Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2025-09-09

Docket: COA-25-CR-0019

Judges: Fairburn A.C.J.O., Wilson and Rahman JJ.A.

Between

His Majesty the King Respondent

and

Charlie Daniel Walters Appellant

Counsel

Darren S. Sederoff, for the appellant

Julia De Filippis, for the respondent

Heard and rendered orally: September 9, 2025

On appeal from the sentence imposed by Justice Laura A. Bird of the Superior Court of Justice on January 14, 2025.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The appellant pled guilty to two counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking involving almost 1.2 kilograms of cocaine and over 800 grams of methamphetamine. He also admitted to being in possession of other drugs and drug paraphernalia, all located during the execution of a search warrant at his condominium and related storage locker. Ammunition and $124,600 in cash were also found in those locations.

[2] The parties did not have a joint position on sentence and so went into the sentencing hearing open, the Crown asking for a six-year sentence and the defence a two-year-less-a-day conditional sentence order. The trial judge imposed a three-year sentence. This is an appeal from that disposition.

[3] The appellant argues that the trial judge erroneously relied on other offences to position the appellant's level of involvement in the crimes. The appellant maintains that it was not open to the trial judge to consider, among other things, the seized cash, cocaine press, ammunition, and other drugs to determine his level of involvement. The appellant says that the trial judge was precluded from doing so because the trial Crown failed to prove those other offences.

[4] Respectfully, we see matters differently.

[5] It was the trial judge's responsibility to grapple with the appellant's level of involvement in the crimes he pled guilty to. The facts relied upon by the trial judge formed part of the agreed statement of facts. It was open to the trial judge to resort to those facts to determine the appellant's level of involvement. Bearing in mind the serious offences involved, the trial judge determined that only a penitentiary sentence would be appropriate in this case.

[6] With that said, the trial judge also carefully took into account the multiple mitigating factors at work. In the end she imposed a fit sentence, one that she described as necessary considering all of the circumstances. We see no error in her approach.

[7] We would note, though, as did the trial judge, that the appellant has expressed genuine remorse for his crimes and seems to be well on the path toward rehabilitation, something that we commend him for and that the correctional authorities will undoubtedly take into account.

[8] While leave to appeal sentence is granted, the appeal is dismissed.

"Fairburn A.C.J.O."

"D.A. Wilson J.A."

"M. Rahman J.A."