a picture of Hassan Ali wearing “Shots Down” clothing. Shortly after this wedding, one of the attendees was murdered in Ottawa;
• Fourth, the male assistant who carried out the June 24, 2022 sale of an ounce of fentanyl on Gordon-Brown’s behalf is referred to as “Male X” in the ASF (Exhibit 1). This person’s actual identity is Cejai Gordon and he is Gordon-Brown’s half brother and co-accused. On Cejai Gordon’s Instagram account, there are various posts depicting him wearing a GGG face mask and a GGG t-shirt, making the “shots down” hand sign, making various references to “Jungle” and “GGG”, associating with known gang leader Hassan Ali, depicting large stacks of cash, and repeatedly depicting necklaces and pendants with the “Jungle City” name and the “shots down” insignia. These necklaces and pendants are very similar to Hassan Ali’s and to Gordon-Brown’s three necklaces and pendants (referred to above). It is admitted in the ASF filed on the trial (Exhibit 11) that “Male X, brother of Isiaha Gordon-Brown, is linked to individuals associated with GGG and Jungle Gang, and the GGG and Jungle Gang itself, through social media.” In other words, it can be inferred from this body of evidence that the drug deal at Fairview Mall on June 24, 2022, that was directed by Gordon-Brown, was carried out on his behalf by a close Jungle Gang member or associate. This one item of circumstantial evidence, arguably on its own, infers a connection or association between Gordon-Brown’s drug trafficking and the Jungle Gang;
• Fifth, Gordon-Brown participated in a rap video posted on YouTube, titled “Shirt Off On Any Block”. Known Jungle Gang leader Hassan Ali has a prominent role in the rap video. The majority of the rap video was filmed outdoors in the Lawrence Heights neighbourhood. The “shots down” hand sign associated with the Jungle Gang, as well as repeated displays of cash, are depicted in the video. The “shots down” hand sign indicates disrespect towards rival gangs, especially the Shots Up Mafia. The lyrics of the rap video repeatedly refer to “Go Getem” and to “FCF”, which are both admittedly subsets of the Jungle Gang. The ASF filed on the trial (Exhibit 11) includes the following admission: “Rap videos and social media posts are used by gang members to send messages to rival gang members and to show solidarity and/or support of a gang. Although posts can be used simply for artistic expression, only friends, associates or members of a gang would wear items depicting that gang’s name or appear in videos or photographs that prominently feature the name of the gang”;
• Sixth, the search of Gordon-Brown’s residence on June 28, 2022 led to the seizure of two U.S. dollar bills with “GGG” printed in the centre oval where the U.S. President’s image is normally located. These two “GGG” dollar bills were located on top of a money counting machine and near to Ontario government mail addressed to Gordon-Brown;
• Seventh, another item seized from Gordon-Brown’s safety deposit box was a pair of sunglasses with “GGG” on the front of the left lens. It is not admitted that these sunglasses belonged to Gordon-Brown and it is noted that Cejai Gordon’s passport was also located in the same safety deposit box. It can be inferred that the “GGG” sunglasses belonged to either Cejai Gordon or to Gordon-Brown and that, in any event, Gordon-Brown allowed this apparent gang regalia to be stored in his safety deposit box;
• Eighth, the totality of the wiretaps strongly infers that Gordon-Brown’s drug trafficking business was closely connected to a network of associates, who he assisted and who assisted him. They often acted in concert when buying and selling drugs, they shared intelligence about possible informants and about police surveillance and searches and arrests, they discussed their “opps” or opponents (including once when referring to an occasion on which Gordon-Brown was shot), they constantly advised each other on how to avoid detection of their drug trafficking activities, and they expressed mutual concern and support when they felt the “Project Venom” investigation was closing in and was threatening their lucrative business. I need not quote all of these obvious indicia of Gordon-Brown’s collective cooperation with others who were involved in the Lawrence Heights drug trafficking business, as they are too numerous. The simple point is that Gordon-Brown was part of a relatively large cooperative network of drug traffickers working in Lawrence Heights. It is unlikely that this network of drug traffickers was completely independent of the Jungle Gang, in the context of all the above summarized evidence about the gang and about Gordon-Brown’s apparent connection to it. The defence concedes that Gordon-Brown was part of a larger group or network of drug traffickers who were working in Lawrence Heights. The defence position is that Gordon-Brown’s entire network of trafficking associates was independent of the Jungle Gang. In other words, the defence position is implicitly that there were two separate trafficking networks in Lawrence Heights – Gordon-Brown’s network and the Jungle Gang. I will quote a few of the wiretap intercepts to illustrate the implausibility of this proposition. On April 4, 2022, Gordon-Brown and his associates were aware of and concerned about police surveillance. Gordon-Brown stated, “Everyone could be getting in trouble right now … Everyone’s supposed to come together … it’s our people … Everyone just overlooks it because it’s us.” Over a month later, on May 19, 2022, shortly after Gordon-Brown’s drugs in Sault Ste. Marie had been seized and immediately after Jahmel Burke had been arrested as a result of a search of his premises, there was an important intercept. A vehicle probe in Gordon-Brown’s Mercedes captured his discussions with Jahmel and Jahvon Burke. In the context of the above recent developments, Jahmel Burke asked the others, “Stay strong, stay strong, stay strong … I love you guys still … try to keep that alive for me.” Gordon-Brown replied, “I ain’t going nowhere … I’ll talk to brodie.” Jahmel Burke stated, “you have to get ahold of Stammer for me … he has some money for me.” Gordon-Brown agreed, saying “I’ll do.” Jahvon Burke then said, “There’s someone talking … someone’s ratting out here.” A few hours later, in another vehicle probe in Gordon-Brown’s Mercedes, he told Cejai Gordon and Burnell Smith that “it’s really going down … Everyone’s fucked.” He told them about the previous discussion, after Jahmel Burke’s arrest, stating that Jahmel said, “you guys stay strong, I’m done … You guys take it over … try to make me a little money … tell Stammer gimme the money he owes me.” Gordon-Brown referred to the apparently ongoing police investigation and said, “It still caught us by surprise.” Burnell Smith said, “we’re done basically”. An hour later, in the same vehicle probe, Gordon-Brown stated, “I told you its happening … they just took down Butta, Burns, Braids, a lot of the guys … they did my door first [in Sault Ste. Marie] … and then they came down here and did these guys’ doors … the guys are done right now.” A few days later, on May 24, 2022, Gordon-Brown was intercepted by the vehicle probe in his Mercedes, talking with Burnell Smith and Cejai Gordon. A large amount of fentanyl, a gun, and cash had been seized by the police from a storage locker associated with Burnell Smith on May 19, 2022. Gordon-Brown stated, “It happens everywhere … It’s just Jungles involved in here. That’s really what all it is … happened to everyone else. This year they’re like, yeah, let’s see what these GGs are on.” About a month later, on June 28, 2022, Gordon-Brown’s arrest now seemed imminent (after the two seizures on June 24 and 27, 2022 discussed above). In a vehicle probe in his Mercedes, Gordon-Brown stated, “It’s like after they get me … they could say they cleaned the whole Jungs.” In my view, there is nothing in the wiretaps suggesting that there were two separate and independent networks of drug traffickers working in Lawrence Heights. Gordon-Brown and his associates all appeared to take the view that there was a single group being targeted by the police investigation, and that they were part of it.

[24] In conclusion, the above eight bodies of circumstantial evidence when assessed in their totality, overwhelmingly infer that Gordon-Brown’s drug trafficking was being carried on “in association with” the Jungle Gang, as that element is defined in Lindsay and Bonner, Venneri, and Drecic. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the Crown has proved the count two offence beyond reasonable doubt and that Gordon-Brown is guilty on that count.

(iii) Facts relating to Sentencing

[25] Evidence relating to Gordon-Brown’s antecedents was introduced at the sentencing hearing in various forms. Mr. Zeeh provided information about Gordon-Brown during his submissions and a helpful book of reference letters and another book of correctional programming certificates and school transcripts were filed. Finally, Gordon-Brown made a “dock” statement, I asked him some further questions, and one of his references spoke briefly at the end of the hearing.

[26] Gordon-Brown was 26 years old at the time of the offences. He is now 27 years old. He has no prior criminal record. He grew up in Lawrence Heights in a large extended family. His mother and his grandmother worked at various jobs to support the family. His father was not involved in his upbringing. At age five, Gordon-Brown’s stepfather was murdered. At age 11, Gordon-Brown was stabbed in the chest in an attempt robbery. At age 13, he was stabbed in the face and missed school for a few months as a result of his injuries. He dropped out of high school in grade 11. He was the victim in two shootings, in 2016 and 2020, both of which are documented in the record. In one of the wiretaps, in April 2022, Gordon-Brown stated: “If you’re on the road with gun, even if I see ops [opponents] … I’m shooting … gonna put myself in no situation.” The two Burke brothers, who are Gordon-Brown’s uncles, were both part of the extended family in which Gordon-Brown grew up. It is apparent from the wiretaps that they were both involved in the drug trade.

[27] Since Gordon-Brown’s arrest on June 28, 2022, he has remained in custody at the Toronto South Detention Centre. The parties agree that he has served 20.2 months in pre-sentence custody and should receive 31 months Summers credit. As I read the institutional records, Gordon-Brown was subjected to “full lockdowns” on 15 days in 2022, all due to “staff shortages”. In 2023, the situation improved as there were four days of “full lockdowns”, once again due to “staff shortages”. There have been none in 2024. There were many more “partial lockdowns” due to “staff shortages” but their duration and effect was variable. Gordon-Brown submitted an affidavit setting out the hardship he experienced during his pre-trial custody.

[28] Most importantly, in my view, Gordon-Brown appears to have made good use of his time in custody. He completed his high school education, earning credits in ten courses. In the last four of these courses, he was awarded excellent marks (between 80% and 96%). As a result, he received his Ontario Secondary School Diploma in September 2023. In addition, he has received 36 certificates for completing numerous programs offered by organizations who work through the Ministry of Corrections.

[29] The reference letters filed on behalf of Gordon-Brown were significant because they were not only from friends and family. In particular, there were four letters from staff members who had worked with Gordon-Brown in various institutional programs (referred to above). Two of these individuals attended court and one of them spoke. The Director of Amadeusz, the education program that supervised Gordon-Brown’s completion of high school in September 2023, advised that he then enrolled in a Business Management program at Centennial College. He completed one course, receiving a mark of 90%, and now has five more courses to complete in order to earn the certificate. The Director stated in her letter that, “he is a dedicated, capable, and engaged participant. He attends programs regularly, completes assignments, takes initiative in his learning, and asks for help when needed. Additionally, Isiaha maintains a positive attitude toward his work with Amadeusz staff.” The Director of the Forgiveness Project, a five week long restorative justice program that promotes “self-reflection and accountability”, confirmed that Gordon-Brown completed a number of courses or programs that they offered. She stated that, “We met Mr. Gordon-Brown in 2022 and have had the opportunity to witness his growth and development. … Throughout this time, he has consistently demonstrated a strong commitment to personal improvement and accountability. He has actively sought ways to overcome challenges and has shown remorse for any harm he has caused his community.” She went on to state that the Forgiveness Project also does crime prevention work in the community with vulnerable youth and that she would like to hire Gordon-Brown “to be a mentor to our participants upon release … to speak about his choices in a way to deter young people.” She believed he had acquired a certain “wisdom and experience” and that he “can reintegrate into society as a productive and law-abiding citizen”.

[30] In his short “dock” statement, Gordon-Brown told the Court that he takes accountability for the harm he has caused and that he wants to change. He intends to complete the courses required for the Centennial College certificate in Business Management. He would also like to help the Forgiveness Project with crime prevention work in the community. Upon release from jail, he will get help from Roderick Brereton, the Director of Urban Rez Solutions, with finding work in the building trades and then eventually starting his own business.

[31] Mr. Brereton attended court and made a short statement on Gordon-Brown’s behalf. He stated that he rarely does this. I was impressed by Mr. Brereton. He is a mature individual with strong pro-social values. He wrote a helpful letter, describing the programs offered by Urban Rez Solutions to Black inmates, in order “to develop and enhance their employment readiness” and to offer “employment related support when the individual re-enters community from custody”. He stated the following about his work with Gordon-Brown over the past year:

As an Inside Out program facilitator I have been working with Mr. Gordon-Brown since January 2023 at the Toronto South Detention Centre.

While in custody Mr. Gordon-Brown has successfully completed the 16 week Black Employment Support Program. To date Mr. Gordon-Brown continues to meet twice weekly with the writer. (4 hours weekly) Mr. Gordon-Brown demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the material covered. Mr. Gordon-Brown practices prosocial behaviour during every interaction. Mr. Gordon-Brown has been a role model for other participants in the program and he exhibits a desire to challenge himself and others to embrace positive change. Mr. Gordon-Brown actively participates in sessions. Mr. Gordon-Brown appears to be retaining and applying the information presented.

From the writer’s perspective Mr. Gordon-Brown has professionally grown over the course of the year in which Urban Rez Solutions has been supporting him. Mr. Gordon-Brown voices and demonstrates what he has learned and holds himself accountable for his decisions.

The writer has assisted Mr. Gordon-Brown with putting together a plan of action. Mr. Gordon-Brown is slated to register with the Local 27 Carpenters Union upon his release and register for apprenticeship training. After receiving his training Mr. Gordon-Brown intends to open his own business and pursue entrepreneurship as a viable means of income generation.

From the writer’s opinion Mr. Gordon-Brown is positioned to meet the demands of starting apprenticeship. Mr. Gordon-Brown has a driver’s license and access to a vehicle that will enable him to get to and from work.

To support Mr. Gordon-Brown’s apprenticeship journey the Toronto Community Benefits Network will offer sector related ongoing mentorship.

The wraparound of support to be provided will increase the likelihood of Mr. Gordon-Brown’s success. [Emphasis added].

[32] I do not intend to summarize the letters from family and friends in any detail. However, they are helpful in two ways. First, they show that Gordon-Brown does have a group of apparently pro-social friends and family who will be there to provide “guidance, structure, and the encouragement needed to ensure a successful reintegration into society”. This is important because there have also been a lot of very negative influences in Gordon-Brown’s life. Second, these letters express a relatively consistent belief that Gordon-Brown is now going through a process of change. A 33 year old female friend who works for Halton Housing, who grew up with Gordon-Brown in Lawrence Heights, and who knows him like a brother stated: “I believe Isiaha has learned from this experience, he not only learned about the value of life/freedom, he learned that not all the people around him are truly his friends and they are not all good people … He’s showed immense regret. He’s not the same person he was this time last year.” An aunt who works for a YMCA shelter stated: “He has taken full responsibility for his actions and has expressed deep remorse for the harm he has caused. He has used his time in jail to reflect on his mistakes and has taken every opportunity to better himself.” Finally, his long time girlfriend stated:

I have seen a very significant change in Isiaha and believed that he has turned over a new leaf. His vocabulary is different, he keeps to himself and doesn’t follow the hype that goes on in jail. He’s completely focused on building a better life/career for his future which is why we talked about programs and furthering his education to the highest degree during his incarceration which he followed through and obtained his GED and currently taking college programs/courses. I wouldn’t say I am surprised because I know him to always be a man of his word, but I am happy to be the motivation and able to give him the push I wasn’t doing before and seeing the progression. I know Isiaha always had the mindset to be successful but he was chasing success in the wrong way. Going forward he has promised me that he will live a law abiding life and acknowledges his wrong doings and takes full accountability for his actions. And has made a commitment to me that he will change his life completely, even if it meant letting go of friends.

(iv) The Positions of the Parties

[33] The Crown and defence agree that four consecutive sentences must be imposed for the four main separate and distinct offences committed by Gordon-Brown, namely: the s. 95 firearm possession offence; the s. 92(2) prohibited device offence; the drug trafficking offences; and the criminal organization offence. I agree with the parties on this point as these four kinds of offences are quite separate, both factually and legally. However, the totality principle will become important, once the four separate consecutive sentences are determined.

[34] The parties do not agree, however, on the appropriate length of the custodial sentences. In relation to the s. 95 loaded handgun offence, they are not far apart. The Crown seeks a three year sentence and the defence submits that two and a half to three years is the appropriate sentence. In relation to the s. 92(2) “prohibited device” drum magazine offence, the Crown seeks a one year consecutive sentence and the defence submits that six months consecutive would be appropriate. In relation to the two drug trafficking offences, the Crown submits that nine years consecutive for fentanyl and five years concurrent for cocaine is the appropriate sentence. The defence submits that seven years consecutive for fentanyl and four and a half to five years concurrent for cocaine would be appropriate. In relation to the criminal organization offence, the Crown submits that three years consecutive is the appropriate sentence, stressing that Gordon-Brown was in a relatively senior position. The defence disputes any leadership role and submits that one year consecutive would be appropriate. The parties agree that one year concurrent is the appropriate sentence for the proceeds of crime offence.

[35] The four consecutive sentences sought by the Crown would lead to a sentence of 16 years. Applying the totality principle, the Crown would then adjust the sentence down to 12 years imprisonment. The Crown stresses that this is a very lenient position, given the gravity of the offences, and that it reflects the significant mitigation in Gordon-Brown’s case because of his early guilty plea at a time when the Court has a heavy backlog, because he is a relatively young first offender, and because there appear to be some signs of change and rehabilitative potential.

[36] The four consecutive sentences sought by the defence would lead to a sentence of 11 years. Applying the totality principle, the defence would then adjust the sentence down to eight years imprisonment. The defence submits that Gordon-Brown should be situated at the bottom end of the appropriate sentencing ranges, because of the very strong mitigating circumstances in this case.

[37] The Crown seeks three ancillary orders: DNA; s. 109 for life; and forfeiture of all contraband and proceeds. The defence does not oppose these orders. As previously noted, the parties also agree that 31 months Summers credit should be deducted from the sentence as a result of Gordon-Brown’s pre-trial custody.

(v) Sentencing ranges and the appropriate sentence

[38] The principles of sentencing are set out in ss. 718, 718.1 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code and I am bound by those principles. The most fundamental principle is “proportionality”, that is, the sentence “must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.”

[39] The particular aggravating and mitigating circumstances in the case assist in determining where to situate the sentence in the range of appropriate sentences. There is no suggestion that this is an exceptional case that would justify a departure from the appropriate ranges. In my view, the more important aggravating circumstances are as follows:

• First, in relation to the s. 95 loaded firearm offence, Gordon-Brown stored this handgun in the back seat of his accomplice’s mother’s BMW, putting innocent third parties at risk. In addition, this gun had an oversized 15 round magazine;
• Second, in relation to the 50 round drum magazine s. 92(2) offence, it was stored more safely in a storage locker. However, the extraordinary size of this magazine and the fact that it could be used in a handgun means that it must be one of the most dangerous kinds of “prohibited devices” because it could be used to quickly kill or injure so many people;
• Third, in relation to both of the s. 95 and s. 92(2) firearm and “prohibited device” offences, Gordon-Brown admittedly had a dangerous unlawful purpose for possessing them. In the April 2022 wiretap intercept summarized above, he stated that if he was “on the road with gun” he would shoot “if I see ops” (that is, opponents). This apparent embrace of gun warfare on public streets in Toronto is obviously aggravating;
• Fourth, in relation to the drug trafficking offences, fentanyl and cocaine are both hard addictive drugs that are well-known to cause extraordinary suffering and death. Fentanyl is arguably the most dangerous drug and its introduction into the supply of street drugs has led to an epidemic of overdoses;
• Fifth, in relation to the drug trafficking offences, Gordon-Brown was not an addict trafficker. He was a purely commercial trafficker and the amount of profit he made is reflected in the very large seizure of over a quarter million dollars in proceeds of crime. In other words, Gordon-Brown was carrying on a very lucrative commercial business that exploited the misery of drug addicts and that was known to cause death;
• Sixth, in relation to the drug trafficking offences, it is apparent that Gordon-Brown was situated at a relatively high level in the drug trade hierarchy. He was selling cocaine at the ounce and multiple ounce levels. He was buying fentanyl at significant multi-ounce levels, discussing attempts to buy it at the kilo level, and selling it at the ounce and multi-ounce level. In other words, Gordon-Brown was a “mid-level” distributor of these hard drugs, supplying other lower level retail or street-level traffickers; and
• Seventh, in relation to the criminal organization offence, I am satisfied that Gordon-Brown was a sophisticated and relatively senior drug trafficker working “in association” with the Jungle Gang. He used others to store his drugs, his gun, and his cutting agents, in order to insulate himself from this incriminating evidence. He directed others to carry out the June 24, 2022 fentanyl sale on his behalf, once again in order to insulate himself from jeopardy at a time when he was very conscious of police surveillance. He used others to carry on his Sault Ste. Marie drug business and he used others to retrieve his drugs after the police seizure of some of these drugs on May 14, 2022. This is the conduct of someone who is relatively senior and not a mere “foot soldier”.

[40] On the other hand, there are strong mitigating circumstances in this case, in particular the following:

• First, Gordon-Brown has no prior criminal record and he was 26 years old at the time of the offences. In other words, he was a relatively young first offender. It is in these cases that there is always the greatest hope that the accused is capable of change and reformation;
• Second, Gordon-Brown pleaded guilty at an early stage, well in advance of his September 2024 trial date. This early guilty plea not only saved four weeks of trial time, which was reassigned to other cases. In addition, Gordon-Brown abandoned an arguable s. 8 Charter Application and saved another week of court time. I infer that Gordon-Brown and his counsel, pragmatically and responsibly acknowledged that the Charter Application, although arguable, was unlikely to have any significant impact on the trial. It is well known that this Court has a large backlog of serious trials at the present time, due in part to the pandemic and due in part to the ongoing failure of the federal government to fill judicial vacancies. In these circumstances, timely guilty pleas and the responsible conduct of pre-trial motions are entitled to significant mitigation;
• Third, Gordon-Brown undoubtedly grew up in a dangerous neighbourhood and in socially and economically disadvantaged circumstances. As a result, his moral culpability is reduced to some degree; and
• Fourth, the record before me on the sentencing hearing indicates that Gordon-Brown has used the past 20 months of pre-trial custody in a very productive way. He has completed his high school diploma, he has started a college program in business management (which relates to his future goal to start his own business in construction), he has completed a large and diverse number of correctional programs, and he has relatively concrete plans for his future which involve both volunteer work in crime prevention and employment in the construction trades. These latter two goals are relatively concrete because he has won the support of two responsible leaders in these fields who wrote letters and came to court to show their support. In all these circumstances, I am satisfied that there is reason to believe that Gordon-Brown has matured and changed, after reflection on his previous life of crime, and that there is real hope for his reformation. The fact that he has built a network of pro-social friends, family, and mentors to assist him on his release from prison significantly strengthens this factor.

[41] It can be seen that the above mix of aggravating and mitigating circumstances is relatively evenly balanced. The aggravating circumstances relate to the offences and they are very serious. The mitigating circumstances relate to the offender and they are strong. In my view, this balance tends to situate the case in the middle of the range of appropriate sentences for these offences. I am inclined to place the case slightly below the mid-range because of the early guilty plea.

[42] Turning to that issue, I have recently written two judgements analysing the appropriate ranges of sentence for s. 95 firearms offences and for drug trafficking in cocaine and fentanyl. I do not intend to repeat the analysis set out in those two cases and simply adopt it for purposes of these reasons. See: R. v. Owusu, 2024 ONSC 671; R. v. Graham, 2018 ONSC 6817, aff’d 2020 ONCA 692.

[43] Applying the analysis set out in Graham, I am satisfied that the appropriate range of sentence for a first s. 95 offence is between two years less a day and five years, depending on the particular mix of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. In my view, three years in jail is the appropriate sentence in this case, that is, somewhat below the middle of the range.

[44] Turning to the s. 92(2) prohibited device offence, there appears to be little authority as to the appropriate range of sentence, probably because there are so many different kinds of “prohibited devices”. However, the defence submission seeking a six month sentence is not appropriate. This was an aggravated form of the s. 92(2) offence, for the reasons set out above. In these circumstances, the Crown’s position seeking a one year consecutive sentence is reasonable and I adopt it.

[45] Turning to the drug trafficking offences, I agree with the approach taken by both the Crown and the defence, namely, that the fentanyl and cocaine trafficking sentences should be concurrent to each other but consecutive to the firearms offences. Gordon-Brown’s drug trafficking business consistently involved both cocaine and fentanyl, during the time period alleged, and the sentence for these two drug offences should reflect the overall gravity of the joint trafficking operation. That sentence should be consecutive to the above two firearm and “prohibited device” sentences, for the reasons explained in Graham and Owusu.

[46] Applying the analysis of sentencing ranges for fentanyl and cocaine trafficking set out in Owusu and Graham, I am satisfied that five to eight years is the appropriate range for “mid-level” cocaine traffickers and that a higher range is appropriate for “mid-level” fentanyl traffickers. The authorities analysed in Owusu make it clear that ounce and multi-ounce traffickers in fentanyl have received deterrent and denunciatory sentences in the eight to 11 year range. In my view, nine years is the appropriate consecutive sentence in this case, that is, somewhat below the middle of the range. I appreciate that nine years is the same sentence that Owusu received. I agree with Mr. Zeeh that Gordon-Brown has much stronger mitigating circumstances than Owusu did. However, Gordon-Brown’s ongoing drug trafficking business has been proved to be far more substantial than Owusu’s. It continued for over a three month period, it yielded over a quarter million dollars in proceeds, and it included multi-ounce trafficking in both fentanyl and cocaine. These are all far more aggravating circumstances than those present in Owusu. I would impose a six year concurrent sentence on the cocaine trafficking count. In other words, the fentanyl sentence is consecutive but the cocaine sentence is concurrent. The nine year fentanyl sentence is meant to capture the overall gravity of Gordon-Brown’s ongoing drug trafficking operation, while taking into account his significant mitigating circumstances. The Crown and the defence agree that the proceeds of crime offence should receive a one year concurrent sentence. I agree with this position. The sentence for the proceeds offence should be concurrent because it provides a useful measure of the substantial nature of Gordon-Brown’s drug trafficking business and it has been taken into account in relation to that sentence.

[47] Finally, the appropriate range of sentence for the criminal organization offence is not settled in the case law. There is considerable variation in that case law, partly because many different underlying offences can form the basis for this s. 467.12 offence and depending on whether the underlying offences have been charged separately and have received substantial sentences. See, e.g.: R. v. Beauchamp et al, 2015 ONCA 260; R. v. Farah, 2016 ONSC 5000; R. v. Leduc et al, 2019 ONSC 6794. The sentence must be served consecutively, as a result of s. 467.14. However, it should be noted that s. 718.2 (a)(iv) also provides that it is an aggravating factor to commit an offence “in association with a criminal organization”. The Crown and the defence are some distance apart in relation to the length of this particular sentence (three years versus one year), mainly because they differ as to whether Gordon-Brown was in a leadership position. I have found that he was in a relatively senior position and was using others to insulate himself from jeopardy. Given that this sentence must be consecutive to the underlying drug trafficking offence, and given that it would otherwise be an aggravating factor that would increase the gravity of the drug trafficking, I am satisfied that two years consecutive is the appropriate sentence.

[48] In the result, the consecutive sentences are as follows: three years for the s. 95 offence; one year for the s. 92(2) offence; nine years for the fentanyl trafficking offence; and two years for the s. 467.12 criminal organization offence. This 15 year total sentence should be reduced to 11 years, to reflect the totality principle. The sentence should be further reduced by 31 months to reflect the Summers credit. The remaining sentence to be served is eight years and five months.

D. Conclusion

[49] For all the reasons set out above, Gordon-Brown is sentenced as follows:

• On the count 17 offence of possession of a loaded handgun, contrary to s. 95, Gordon-Brown is sentenced to three years imprisonment. The 31 months Summers credit for Gordon-Brown’s pre-trial custody should be applied to this sentence, reducing it to five months imprisonment;
• On the count five offence of possession of a prohibited device, contrary to s. 92(2), Gordon-Brown is sentenced to one year consecutive;
• On the count four offence of trafficking in fentanyl, contrary to s. 5(1) of the CDSA, Gordon-Brown is sentenced to nine years consecutive which is reduced to five years in order to take account of the totality principle reduction explained above (at para. 48);
• On the count three offence of trafficking in cocaine, contrary to s. 5(1) of the CDSA, Gordon-Brown is sentenced to six years concurrent;
• On the count 20 offence of possessing proceeds of crime, contrary to s. 354(b), Gordon-Brown is sentenced to one year concurrent; and
• On the count two offence of trafficking in association with a criminal organization, contrary to s. 467.12, Gordon-Brown is sentenced to two years consecutive.

[50] In the result, the total remaining sentence to be served from today’s date is eight years and five months. The three ancillary orders sought by the Crown are all granted. I would like to thank all counsel for their excellent work on this large complex case.

M.A. Code J.

Released: March 1, 2024