ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
DATE: June 5, 2025
COURT FILE No.: 0211-998-24-21000816-01 / 0211-998-24-21000264-00
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
LUKE ADAM MARTIN
Before Justice Robert S. Gee
Sentencing Submissions Heard May 14, 2025
Reasons for Sentence released on June 5, 2025
J. Kim — for the Crown
V. Fedorchuk — for the Public Prosecution Service of Canada
E. Angevine — for the accused Luke Martin
Gee J.:
INTRODUCTION
[1] On March 21, 2025, after a two day trial, the accused, Luke Martin was found guilty of two counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking. One of the counts related to fentanyl, the other to methamphetamine. At the outset of his trial, the accused plead guilty to the theft of a Ford F150, possession of break-in instruments, and breach probation. Sentencing on these three charges was delayed until after the trial for the drug related matters.
[2] After the finding of guilt, the matter was adjourned for the preparation of a pre-sentence report. Sentencing submissions were heard on May 14, 2025. These reasons will address the sentence to be imposed on the accused for all charges.
[3] A fulsome recitation of the facts in this matter can be found in the trial judgment of, R. v. Martin, 2025 ONCJ 160, dated March 21, 2025. A brief summary of the facts as I found them were that on January 24, 2024, the accused and his friend and former co-accused, Brandon Pfeiffer, were in a 2012 Ford Escape they either borrowed or stole from Mr. Pfeiffer’s neighbour, depending on who you believe. They left from Mr. Pfeiffer’s residence in this Ford Escape. Not long after they saw a Ford F150 parked in the driveway of its registered owner, Richard White. Mr. Pfeiffer got out of the Escape and proceeded to steal the F150. As he drove away from the residence, with the accused following in the Escape, Mr. White’s wife saw the F150 leaving and texted her husband that it was being stolen. Mr. White tracked the F150 on his vehicle’s Ford app and relayed its position to the police in real time. The police attended the last known location of the F150 provided by the app and when they arrived, they saw both the F150 and the Escape parked next to each other. The accused was standing outside the Escape between the two vehicles and Mr. Pfeiffer was still in the driver’s seat of the F150. When the police pulled up, an officer opened the driver’s door to the F150 and attempted to arrest Mr. Pfeiffer but he fled, striking the officer, but not seriously injuring him. He also clipped another police cruiser that was arriving just as he was fleeing the parking lot they were in. The accused made a brief effort to flee but was apprehended at the scene quickly by the now two officers on the scene.
[4] The Ford Focus that the accused had been operating was searched and inside the trunk area, officers discovered a blue Walmart shopping bag containing 442.1 grams of methamphetamine and 1,526.9 grams of fentanyl.
[5] Inside a beige duffel bag on the rear, driver's side seat, police located a Winchester 1300 Defender model 12 gauge pump action shotgun missing the stock, and a Winchester, Model SXP 12 gauge pump action shotgun. This firearm had 5 shotgun shells in the magazine. Also found was a Henry Repeating Arms, Golden Boy model .22, a loaded ammunition belt containing 39, 12 gauge shotgun shells, and a black pistol style magazine, which is a prohibited device as defined in s. 84 of the Criminal Code.
[6] The accused and Mr. Pfeiffer were initially co-accused and had set a multi-day trial on the matter. On February 26, 2025 on what was to be the first day of their multi-day trial, Mr. Pfeiffer plead guilty to a number of charges, including dangerous operation, flight from police, and two firearm offences relating to a loaded handgun that fell from the F150 as he sped away. For these offences, he was sentenced to 7 years, consecutive to a penitentiary sentence he was then serving for CDSA related charges he had been on bail for at the time the offences in this matter were committed.
[7] The estimated street value of 442.1 grams of the methamphetamine in the City of Brantford in 2024 was between $44,210.00 and $88,420.00 if sold by point which is 0.1 gram, $53,052.00 if sold by the gram, and $10,610.00 if sold by the kilogram.
[8] The estimated street value of the fentanyl in the City of Brantford in 2024 was $305,380.00 if sold by point, $351,187.00 if sold by the gram, and $22,903.00 if sold by the kilogram. Police also seized multiple empty Ziplock bags and two digital weigh scales.
[9] The accused’s date of birth is January 26, 1985, and he is now 40 years old. On January 24, 2024, he was 38 years old, two days shy of his 39th birthday. He has a criminal record containing six convictions. His first set of convictions was on February 20, 2018, when he was convicted of two counts of trafficking in a schedule I substance for which he received a sentence of 29 months after credit for 84 days of pre-sentence custody. Since his release from custody on those charges, his record has been comparatively minor. On April 6, 2022, he was convicted of fail to appear, impaired operation, and theft under. In total on these he received credit for 45 days presentence custody and 12 months probation. His last conviction before these charges was on April 20, 2023, when he was convicted of possession of a schedule I substance and was given a suspended sentence and 12 months probation.
[10] The accused’s parents separated when he was 2 years old and he split his time equally between his parents homes as he grew from a child to his teens. When he was 14 he went to live full time with his father until he was 22 when he moved out on his own. He stated he had a good relationship with both his parents and his family members. There was no known history of drug or alcohol abuse in their homes nor was there any reported forms of mental, physical or other abuse.
[11] The accused now has two daughters with a former partner who are 12 and 7 years of age. They currently reside with his former partner’s mother, and his access to them is at her discretion.
[12] In the past he has held a number of different jobs, eventually ending up working in the construction industry where he was a union member making $45/hour. However, since his release from the penitentiary, he states he has struggled with employment due to a variety of factors from, work locations, to his drug use, to what he described as his stupid decisions. He obtained his high school diploma while in the penitentiary serving his sentence for his prior trafficking conviction.
[13] He has a long history of drug abuse beginning with smoking marijuana starting in high school. He developed an opiate addiction and recalls overdosing a few times. While on parole he has attended residential drug treatment but was discharged early for failing a urine test which lead to his parole being revoked. During his last probation period he again engaged in drug counselling. He indicated he uses illicit substances to cope with stressors of life.
POSITION OF THE PARTIES
[14] In relation to the charges to which he plead guilty, that being the theft of the Ford F150, the possession of break-in tools and breach probation, the parties have a joint submission for 210 days of pre-sentence custody, credited at the customary 1.5 to 1, for an effective sentence of 315 days. This sentence, it is suggested, should be concurrent to any sentence he receives for the drug charges. In addition to the custody to be noted, a forfeiture of the break-in tools and a conductive energy device also located in the Ford Focus is being sought and a sample of the accused’s DNA.
[15] On the possession for the purpose convictions, the prosecution seeks 15 years on the fentanyl related count and 6 years concurrent on the methamphetamine count. To warrant a sentence such as this, the prosecution points to the very large quantity of fentanyl, that being 1,526.9 grams, or just over 1.5 kilograms, or for those more familiar with imperial measurements, 3.366 lbs. The quantity of methamphetamine was also substantial, 442.1 grams or just slightly less than 1 lb. In addition to this was the fact there were several firearms located in the Ford Focus, the accused’s related criminal record and the fact he was on probation at the time of these offences.
[16] The accused argues an appropriate sentence on the possession for the purpose convictions is 5 years. I am urged to view his possession of the drugs in this matter more as a fleeting one time incident akin to a drug courier. Mr. Pfeiffer testified at the accused’s trial and stated the drugs were his alone and the accused was unaware of their presence in the car. Notwithstanding, my rejection of Mr. Pfeiffer’s evidence, I am still urged to view Mr. Pfeiffer as the driving force behind this drug trafficking enterprise and to view the accused as simply a friend of his who was asked for a favour this day and inadvertently got caught up in a situation, he otherwise had no involvement in. The accused also argues the firearms ought to play no role in the sentencing mix, as the Crown chose to withdraw those charges when he plead to the other criminal code offences. The accused further urges me to keep in mind the conditions of his pre-sentence custody, all of which was served at the Maplehurst Correctional Complex, which has become notorious for its overcrowding, routine lockdowns, and generally less than ideal treatment of inmates.
[17] As of the date of sentencing, the accused has 498 days of pre-sentence custody. When credited at the standard 1.5 to 1, this equals 747 days, or just over 2 years. Both the accused and prosecution agree this should be deducted from any sentence imposed.
ANALYSIS
[18] The fundamental principle for all sentences is proportionality. The sentence must be proportionate, in that it must balance the seriousness of the offence and the circumstances under which it was committed, to the level of blameworthiness of the offender, which looks at his or her personal characteristics and circumstances that lead to the offending behaviour. Sentences must also seek to achieve parity in that they must be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances. Parity and individualization of the sentence, while important are secondary to the principle of proportionality. These overarching principles are set out in sections 718.1 and 718.2 (b) of the Criminal Code. See also: R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46 at para. 10.
[19] The offences committed by the accused in this case are extremely serious. It would be difficult to understate how serious and dangerous they were. In R. v. Parranto (supra) Justice Moldaver described the harm associated with fentanyl as follows:
- Beyond its mere potential to cause harm, however, fentanyl has had -- and continues to have -- a real and deadly impact on the lives of Canadians. Indeed, trafficking in fentanyl is so deadly that various courts have described it as a national crisis, reflective of an increased understanding of the gravity of the harm it causes (see, e.g., R. v. Smith, 2017 BCCA 112, at para. 50; R. v. Vezina, 2017 ONCJ 775, at para. 58; R. v. Aujla, 2016 ABPC 272, at para. 1). This heightened understanding is supported by the available statistical evidence. The expert evidence on the record before us establishes, for instance, that fentanyl-related deaths in Alberta increased by 4,858 percent between 2011 and 2017, rising from 12 deaths in 2011 to 583 deaths in 2017. More broadly, federal statistics on opioid-related deaths show that, between January 2016 and March 2021, approximately 23,000 Canadians lost their lives due to accidental apparent opioid-related deaths, with fentanyl involved in 71 percent of these deaths (Special Advisory Committee on the Epidemic of Opioid Overdoses, Opioid and Stimulant-related Harms in Canada (September 2021) (online). The epidemic also shows no signs of abating, with over 6,000 accidental deaths occurring in 2020 alone, 82 percent of which involved fentanyl (Government of Canada, Federal actions on opioids to date (June 2021) (online)). These figures throw into stark relief the dark and inescapable reality that "[e]very day in our communities, fentanyl abuse claims the lives of Canadians" (R. v. Loor, 2017 ONCA 696, at para. 33).
- The scale of fentanyl's devastating impact becomes even more apparent when one considers that, between 2016 and 2020, there were approximately 3,400 homicides across Canada, a number far below the number of fentanyl-related deaths (Statistics Canada, Table 35-10-0069-01 -- Number of homicide victims, by method used to commit the homicide, July 27, 2021 (online)). This disparity makes clear that, in a very real way, those individuals responsible for the largescale distribution of fentanyl within our communities are a source of far greater harm than even those responsible for the most violent of crimes.
- The time has thus come for our perception of the gravity of largescale trafficking in fentanyl to accord with the gravity of the crisis it has caused. Largescale trafficking in fentanyl is not a crime marked merely by the distribution and sale of an illicit substance; rather, it is a crime marked by greed and the pursuit of profit at the expense of violence, death, and the perpetuation of a public health crisis previously unseen in Canadian society. In many ways, "[t]rafficking in fentanyl is almost the equivalent of putting multiple bullets in the chambers of a revolver and playing Russian roulette. It is the most efficient killer of drug users on the market today" (R. v. Frazer, 2017 ABPC 116, 58 Alta. L.R. (6th) 185, at para. 11). Put simply, it is a crime that can be expected to not only destroy lives, but to undermine the very foundations of our society.
[20] The City of Brantford has not been spared these effects. From 2022 to the end of 2024, there were 111 suspected fatal opioid incidents in the city and another 659 non-fatal incidents. (See: Brantford-Brant Community Drug Strategy Action Plan, page 3). The effects of this crisis as well are not limited to deaths caused by overdoses. This court on a daily basis sees case after case of persons addicted to opioids coming through the court system after committing crimes primarily to support their addictions. Robberies, thefts, break and enters, theft of and from motor vehicles, frauds etc, are being perpetrated daily by opioid addicts. This crisis is not only killing and harming the most vulnerable, it is also making our community less liveable.
[21] The prosecution filed and referred to several cases to demonstrate the sentence sought was reasonable in the circumstances. Starting with R. v. Parranto (supra). That case dealt with the possession of 485.12 grams of fentanyl. Less than a third of what was found in this case. The accused in that case was charged while on bail, had a lengthy criminal record, a firearm, and was described as a wholesale commercial dealer. In that case the sentence was 14 years.
[22] I was also referred to the case of R. v. Olvedi, 2021 ONCA 46. In that case the accused was charged with both importing and possession for the purpose of 500 grams of fentanyl. He was a 33 year old first offender. The sentence in that case was 15 years for the importing and 12 years concurrent for the possession for the purpose conviction.
[23] Two other cases were highlighted by the prosecution as they were said to be most like the present case. In R. v. Celenk, 2023 ONSC 6360 the accused was 26 years old and had no prior record. He had 1.35 kilograms of fentanyl and was also convicted of possessing two loaded firearms. He was sentenced to 13 years. The other case most like the one here is that of R. v. Dalia, 2023 ONSC 2114. Mr. Dalia was in possession of 1.7 kilograms of fentanyl and 614 grams of cocaine. He had a related criminal record and received a sentence of 13 years.
[24] Before moving to the appropriate sentence in this case, two issues should be addressed. Both these issues were raised on behalf of the accused. The first is that this case should be viewed as more akin to a drug courier case. It was the accused’s submission that I should find he only briefly possessed the drugs as a result of Mr. Pfeiffer’s leaving the Ford Focus to steal the F150 and that it was really Mr. Pfeiffer who was the driving force behind any drug dealing scheme.
[25] That was Mr. Pfeiffer’s testimony at trial. He testified the drugs belonged solely to him. He had placed them and the guns in the Ford Focus unbeknownst to the accused and it was his intention to sell them to provide funds for his family before starting the penitentiary sentence he was about to receive for the charges for which he was on bail.
[26] I rejected this evidence of Mr. Pfeiffer. Simply put, I did not believe any of it. The narrative he told was that he was the sole drug dealer. The accused was there that day to help him move out of his apartment, and that it was only the result of a series of unfortunate circumstances, that left the accused in possession of the drugs and guns. The reasons for rejecting Mr. Pfeiffer’s evidence are set out in a more fulsome manner in the trial judgment but the biggest flaw in his testimony was his assertion there were only two ounces of fentanyl in the Ford Focus, a wildly inaccurate statement, and that the guns were in the trunk area with the drugs, when in fact they were in the back seat.
[27] After hearing the evidence at trial, I was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt the accused had knowledge of the drugs in the car and control over them. And to be clear, if it seemed ambiguous from the trial judgment, to clear it up, I was also satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt the only available inference on all the evidence presented at trial was that in addition to being in possession of the drugs, the accused was aware of the quantities of each of the drugs too.
[28] In submissions, the accused also pointed to the fact the prosecutor acknowledged in his submissions there was no evidence of active or ongoing drug dealing by the accused. This is supportive of a view, according to the accused, that he was only briefly in possession of the drugs and not the driving force in the enterprise. The prosecutor did acknowledge that there was no evidence presented of ongoing drug dealing, but I find that only reflected the reality of how the drugs were discovered in this case.
[29] This was not, initially a drug investigation. There was no ongoing surveillance of the accused by police, no undercover buys from the accused or information supplied by confidential informers that one might expect in a drug focussed investigation. The drugs were found, when the police rushed to the scene to find and recover a recently stolen vehicle and arrested the accused on the scene. So, in these circumstances it is not surprising there was no other evidence of ongoing drug dealing by the accused. Notwithstanding this though, there can be no argument made that these drugs were not destined to be trafficked. This is an extremely large quantity of drugs that was intercepted before it could be sold. As such, I find the absence of evidence of prior or ongoing drug dealing by the accused does not lead to a finding that he was merely in possession of them by happenstance as he is urging me to find.
[30] The next issue raised by the accused is whether I can find the possession of the firearms by the accused located in the backseat of the Ford Focus can be relied on as an aggravating factor on sentence. The accused argues since the Crown with carriage of the criminal code charges chose not to proceed with these charges after the accused entered guilty pleas to the other criminal code charges, it would now be unfair to treat his possession of these firearms as an aggravating factor.
[31] I disagree. Guns and drugs are a toxic, deadly mix. Courts routinely find the presence of firearms along with drugs an aggravating factor. The accused was aware of the allegation these firearms were present in the vehicle he was driving, and they were referred to throughout his trial. He cannot now claim to be surprised his possession of them will be viewed as an aggravating factor on his sentencing.
[32] The aggravating factors in this matter are obvious and plentiful. Starting with the substances themselves. Fentanyl is an extremely deadly substance, lethal in very small doses. Methamphetamine is also a deadly drug, not as deadly as fentanyl but it as well is very addictive and leads to many social ills.
[33] Next is the quantities of the drugs the accused had. 1,526.9 grams of fentanyl is an extremely large quantity. In R. v. Parranto (supra), Justice Moldaver described the accused in that case as a wholesale commercial dealer and he possessed less than a third of the amount the accused was in possession of here. There is not sufficient evidence here to classify the accused in this case as a wholesale dealer, but there is no doubt he is closer to that end of the spectrum than he is to the street level addict-dealer. 1,526.9 grams would constitute 15,269 individual sales if sold by the point. Similarly for the methamphetamine. This was also an extremely large quantity of a very harmful substance that was destined to be trafficked on the street.
[34] Next is that the accused was also in possession of several firearms at the same time. As noted, drugs and firearms are a deadly mix. These firearms were not going to be used for a legitimate purpose. They were destined to be used for furtherance of criminal activity and it is only their seizure that has prevented this.
[35] The criminal record of the accused, though not extensive is aggravating in that he has a prior drug trafficking conviction from 2018 which attracted a penitentiary sentence. Further, he was on probation at the time of these offences.
[36] The mitigating factors are fewer. He still has a supportive mother in his life. He has two children with whom his access is not completely shut off, he has an ability to maintain employment when not controlled by his addictions, which unfortunately, has not been for some time.
[37] He chose to have a trial on these matters. That is not an aggravating factor, but it means he is not entitled to the type of mitigation that flows from a guilty plea. Guilty pleas are a sign of remorse so that is absent here in relation to the drug charges. Guilty pleas also save court time. In this case, the accused had a trial and therefore cannot claim the full benefit that would flow from the saving of court time that comes with a guilty plea. He did though make several admissions that reduced the required trial time significantly. For that he deserves credit, and I will view that time saving feature of how he conducted this trial as a mitigating factor.
[38] Although no records were filed outlining the accused experience during his pre-sentence custody at Maplehurst, I am prepared to accept the harsh pre-sentence conditions he would have experienced there is a mitigating factor. Most of the in-custody accused persons who appear in Brantford courts are held at Maplehurst. For at least the past several years, almost everyone of them comes to court with the same tale of near inhumane treatment and conditions at the facility. Triple bunking, and daily lockdowns though supposed to be rare, are the norm. Recently, there was an outbreak of Strep A that led to a number of inmates falling ill. I am prepared to accept, without requiring evidence from the accused that his time in Maplehurst was no different and he is entitled to have theses harsh conditions treated as mitigating.
SENTENCES TO BE IMPOSED
[39] Dealing first with the criminal code charges to which the accused plead guilty, that being the theft of the Ford F150, the possession of the break-in tools and breach probation, I find the joint submission proposed of 210 days of pre-sentence custody credited at 1.5 to 1 for a functional equivalent of a 315 day, or 10 month sentence on each charge concurrent, to be an appropriate sentence and it will be imposed for these three offences, plus one further day on each, concurrent to each other and concurrent to the sentences on the drug charges. I will also sign the forfeiture order requested and there will be an order for DNA on the theft of the motor vehicle charge.
[40] On the possession for the purpose of trafficking convictions, I find the prosecutor’s request for a 15 year sentence on the fentanyl and 6 years concurrent on the methamphetamine to be in the appropriate range. The 5 years requested by the accused in this case I find is simply too low given the seriousness of the offences here and the court’s need to deter and denounce this type of conduct.
[41] I find in this case that when all the aggravating and mitigating factors are kept in mind, a proportionate sentence that will properly reflect the fundamental principle of sentencing, is one of 13 years jail for the possession for the purpose of trafficking in fentanyl and a concurrent 6 year sentence for the possession for the purpose of trafficking in methamphetamine.
[42] The accused has been in custody on these matters since his arrest on January 24, 2024. That is 498 days to date. At 1.5 to 1 that is the equivalent of having served 747 days, or just over 2 years. He is entitled to credit for this time. 13 years is 4,745 days. Deducting 747 days from that leaves 3,998 days to serve on the possession for the purpose of trafficking in fentanyl. In relation to the possession for the purpose of trafficking in methamphetamine, 6 years is 2,190 days. Deducting 747 days from that leaves a further 1,443 days to serve on that sentence. Again, these remnant sentences are to be served concurrently to each other.
[43] I will also sign the forfeiture order sought by the prosecution on the drug charges. These relate primarily to other items seized from the Ford Focus or the accused. There will be a DNA order and a s. 109 order for life. All surcharges are waived.
Released: June 5, 2025
Signed: Justice Robert S. Gee