ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

CITATION: R. v. Falero-Delgado, 2024 ONCJ 589

DATE: 2024 03 18

COURT FILE No.: Cornwall, Ontario 3912-998-22A 18-00

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

INTI SEBASTIAN FALERO-DELGADO

Before: Justice D.A. Kinsella

Heard on: May 15, 2023 and January 25, 2024

Reasons for Judgment released on: March 18 2024

Counsel: M. Giegen-Miller.................................................................................. counsel for the Crown P. Syrduk…………………………………………………....counsel for the Federal Crown D. Paradkar........................... counsel for the accused Inti Sebastian Falero-Delgado

KINSELLA J.:

Overview

[1] On May 15, 2023 Mr. Falero-Delgado entered pleas of guilty to the following offences : two counts of import prohibited firearms contrary to section 103(2); one count of import restricted firearms contrary to section 103(2); one count of import prohibited devices contrary to section 103(2); 7 counts of possession of a prohibited firearm for the purpose of unlawfully transferring it contrary to section 100(2); one count of possession of a prohibited device for the purpose of unlawfully transferring it contrary to section 100(2); one count of possession of restricted firearms for the purpose of unlawfully transferring it contrary to section 100(2); one count of possession of proceeds of crime of a value less than $5000.00 contrary to section 355(b); and two counts of possession of unlawfully imported goods contrary to section 155 of the Customs Act.

[2] The issue for this court to decide is what a just and appropriate sentence in this case should be.

[3] Section 103 attracts a mandatory minimum penalty of three years. Crown Counsel advised that this section has not been struck down as unconstitutional. While I was not provided any specific case law on this, it was clear from the position advanced by both parties that they agreed that a sentence greater than the mandatory minimum was warranted in this case. As noted by the SCC in R v Lloyd, 2016 SCC 13, a provincial court judge should not decide issues that are irrelevant to the final outcome of the decision.

[4] The maximum penalties for the ss. 103 and 100 offences is 10 years. The maximum penalty for the possession of stolen property offence is 2 years. The maximum penalty for the Customs Act offences is 5 years.

[5] Mr. Paradkar submits that his client is relatively young and has good future prospects. He stresses the mitigating aspect of the plea, noting that it avoided a lengthy trial. He notes that his client’s involvement was relatively minimal, as he was only the courier, and that justifies a sentence of 7 years less credit for his restrictive bail.

[6] Mr. Giegen-Miller on behalf of the Provincial Crown submits that the facts in this case are unique, insofar as he could find no other decisions where this many firearms had been transported in a single trip. He submits that this was a sophisticated offence. While acknowledging that the Crown has no other information about this accused’s role other than what was set out in the agreed statement of facts, he says it would be wrong to overly minimize Mr. Falero-Delgado’s role as being “just a courier”. He submits that the facts in this case place the sentence in the high end of the range and asks for a sentence of 18 years custody less any credit the court deems appropriate.

[7] Mr. Syrduk adopted the provincial Crown’s submissions concerning the need for denunciation and deterrence. He notes that illegal smuggling is a significant issue in this area and that the location of this particular incident is especially concerning given that it happened in a residential neighbourhood. He seeks a 1-year consecutive sentence for the Customs Act offences.

Circumstances of the Offences

[8] An agreed statement of fact was filed as exhibit 5 on this proceeding. The salient facts are as follows.

[9] On November 26, 2021 Mr. Falero-Delgado went into the backyard of a residential property on Farlinger Drive in South Glengarry. This is a neighbourhood of single-family homes that back directly onto the St. Lawrence River. This area has long been known as being popular with smugglers, and that continued even after the residential area was developed over ten years ago.

[10] One of the residents had a home security camera mounted on his boathouse. This video captures the actions of the accused on the date in question and has been marked as exhibit 1 in these proceedings.

[11] At around 3 pm, Mr. Falero-Delgado is seen coming from behind a line of cedar trees. Shortly thereafter a small power boat with two occupants appears and is met by Mr. Falero-Delgado. Three large duffle bags are thrown from the boat onto the shore and then the boat leaves. Mr. Falero-Delgado is seen taking several trips to move the three large bags, eventually depositing them in the car being driven by Mr. Vladimir Souffrant.

[12] A concerned resident called the police to report what they had seen, including providing a description of the vehicle. The police locate the vehicle, a silver 4-door Honda Civic, at the intersection of Farlinger Drive and County Road 2. Mr. Souffrant, the owner of the vehicle, was the driver and Mr. Falero-Delgado was passenger. Both were arrested and the vehicle searched incident to arrest.

[13] 3 black duffle bags were found in the trunk of the car. In those bags were the following: 53 handguns; 6 machine guns (with the serial numbers removed); and 80 high-capacity magazines.

[14] The seized weapons were later analyzed by the RCMP and photographed. The photos are exhibit 2 and the firearm analysis report is filed as exhibit 3. All weapons were test-fired and found to be in working order. The 53 handguns were all semi-automatic and are either restricted or prohibited firearms under s. 84 of the Criminal Code.

[15] The 6 machine guns functioned as semi-automatic or fully automatic rifles and are prohibited firearms under s. 84. A video of the test-firing of one of those weapons was filed as exhibit 4.

[16] All of the 80 magazines seized are prohibited devices under s. 84.

[17] All the firearms and devices were purchased in the United States.

[18] Mr. Falero-Delgado was searched incident to arrest and was found in possession of $4040.00 in Canadian currency and $20.00 in U.S. currency.

[19] Mr. Souffrant provided a cautioned recorded statement to police. In it, he denied any knowledge of the smuggling activities. He said he had occasionally worked for Mr. Falero-Delgado as a driver and on this date had agreed to drive him from Montreal to Cornwall and back for $600.00. Mr. Souffrant’s phone was examined pursuant to a search warrant, and the data found on it confirmed his statement. There were no calls or messages indicating any knowledge of firearms or trafficking.

[20] Mr. Falero-Delgado’s phone, seized from him upon arrest, was also searched pursuant to a warrant. That analysis revealed several communications between Mr. Falero-Delgado and unidentified persons between September and November of 2021. The unknown persons make references to amounts of money in the range of $10,000 to $20,000 for “sticks” which is a common slang word for firearms.

[21] Specifically, on November 26, 2021 Mr. Falero-Delgado received messages reminding him to be at the location “rite [sp] at 3”. Further messages gave him directions to the specific location, telling him what exit to take from the 401 highway. Mr. Falero-Delgado responded to one message at 3:11 pm joking that the location was a “hole”. That message was directed towards a person named “Abri”.

[22] Mr. Falero-Delgado did not possess any licence, registration certificate, permit or authorization under either the Firearms Act or the Customs Act which would allow him to possess, transfer or import firearms.

Circumstances of the Offender

[23] Mr. Falero-Delgado was 25 years old at the time of the commission of these offences. His criminal record was filed as exhibit 6. It shows a series on entries commencing in 2016 and continuing until 2018. In total, he has 23 prior convictions for offences of dishonesty including unauthorized use of credit cards, fraud (over and under), and use of forged documents. He has served jail sentences in the past although has never served a penitentiary sentence.

[24] Mr. Falero-Delgado was released from custody November 27, 2021 on strict bail conditions which include conditions that he must be in the presence of his surety at all times and be subject to electronic monitoring. Including today’s date, he has been on bail for 840 days, or approximately 2 years and 3 ½ months.

[25] Although there was no pre-sentence report obtained in this case, counsel for Mr. Falero-Delgado gave detailed submissions about his background. Character letters from his friends are family were also filed as exhibit 7, which provide further information about him.

[26] Mr. Falero-Delgado is a Canadian citizen whose family initially came from Uruguay. He has no children but is planning a family in the future. At the age of 10 years he was diagnosed with both Attention-Deficit / Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and a learning disability. These created a challenge for him with school and somewhat impacted his ability to gain employment.

[27] His mother is a registered nurse who has worked primarily in various Indigenous communities in Quebec. Mr. Falero-Delgado ended up attending high school in one of those communities, Puvirnituq, as that school appeared to be better suited to his educational needs. Unfortunately, that school did not meet national standards and so he was unable to get his diploma. He has been taking courses since then to rectify that.

[28] Despite these challenges, at the time of these offences he was employed as a cargo handler for Air Inuit, and working at the Inuulitsivik Health Centre’s crisis centre.

[29] He is currently in a long-term relationship with Sara Naamani, who is also his surety. She works as an esthetician. She notes that the charges came as a real shock to her. Her sister, Riad Naamani, confirmed this in her own letter, noting that these offences were very much out of character for Mr. Falero-Delgado. Both women describe him as caring and note that he is very remorseful for his actions.

[30] Janet Mason is the mother to both Sara and Riad. She too expressed shock at the actions of Mr. Falero-Delgado, whom she describes as a kind, warm-hearted and considerate person. She also commented on the degree of his remorse and regret.

[31] Soldad Delgado is Mr. Falero-Delgado’s mother. She raised him alone, while putting herself through school to become a nurse. She had to work long hours, and was assisted by his maternal grandmother, who unfortunately passed away in 2009. She confirmed that her son often felt socially isolated, as a non-Indigenous man attending Indigenous schools; however he continued to be a positive and caring member of the community.

[32] She also expressed shock that her son had become involved in these offences. She noted that she was undergoing significant financial stress around this time frame and was at risk to lose her home while also struggling to care for brother, who is autistic. She believes her son acted out of desperation to assist her, something she only learned after the fact.

Mitigating and Aggravating Factors

[33] Mr. Falero-Delgado has entered pleas of guilty. These pleas were done at a relatively early stage in the proceedings. This is a significant mitigating factor. A plea of guilt is a “genuine demonstration of remorse and a positive step towards rehabilitation.” (See R. v. Gaya 2010 ONSC 434.) Furthermore, a plea also mitigates because “it saves judicial resources and it eliminates the uncertainties inherent in the trial process: R v Edgar, 2010 ONCA 529 at para 111.

[34] He has strong family and community supports. His mother, girlfriend and her family all speak of a young man who has compassion for others and the capability to be a pro-social member of society.

[35] Mr. Falero-Delgado does not have any issues with substance abuse. There is no evidence that he was involved in any other criminal activity, such as being a member of a criminal organization or involved in the drug culture.

[36] Mr. Falero-Delgado has been on strict conditions since November 27, 2021. He has complied with all conditions of that release.

[37] This is not Mr. Falero-Delgado’s first involvement with the criminal justice system. He has on at least four prior occasions been before the courts for fraud-related offences and has served time in jail. These sentences did not deter him, although there is a gap in his criminal record of some three years.

[38] There is evidence of planning and deliberation for this offence. The agreed facts show that Mr. Falero-Delgado communicated with unknown persons over a period of three months to arrange for the delivery of these firearms. While the court was not provided information concerning the potential street value for these firearms, it can safely be assumed that it would be well in excess of the $10,000 to $20,000 it cost to obtain them.

[39] Mr. Falero-Delgado appears to have been motivated solely by a desire for quick and easy profit.

[40] The sheer number of weapons is staggering. Mr. Falero-Delgado had 53 handguns, 6 machine guns, and 80 high-capacity magazines. I could find no other reported decision which involved this many weapons in a single delivery.

[41] All the weapons and devices were prohibited or restricted. The six machine guns all had their serial numbers removed. There can be no inference other than these weapons were intended to be distributed or sold to persons who would then use them as “tools of his or her criminal trade” (see R. v. Nur 2015 SCC 15, at paragraph 82.)

[42] The location where the weapons were handed-off is a well-developed residential area. This incident happened in the middle of the day. It was brazen crime where those involved were seemingly unconcerned about concealing their actions.

[43] The weapons were brought into Canada in a way that was guaranteed to avoid detection by Canada Border Services Agency officers.

Sentencing – General Principles

[44] The Criminal Code codifies the sentencing principles which a judge must follow and instructs that the goal of any criminal sentence is to “protect society, contribute to respect for the law and help maintain a just, peaceful, and safe society" (see s.718.)

[45] Judges try to achieve this by imposing sentences that balance a number of factors set out in the Criminal Code including: denunciation, general and specific deterrence, rehabilitation, making reparation to victims of crime, and promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders and an acknowledgment of the harm they have caused the community, and specific victims in our community. (See s. 718(a) – (f))

[46] These objectives, however, must be achieved through the lens of the principles that must be applied. Objectives and principles are not the same thing. Objectives reflect the purposes of the criminal justice system and sentencing specifically; objectives are necessarily to be given different priorities in each case as each sentencing case is unique. Principles are the foundational concepts that underlie sentencing, guaranteeing its actual and apparent justness. They apply to every case and courts must have regard to them. These principles include parity, proportionality, legality, rationality, individuality and restraint.

[47] Determining a suitable punishment is one of the hardest jobs a judge has. A fair sentence is not just about doing math. Higher courts remind us again and again that sentencing is very personalized.

[48] Even in cases, such as this one, where specific and general deterrence and denunciation are of paramount importance, in order for a sentence to be just the court must not lose sight of the need for rehabilitation and eventual reintegration.

[49] Ultimately, the fundamental principle of sentencing is to impose a sanction that is proportionate to the gravity of the offence committed, and the moral blameworthiness of the person who committed it. This means that, for the sentence I impose to be appropriate, it must be tailored to Mr. Falero-Delgado’s personal circumstances, and the circumstances of the offences he committed.

[50] In this case, the Federal Crown requests that the sentence for the Customs Act offence be served consecutively. There are principles which govern when a consecutive sentence is appropriate. Frequently offences arising out of the same series of events result in concurrent sentences: see 718.3(4)(b)(i). However, even if the offences arise out of the same series of events, consecutive sentences may be imposed where the offences constitute an infringement of different legally protected interests: see R. v. Fournel 2014 ONCA 305.

[51] I must also keep in mind section 718.2(c) of the Code, which provides that "where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentences should not be unduly long or harsh". This expression of the principle of totality is an important component of the fundamental principle of proportionality: R. v. Johnson, 2012 ONCA 339 at para. 16.

Sentencing – Firearm Possession and Trafficking Cases

[52] Crimes involving firearms represent a real and substantial danger to our society: see R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680; R. v. Nur, supra; R. v. Marshall, 2015 ONCA 692; R. v. Danvers, 2005 CanLII 30044 (ON CA), [2005] O.J. No. 3532 (C.A.). Prohibited firearms such as handguns are particularly dangerous given how easily they can be concealed and transported. They are frequently used to intimidate, injure and kill. Automatic and semi-automatic weapons, especially when coupled with high-capacity magazines, are often front and centre in mass tragedies. There are very good reasons why these weapons are either not permitted at all or at least highly regulated here in Canada.

[53] Trafficking and importation of firearms are extremely serious offences. As noted by many courts over the years, there are no innocent scenarios that would require a person to possess an illegally obtained handgun or firearm. As Justice Trafford noted in R. v. Vidella 2006 CanLII 39324 (ON SC), [2006] O.J. No. 4690 (SCJ), at paragraph 46:

... the importation, distribution and possession of firearms are exceptionally serious crimes. There is no social utility in crimes of this nature. Seldom, if ever, is there any reasonable suggestion of good faith or justification to any such crimes. They lead to the use of firearms, causing death or grievous bodily harm, often to innocent people…

…the importation, distribution and possession of firearms lie at the foundation of all crimes involving the use of firearms. As such, they are properly characterized as exceptionally serious crimes.

[54] Justice Molloy repeated similar sentiments in R. v. Hanse [2019] OJ No 1418 (SCJ), reaffirming the seriousness of firearm offences and the need for condemnatory sentences in appropriate cases.

[55] In determining a fit sentence, I am assisted by the cases provided by counsel for the Provincial Crown, the Federal Crown and for Mr. Falero-Delgado. There were more than twenty cases filed so I do not propose to list them all here.

[56] As to be expected there was a wide range of sentences imposed. This is a reflection of the unique and individualized approach that all sentencing hearings should entail. In determining what end of the range an offender may fall, the sentencing judge should consider the offender’s moral blameworthiness and the degree of risk of real harm to the public which flowed from the offender’s conduct.

[57] While I have considered all of the authorities provided to me by counsel, the cases from our Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada as noted above assist a great deal in determining the appropriate range of sentence. Those cases make clear that the principles of denunciation and deterrence are of paramount importance in cases involving firearms.

[58] A list of several of the cases that I considered is attached as Appendix “A” to this decision. That list is not intended to be exhaustive.

[59] In a very general way, firearms trafficking cases can attract a sentence of 4 – 8 years. However, the Supreme Court has emphasized that ranges are merely “a quantitative sentencing tool designed to assist busy trial judges with where to start: see R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46, [2021] S.C.J. No 46 at paragraphs 15-17. Accordingly, there will be circumstances where a departure from the range, either above or below, is entirely appropriate.

[60] Some factors which should be considered as elevating the need for a more denunciatory sentence include:

i. Sale of weapons was motivated primarily by greed or profit; ii. If weapons purchased by person with valid licence; iii. Number of weapons involved; iv. If any serial numbers are removed from the weapons; v. If more than one transaction involved; vi. If weapons prohibited or restricted; vii. If weapons found to have been used in subsequent criminal activity; viii. If sale of weapons found to be for the benefit of a criminal organization; ix. The sophistication and nature of the sale; and x. Risk to the community.

[61] In committing the acts that he did, Mr. Falero-Delgado participated in a system of illegal distribution of deadly weapons. This is a very serious offence, one which has the potential for significant impacts on the community and for that reason it is of great public concern.

[62] The specific role that an accused plays in a trafficking scheme is also a relevant factor for a sentencing judge to consider. In drug trafficking cases, for example, any sentence the court imposes will be different for an offender characterized as a drug user who possessed drugs for the purpose of earning a profit by trafficking the drugs as opposed to a drug addict who possessed the drugs to feed an addiction.

[63] Generally, courts have distinguished between street level addict dealers vs mid-level addict dealers by looking for the following non-exhaustive list of factors:

i. access to multiple kinds of drugs; ii. the ability to call up drugs on order or increase the size of an order; iii. if the person employs others to assist in deliveries; iv. if the person allows others to have access to their stash of drugs; and v. amount of cash and other indicia found on them;

[64] I find that these same general factors should be considered for other types of trafficking cases.

Credit for Restrictive Bail

[65] Appellate courts have repeatedly made clear that credit for restrictive bail is not automatic and that bail conditions are not equivalent to pre-trial custody.

[66] While time spent on bail under house arrest conditions must be considered by the sentencing judge, there is no rigid formula to be applied in reducing the sentence, given the wide variation in release conditions: R. v. Downes, 2006 CanLII 3957 (ON CA), [2006] O.J. No. 555 (C.A.), at paragraph 34. The credit to be afforded to the accused is a matter of discretion for the sentencing judge. The overriding consideration will generally be the impact of the conditions for release on the accused (see R. v Marfo, 2020 ONSC 5663, [2020] OJ No 4158 (SCJ).)

[67] The Court of Appeal, in R. v. Ijam, 2007 ONCA 597, [2007] O.J. No. 3395 (C.A.) gave some guidance as to what weight, if any, should be given for presentence bail conditions. For those conditions to be given credit, they should create a hardship or deprivation to the person. In R. v. Downes, supra, the court said that a person seeking credit for restrictive bail should supply the judge with some information about the impact of those conditions.

[68] While I accept that any term of house arrest imposes some difficulty on an accused person, I did not hear any evidence that Mr. Falero-Delgado suffered significant personal hardship. However, I find that the conditions did, at least to some extent, amount to deprivation. Defence is seeking credit for six months and I find that amount to be reasonable.

Analysis

[69] As I have previously indicated, the general range for these types of offences is between four and eight years. In this case, there are a number of factors which enhance the need for a more denunciatory sentence and thus impact on the suitability of the range. These include:

i. The number of weapons in this case is higher than any other reported decision; ii. All of the firearms and devices were prohibited or restricted; iii. Six of the weapons had their serial numbers removed; iv. This was a sophisticated transaction involving communications with more than one person over several months; v. The accused was motivated solely by profit; and vi. The risk to the community was high, in two ways. First, obtaining the weapons in such a public way in a residential area places the community at risk. Second, had those weapons made their way into the community at large, there can be little doubt about the harm they would have caused.

[70] The accused was more than a simple courier. I arrive at this conclusion by noting that he was communicating with more than one person, including discussing price, to arrange the purchase; he was provided with multiple weapons with a significant value; he had a not insubstantial amount of cash on his person; and he was comfortable enough to employ someone else to assist with the transaction.

[71] The moral blameworthiness of Mr. Falero-Delgado is high. He made the choice to take part in the trafficking of illegal and dangerous weapons to make some quick money, even though he has was gainfully employed.

[72] All these factors move this matter beyond the seven years suggested by Mr. Paradkar. That sentence would not, in my view, adequately address the denunciatory and deterrent elements that this crime so clearly cries out for.

[73] The Crown’s position, however, is beyond the suitable range, well in excess of the 15-year sentence imposed in the R. v. Poyser decision [unreported] (17 March 2021), Toronto, CR-20-50000150 (S.C.J.). That case involved more firearms (94 guns in total either sold or recovered) but also an accused with no prior criminal record, although he was also convicted of an additional criminal organization offence.

[74] The Crown’s position, more importantly, does not adequately consider the mitigating aspect of the plea. In the decision of R. v. P.F. 2019 ONCJ 38, Justice Berg discusses at length the value of a plea of guilt and how that might be factored into determining an appropriate sentence.

[75] In that case, Justice Berg notes that case law makes it clear that the degree of reduction that should be granted for a plea of guilt is left to sentencing judges to determine based on the circumstances of each case. This is entirely consistent with the individualized approach to sentencing that must be taken.

[76] I agree with Justice Berg that a plea of guilt should result in a sentence that is significantly and profoundly different from one I would impose after trial.

[77] While there is no set discount that must be applied in the case of a guilty plea, courts have considered a reduction in sentence in the range of 25 – 33 %: see R. v. Doucette 2015 PECA 5, [2015] P.E.I.J. No. 19 (CA).

Conclusion

[78] Had I been sentencing Mr. Falero-Delgado after a trial, I would have found that a sentence of 15 to 17 years custody for the firearms offences was appropriate.

[79] If I apply a reduction of roughly 27 percent to the lower end of that range, that reduces the sentence to 11 years custody. From that I would grant a further reduction of six months credit for restrictive bail, leaving a balance of 10 and ½ years to serve for the firearms offences.

[80] I agree with the Federal Crown that a consecutive sentence is required for the Customs Act offences. In my view, a just sentence for those offences is a further six months custody consecutive.

[81] In other words, going forward from today Mr. Falero-Delgado will have a sentence of 11 years custody.

[82] My sentence will be broken down as follows: for count 1 – 103(2) import prohibited firearm 11 years custody less six months credit for restrictive bail leaving a balance of 10 years six months. That sentence will be concurrent on counts 7, 8 and 9.

[83] For counts 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 the sentence will be 3 years custody concurrent.

[84] For count 52 the sentence will be 1 year custody concurrent.

[85] On count 53 the court’s sentence will be six months custody consecutive. That sentence will be concurrent on count 54.

[86] In addition, I will impose a s. 109 order for 10 years; an order of forfeiture for both the seized Canadian monies and cell phone; an order pursuant to section 491 ordering forfeiture of the seized weapons and devices; DNA for all eligible offences; and an order pursuant to section 743.21 prohibiting any contact with Vladimir Souffrant. All victim fine surcharges are waived.

Released: March 18, 2024

Signed: Justice D.A. Kinsella

Appendix “A”

Case Name	Facts	Mitigating Factors	Aggravating Factors	Sentence
R. v. Hanse [2019] OJ No 1418 (SCJ)	(TR)Made arrangements to get illegal firearms but didn’t actually obtain any	Stable home life, good employment, tragic background	CR including dated conviction for manslaughter, other CDSA trafficking convictions	5 years for firearms offences (consecutive time for drug offence)
R. v. Bishop [2021] OJ No 3557 (SCJ)	(GP) Used PAL to acquire 2 handguns and ammo to sell to unlicensed buyer	GP, 42 years old, no prior record, EPSR showed difficult upbringing that he had overcome	Had purchased four more that did not make it to buyer; for profit; used valid licence to purchase firearms	Four years
R. v. Green [2015] OJ No 5258 (SCJ)	(TR) 23 handguns over 7 months	No CR, youthful first offender, good rehabilitation prospects	Some firearms used at offences of violence; for profit	8 years imprisonment less PSC (varied on appeal to give additional credit for restrictive bail)
R. v. Winchester [2014] O.J. No. 1990 (SCJ)	(GP) 47 handguns over 5 months	No CR, GP, youthful first offender	Some weapons not recovered, some used in other offences; for profit	8 years imprisonment less PSC
R. v. Hewitt 2018 ONCA 561, [2018] O.J. No 3367(OCA)	(GP) 9 non-restricted firearms (long guns)	GP, first offender, tragic background	Some guns had no serial numbers, at least one was stolen, on a prohibition order at the time; for profit	3 years less PSC
R. v. Jacobs [2022] AJ No 483 (Prov Ct)	(TR) 15 handguns as a straw purchaser	Minor, unrelated CR	Number of firearms; for profit	9 years less PSC
R. v. Hooke [2021] MJ No 255 (Prov Ct)	(GP) 18 firearms, many were semi-automatic restricted handguns	Minor, unrelated CR, Metis background	Firearms stolen, transported across provincial lines, profit motive	6 years less PSC
R. v. Cater 2012 NSPC 38 (Prov Ct)	(TR) 4 firearms including two handguns	Very young (18) first offender, positive PSR	Part of a larger enterprise – evidence had been in negotiations for other weapons, for profit motive	8 years less PSC
R. v. Allison [2021] OJ No 2767 (second accused Cunningham and related to Poyser matter below)	(TR) 36 firearms over three separate shipments (3 for Allison, 29 for Cunningham)	Allison (49) had no CR; had strong family supports; Cunningham (39), no CR also good family supports	Part of larger criminal enterprise (drug trafficking specifically for Allison); both motivated by profit; some guns not recovered	4 years for Allison, 7 years for Cunningham – consecutive time for crim org convictions
R. v. Poyser [unreported] (17 March 2021), Toronto, CR-20-50000150 (S.C.J.)	(GP) 34 handguns already sold, 60 more with high-capacity magazines recovered , 40 more days away from delivery (for a total of 134 firearms)	GP, 58 years old, offences “out of character”, no CR, strong family supports, gainfully employed	Sophisticated crim org, multiple shipments, accused very highly involved, strong for-profit motive	15 years in total including for crim organization offence
R. v. Cass [2019] OJ No 6352 (SCJ)	(TR) Falsely reported that 10 handguns he had lawfully obtained were stolen – in said sold them to his drug dealer	55 years old, no CR; addicted to drugs but had done rehab since being charged	Several transactions, done for profit	4 years
R. v. McLeod [2014] O.J. No. 4477 (OCA)	(TR)Courier for drugs and also found with four illegal handguns including four semi-automatic pistols, as well as magazines and ammunition	50-year-old first offender, no risk to re-offend	Responsible for a total 25 handguns bring brought to Toronto	7 years less PSC and credit for restrictive bail – sentence upheld
R. v. Reid 2016 ONCA 524	(TR) 24 handguns, 13 long guns, 6000 rounds of ammo	40 years old	Done for profit, lengthy CR, “recidivist”	12 years less PSC
R. v. Sampogna, [2020] O.J. No. 692 (SCJ)	(TR)sold semi-automatic non restricted firearm and ammo which was later sold to undercover officer	57 years old, no CR, had valid firearms licence, had business in community	Valid permit holder, wore gloves to disguise fingerprints, found in possession of several unregistered firearms	5 years less PSC
R. v. Kempffer-Hossack 2019 ONSC 3324	(GP) sold 3 prohibited weapons and ammo to undercover officers on 3 occasions – SW executed and found in possession of a further 10 firearms (prohibited and non-restricted), one high-capacity magazine, and drugs	22-year-old youthful first offender, had been hard drug addict but quit while in custody, has family supports	Restricted and prohibited weapons, planned transactions, for profit	9 years total (although difficult to sort out what portion attributed to CDSA)