ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
DATE: 2025 07 16
COURT FILE No.: Pembroke 998 23 37100611
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
CHRISTA HIER
Before Justice J.R. Richardson
Heard on June 20, 2024; March 12, 2025; May 27, 2025; June 25, 2025
Reasons for Judgment released on July 16, 2025
Tim McCann......................................................................................... counsel for the Crown
Forest Poff-Smith.................................................................................... counsel for Ms Hier
J.R. Richardson, J.:
Introduction
[1] Ms Hier entered a guilty plea to being in Possession of 118 grams of Fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The issue in this case is the appropriate sentence.
[2] For the reasons that follow, I impose a sentence of 12 months served, 18 months credit and an additional five years in custody.
Facts
[3] On June 7, 2023, police were granted a search warrant for 526 Nelson Street in Pembroke, which they believed on reasonable grounds was the residence of Ms Hier. The warrant was executed at 11:40 am, but Ms Hier was not present. Shortly after the warrant was executed, she was observed nearby on Fraser Lane. She was arrested for Possession for the Purpose. Search incident to arrest revealed 118.1 grams of Fentanyl, $1710 in cash, cell phones, a debt list, tin foil and drug paraphernalia.
[4] After being initially detained by a Justice of the Peace in the Bail Court, Ms Hier was released by Justice Hooper of the Superior Court of Justice on September 13, 2023 on terms to remain at Lotus House unless she moved to a treatment facility.
[5] On February 5, 2024, police were called to the Value Village in Pembroke after the report that Ms Hier had stolen some property there. Upon arrival, Ms Hier “did not look well”. She was arrested for, among other things, being outside of Lotus House and not being at a treatment facility. She was found in possession of some drugs when she was searched incident to arrest.
[6] On June 5, 2024, Ms Hier entered a plea to the Possession for the Purpose charge before me.
[7] On June 20, 2024, Ms Hier entered a plea to one count of breaching her release order in relation to the February 5 incident.
[8] On hearing the plea, I accepted a joint position for a Suspended Sentence and Probation with a term that required Ms Hier to attend at Street Haven on July 15, 2024. I was advised that Street Haven was a treatment facility located at 87 Pembroke Street in Toronto, Ontario.
[9] With respect to the Possession for the Purpose Charge, on consent of the parties, I also re-released Ms Hier on bail for the purpose of attending at Street Haven. I was advised that a bed had been arranged for her to stay there for about three and a half months. It was hoped that successful completion of this course of treatment would work to mitigate the sentence that I would ultimately impose.
[10] After her plea, there were further adjournments on July 11, July 30, August 26, September 24 in order to ensure that Ms Hier remained in the treatment program.
[11] On November 6, 2024, defence counsel advised that he had lost contact with Ms Hier and I issued a warrant for her arrest.
[12] On March 10, 2025, Ms Hier attended at Upper Ottawa Valley OPP to turn herself in on the outstanding warrant. On arrest she was found to have a syringe taped to her chest, containing suspected Fentanyl.
[13] On March 12, 2025, after hearing the evidence at the bail and section 524 hearing, I detained Ms Hier on all three grounds on all charges before the Court.
[14] I note that Ms Hier has not been found guilty of the March 10, 2025 charges and the presumption of innocence continues to apply.
[15] I ordered the preparation of an in-custody pre-sentence report and I ordered that the sentencing should proceed expeditiously. I adjourned the matter to May 27, 2025 for argument on sentence.
[16] On May 27, 2025, defence counsel advised that pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court in R. v. JW, 2025 SCC 16, he wished to marshal evidence in relation to treatment programming available to Ms Hier in the penitentiary. He requested an adjournment for that purpose. The Crown did not strenuously oppose.
[17] I adjourned the matter at defence request to June 25, 2025.
The Pre-Sentence Report
[18] A Pre-Sentence Report was prepared by Probation Officer Michelle LeVasseur on May 15, 2025. It was marked as Exhibit 1 in these proceedings. It reveals the following:
a) Ms Hier’s mother was 16 when Ms Hier was born. Ms Hier’s mother took up with a man who was not Ms Hier’s father while she was pregnant with the accused. When Ms Hier was born and for a few years after the fact, Ms Hier believed that this man was her father.
b) Ultimately Ms Hier’s mother and the man broke up. In the meantime, a half-sister was born. After Ms Hier’s mother and the man broke up, Ms Hier did not see the man she identified as her father. She told Ms LeVasseur that this caused significant trauma in her life.
c) Ms Hier’s mother had several other boyfriends. Ms Hier was able to bond with one of those other men, but he disappeared from her life when the relationship with Ms Hier’s mother ended.
d) Ms Hier reported that she did well in elementary school, but started to struggle when she entered high school. She left at the Grade 10 level.
e) When Ms Hier was 13, she was first introduced to her biological father. He remained distant. She learned she had other half-siblings but was not able to develop a relationship with them.
f) Ms Hier started to “act out” when she was an adolescent. Her mother contacted Family and Children’s Services and Ms Hier was placed in foster care for about six months.
g) About this time, she started using cannabis and drinking. She reports that she no longer uses cannabis or alcohol.
h) Ms Hier did not return to live with her mother after that period of supervision. She tried to live with her father, but this lasted only a few months.
i) Ms Hier then started to get involved in intimate partner relationships of her own. She reported that most of her partners struggled with addiction. Some were controlling and abusive.
j) Her first intimate partner introduced her to methamphetamine. Her second intimate partner introduced her to cocaine and she developed “a problem” with this drug. While it appears as though she was able to wean herself off cocaine, she returned to using methamphetamine because she liked the energy it gave her. To support herself and her habit, she started selling methamphetamine. She also started using fentanyl patches.
k) Ms Hier tried to go back to school in September 2016 by taking an office administration program at a college. She was not able to stay in the program because she did not have sufficient background education. She dropped out. She still owes money on a student loan.
l) She reported that she worked at a fast-food restaurant. She managed to get promoted to a managerial position but went on stress leave. She was diagnosed with bi-polar disorder and stress disorder and she received benefits from the Ontario Disability Support Program. She reported living in rent-geared-to-income housing, and using the food bank to get by.
m) As a result of her union with one man, she has a son. She reported that this man was violent toward her and assaulted her during her pregnancy. This resulted in Family and Children’s Services getting involved with Ms Hier as a parent.
n) Ms Hier admitted to Ms LeVasseur that she made poor choices in partners. Her partners were involved in the drug trade. They were not positive role models for her son. Her own drug use escalated.
o) In 2017, her son was apprehended by Family and Children’s Services and Ms Hier successfully completed a thirty-day residential treatment program. She reported being clean for about a year after that and she was able to regain custody of her son.
p) In 2018, Ms Hier relapsed and her son was apprehended again. She went to another 30-day program and started the methadone program. She was able to stay clean for about a year. She relapsed after she tried to wean herself off methadone. Despite this, she continued to have custody of her son and she returned to the methadone program. She was able to enjoy sobriety from opiates for a number of years, but she continued to use methamphetamine.
q) By December 2022, she resumed using fentanyl. She stole, engaged in the sex trade and trafficked in controlled substances to support herself and her habit. She told Ms LeVasseur that she made “great money”.
r) The only positive support that Ms Hier and her son had during these years was her son’s paternal grandmother. Ultimately, Ms Hier chose to allow her son to go live with the paternal grandmother. The child has been living there for three years.
s) The possession for the purpose charges were incurred shortly after her son went to live with the paternal grandmother.
t) The paternal grandmother told Ms LeVasseur that she tried to foster contact between Ms Hier and her son, but she gave up because Ms Hier did not respond.
u) Ms Hier remained in custody upon her arrest for these charges until Justice Hooper’s Order in September 2023. She then went to live at Lotus House, which is a bail supervision program offered by the Elizabeth Fry Society in Ottawa. She remained there until November 17, 2023. She failed to return for her curfew.
v) The report from Lotus House was not glowing. Ms Hier was disciplined twice for drug use. Although she failed to return for her curfew, she could have gone back within 30 days of her lapse, if she had wanted to. When this was discussed with Ms Hier, she acknowledged that she was “bored” and “not thinking clearly”.
w) It is clear that she was “on the lam” between November 17, 2023 and February 6, 2024, the date that she was picked up on the Value Village charges, which I have discussed above.
x) After I released her in June 2024, she participated in the program in Toronto for two and a half months. She was on the methadone program and was said to be doing well. Unfortunately, a peer brought drugs into the house, and she relapsed. She knew that she would fail urinalysis, so she decided to leave the program.
y) She returned to Pembroke, reconnected with bad influences and “couch surfed”. She started a relationship with another man who invited her to move in with his family.
z) She told Ms LeVasseur that she sold drugs to maintain her drug use. When she was arrested in June 2023, she was in possession of “all her supply” because she did not trust anyone at her house.
[19] Ms LeVasseur assessed Ms Hier as “forthright, easy to engage and honest about her goal of minimizing the outcome of her sentencing.”
[20] Ms LeVasseur noted that in prior community supervision, Ms Hier reported consistently and developed some insight into problems with impulse control. Unfortunately, she lacked community support and she also struggled with mental health problems. She was prepared to overlook negative traits in her partners.
[21] Ms LeVasseur concluded that in her estimation, Ms Hier was in “a recurring pattern”.
[22] I agree with that assessment. She offends, completes a short burst of treatment, enjoys a period of sobriety but then relapses, likely due to addiction, lack of support and her persistent inability to make wise choices with respect to intimate partners.
[23] Ms LeVasseur noted that Ms Hier was very keen to try to mitigate her sentence. This does concern me. Despite multiple chances to clean up her act and contribute to society, Ms Hier relapses and returns to the recurring pattern.
[24] It is clear to me that Ms Hier needs a sentence that results in a wholesale change.
The Addendum to the Pre-Sentence Report
[25] An addendum to the Pre-Sentence Report dated May 27, 2025 was prepared. It reveals the following:
a) Ms Hier admitted that she was not forthright with Ms LeVasseur when she participated in the interview for the first report.
b) She suffered sexual abuse at the hands of a step-father. This began when she was five years old and lasted until she was in her early teens.
c) She acknowledged spending years “hiding the truth” and transferring responsibility for her substance abuse to various partners.
d) She discovered drugs in her mother’s closet during her teenage years and started selling with her mother. She attributes learning the drug trade from her mother.
e) She has reported what happened to her to the police.
[26] Ms LeVasseur stated that in her assessment, Ms Hier now realizes the impact of keeping these experiences to herself has had. She stated the opinion that all prior attempts to address her criminal behaviour and substance abuse problem were “doomed to failure.”
The Criminal Record
[27] Ms Hier’s criminal record was filed as an Exhibit and it is also referred to in the Pre-Sentence Report. It commences in 2016 and ends in 2024. It contains convictions for the following offences:
a) Theft Under (two counts).
b) Possession of a Schedule 1 Substance for the Purpose of Trafficking.
c) Simple Possession of a Schedule 1 Substance (three counts).
d) Failing to Comply with a Release Order. This is the 2024 conviction that I referred to above. It post-dates the offence before me.
[28] Ms Hier has never received a carceral sentence other than a very modest period of pre-sentence custody (18 days) in relation to the Possession for the Purpose charge. It would seem that she has successfully completed three conditional sentence orders. Two were for six months and one was for nine months. There are also a number of probation orders.
[29] Ms Hier has never been convicted of Breach of Probation.
Ms Hier’s Letter to the Court
[30] Ms Hier wrote a letter to the Court which was filed as an Exhibit. The letter is marked “without prejudice – only for the purposes of sentencing, treatment and parole considerations” which is odd.
[31] In the letter Ms Hier stated that she did not tell Ms LeVasseur “the whole truth” when she completed her first PSR. She stated that she was concerned what would happen if the information disclosed in the Addendum got into the hands of the wrong person and the effects that it may have on her relationships.
[32] She stated that she was subjected to sexual abuse as a child “for years”.
[33] She maintains that this explains her “rebellious teen years”, her poor relationship with her mother, her decision to move out of the house and drop out of school, and her poor choices with respect to relationships.
[34] She stated that she “turned to drugs to bury all the trauma”.
[35] She stated that when she was 15, she started selling drugs for her mother.
[36] She stated:
I lost everything in my life because of my drug use – I lost the chance to be a mother to my son. I lost the chance to have a career. And now I am going to lose the next years of my life. But it isn’t all a loss – I am hopeful that I can use my time in custody to get clean in a meaningful way. I hope to use my time in custody to make myself employable. I hope to use my time in custody to learn how to build a relationship with my son, and to be the mother he deserves.
I lost everything in my life because of my drug use. Now, sitting where I am, sober and clear headed. I know that my drug trafficking put other people in the position I am in now. When I was using, I didn’t think about the people I was harming. I didn’t think about the fact I was making my situation worse every time I took a hit. I didn’t think about the fact that I was making someone else’s life worse every time I sold a point. I didn’t think about the fact people I was selling to could die from what I sold them.
I know all of this now. I have thought about this every day since I have gotten clean.
Submissions of the Defence
[37] Defence counsel opened his submissions with a baseball analogy. He stated that Ms Hier was in the bottom of the ninth inning, down by four runs, with no one on base, two outs and two strikes against her. I agree this is an apt characterization.
[38] Defence counsel argued that the following factors were mitigating:
a) the history of childhood trauma;
b) additional trauma in adulthood, including the loss of custody of her son and the loss of employment;
c) her guilty plea; and
d) her newfound insight into her situation and her willingness to complete treatment to deal with the root cause of her addiction - although she has tried to complete treatment before, she has never dealt with her trauma and she is now prepared to do so; and
e) she is remorseful.
[39] Defence counsel maintained that Ms Hier is an addict-trafficker. Accordingly, the appropriate range of sentence was between four and seven years. He argued that the mitigating factors bring Ms Hier to a four-year sentence.
[40] Such a sentence, defence counsel contended, paid heed to the sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence while “not throwing the baby out with the bathwater” with respect to rehabilitation.
Submissions of the Crown
[41] Crown counsel argued that Ms Hier should receive little, if any, mitigation for her guilty plea given the breach and the time it has taken to complete sentencing.
[42] He stated that the primary sentencing objectives are denunciation and deterrence.
[43] Crown counsel pointed out that the community has injected significant resources to dealing with the effects of fentanyl trafficking in Pembroke and Renfrew County.
[44] Fentanyl trafficking appears to be a victimless crime. The Crown persuasively argued, that in reality, however, we can imagine hearing the outpouring of grief from families who have lost loved ones to trafficking in fentanyl. Those who do not overdose or die from it, are too often left with the scourge of long-term addiction.
[45] Crown counsel pointed out that Ms Hier was undeterred by her previous conviction.
[46] He submitted that the appropriate sentence was seven years in the penitentiary.
The Community Impact of Fentanyl Trafficking in Pembroke
[47] The Crown did not file a Community Victim Impact Statement or other evidence in relation to the impact of fentanyl trafficking in Pembroke.
[48] The Ontario Court of Appeal has commented on the insidious and devastating effects of fentanyl trafficking in R. v. Loor, 2017 ONCA 696 at paragraphs 32 to 39; R. v. Lynch, 2022 ONCA 109 at paragraph 17. In his concurring opinion in R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46, Justice Moldaver stated at paragraphs 96 and 97:
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.
[49] As one of two resident judges in Pembroke, and as a judge who frequently presides in Renfrew County’s Mental Health and Addiction Treatment Court, I am all too familiar with the scourge of fentanyl trafficking in our community.
[50] As I have said in other fentanyl trafficking cases, hardly a day goes by when I have not heard of a person who has overdosed from fentanyl.
[51] Fentanyl trafficking has had a disproportionate effect on Pembroke. According to a CBC report a year ago[^1], Pembroke has more than double the number of fatal overdoses per capita than the rest of Ontario. The mortality rate in Pembroke is also four times higher than the surrounding area.
[52] The human cost of fentanyl is staggering.
[53] Equally staggering is the financial cost.
[54] Pembroke only has a population of 15,000. The County itself has a population of just over 100,000. It is the largest of the 57 original counties in Ontario and encompasses a geographical area that is larger than the Province of Prince Edward Island.
[55] Renfrew County does not have a public transit system[^2], or a shelter for individuals who are suffering from mental health and addictions problems[^3]. It does not have enough treatment facilities and we must often resort to other – often far afield – communities to meet the treatment needs of the homeless, addicted, and mental health population.
[56] To try to combat the interplay between mental health, addictions and homelessness, the County of Renfrew Paramedic Service started the MESA project[^4] a year ago. The project involves a paramedic, a crisis worker and an addictions counsellor who go out into the community to meet with and provide care to individuals who are in this population.
[57] These workers spend their days trying to reach the homeless, mental health afflicted and addicted population, many of whom live in encampments in the City. Every day, at great cost to the community, these workers patiently try to reach those whom drug traffickers like Ms Hier have helped render unable to function and live a normal life.
[58] The County of Renfrew is commended for the progressive steps it has taken to address this serious problem.
[59] The City of Pembroke, which prides itself in the slogan, “The heart of the Ottawa Valley” has had significant difficulties addressing the problem. Significant tensions have arisen between the community, on the one hand, and the homeless, addicted, and mental health afflicted population and those who serve them on the other. Local politicians, police officers, nurses and community agencies are caught in the middle.
[60] In fairness to the community, the crisis in homelessness, mental health and addictions, particularly fentanyl addiction, in Pembroke has resulted in more frequent complaints of witnessing drug trafficking, finding drug paraphernalia, and breaches of the peace such as loitering, shouting and verbal abuse, and public defecation.[^5]
[61] While fentanyl trafficking and addiction is not the only source of these problems – as I have stated there are homelessness and mental health crises too – fentanyl trafficking and addiction contributes significantly to all of these community problems and tensions.
[62] This crisis is tearing the community apart.
The Quantity of Fentanyl Ms Hier Possessed is Significant
[63] As Ms Hier essentially acknowledged in her letter to the Court, it is known to this Court that fentanyl is usually consumed by “the point”. A “point” is one tenth of a gram. Considering that Ms Hier was found in possession of 118.1 grams of fentanyl, she was possessing approximately 1181 doses.
[64] For any place in Ontario, this is a significant quantity. For a small place like Pembroke with a huge fentanyl problem, this is an enormous quantity.
[65] Caselaw tends to focus on whether the offender is an “addict-trafficker” and where the offender falls between a “street-level trafficker”, a “mid-level trafficker” and an “upper level trafficker”.
[66] For a case like this one, in a city like Pembroke, these are unhelpful constructs. A significant quantity of fentanyl is a significant quantity, no matter where in the drug trafficking hierarchy Ms Hier may reside: See, for example, R. v. Immel, 2025 ONCA 353 at paragraph 8.
[67] As the Supreme Court noted in R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46 at paragraph 59, “just and appropriate sentences may take into consideration the needs of and in the community” and “[l]ocal conditions may enter into the assessment of the gravity of the offence and militate in favour of prioritizing certain sentencing goals.”
Ms Hier’s Address to Me
[68] When I asked Ms Hier if she had anything to say, she apologized for her actions. She indicated that she has spoken with the police about commencing charges against those who violated her in her past.
[69] In relation to her son, she stated that she last saw him two years ago. She has not spoken to him by telephone either as she has no contact information for him.
[70] In answer to a question from me, she stated that she was diagnosed by Dr. Valentine with bi-polar disorder in her 20s.
[71] It was clear to me that Ms Hier was extremely upset with respect to her plight. She cried throughout her sentencing hearing.
[72] I accept that she is remorseful. I accept that what she wrote in her letter, despite the “without prejudice” disclaimer, is a genuine statement of remorse, contrition, and insight.
The Time Served
[73] The parties agree that Ms Hier has the following pre-sentence custody time:
a) June 7, 2023 to September 13, 2023 – 98 days;
b) February 6, 2024 to June 20, 2024 – 135 days;
c) March 11, 2025 to July 16, 2025 – 126 days;
d) Total time in presentence custody – 359 days – (just shy of one year); and
e) Credit for time in presentence custody at 1.5:1 – 539 days (equivalent to about 18 months).
Analysis
Criminal Code Sentencing Provisions
[74] Section 718 of the Criminal Code states:
The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:
a) to denounce unlawful conduct in the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;
b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;
c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;
d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;
e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and
f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims or to the community.
[75] Section 718.1 of the Criminal Code establishes the fundamental principle of sentencing: “A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.”
[76] Section 718.2 of the Criminal Code sets out “other sentencing principles”:
A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:
(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, or on any other similar factor,
(ii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused the offender’s intimate partner or a member of the victim or the offender’s family,
(ii.1) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person under the age of eighteen years,
(ii.2) evidence that the offender involved a person under the age of 18 years in the commission of the offence,
(iii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim,
(iii.1) evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances, including their health and financial situation,
(iii.2) evidence that the offence was committed against a person who, in the performance of their duties and functions, was providing health services, including personal care services,
(iv) evidence that the offence was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization,
(v) evidence that the offence was a terrorism offence,
(vi) evidence that the offence was committed while the offender was subject to a conditional sentence order made under section 742.1 or released on parole, statutory release or unescorted temporary absence under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and
(vii) evidence that the commission of the offence had the effect of impeding another person from obtaining health services, including personal care services,
shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances;
(b) a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances;
(c) where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh;
(d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and
(e) all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders.
Sentencing Principles in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
[77] Section 1 defines “designated substance offence” as “an offence under Part 1, except subsection 4(1)”.
[78] I find that Ms Hier’s previous conviction for Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking qualifies as a designated substance offence.
[79] Pursuant to section 5(3) of the Act, the maximum sentence is life imprisonment.
[80] Section 10 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act states:
(1) Without restricting the generality of the Criminal Code, the fundamental purpose of any sentence for an offence under this Part is to contribute to the respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society while encouraging rehabilitation, and treatment in appropriate circumstances, of offenders and acknowledging the harm done to victims and to the community.
(2) If a person is convicted of a designated substance offence, the court imposing sentence on the person shall consider any relevant aggravating factors including that the person
(a) in relation to the commission of the offence,
(i) carried, used or threatened to use a weapon,
(ii) used or threatened to use violence,
(iii) trafficked in a substance included in Schedule I, II, III, IV or V, or possessed such a substance for the purpose of trafficking, in or near a school, on or near school grounds or in or near any other public place usually frequented by persons under the age of 18 years, or
(iv) trafficked in a substance included in Schedule I, II, III, IV or V, or possessed such a substance for the purpose of trafficking, to a person under the age of 18 years;
(b) was previously convicted of a designated substance offence, as defined in subsection 2(1) of this Act, or a designated offence, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Cannabis Act;
(c) used the services of a person under the age of eighteen years to commit, or involved such a person in the commission of, the offence.
(3) If, under subsection (1), the court is satisfied of the existence of one or more of the aggravating factors enumerated in paragraphs (2)(a) to (c), but decides not to sentence the person to imprisonment, the court shall give reasons for that decision.
(4) A court sentencing a person who is convicted of an offence under this Part may delay sentencing to enable the offender
(a) to participate in a drug treatment court program approved by the Attorney General; or
(b) to attend a treatment program under subsection 720(2) of the Criminal Code.
The Cardinal Principle of Sentencing is Proportionality
[81] In R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, the Supreme Court of Canada determined that the “cardinal principle” of sentencing law is the principle of proportionality; that is, the more serious the crime and the greater the degree of responsibility, the more severe the sentence will be. This must be balanced against the moral blameworthiness of the offender.
Sentencing Principles and the Range of Sentence in Cases of Trafficking in Fentanyl and Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking in Fentanyl
[82] People who traffic in significant quantities of fentanyl should expect to receive significant penitentiary sentences: R. v. Loor, supra, at paragraph 50.
[83] It must be remembered that no two cases and no two offenders are alike. Lacasse instructs me to take an individualized process with respect to sentencing.
[84] The following cases are, nonetheless instructive:
a) R. v. Baldwin, 2018 OJ 2447 – eight-year global sentence for an offender with 675.75 grams of methamphetamine, 115.09 grams of fentanyl and 140.4 grams of cocaine. The offender had a prior related record.
b) R. v. Sidhu, 2019 ONCA 880 – Court of Appeal upheld an eight-year and two-month global sentence for an offender with 89 grams of heroin as well as a quantity of fentanyl and methamphetamine. The offender had a prior related record and resumed trafficking within a short period of being released on parole.
c) R. v. Schramek, 2021 ONSC 436 – seven-and-a-half-year global sentence for offender with 0.2 grams of cocaine, 156.7 grams of fentanyl (which had been mixed with other drugs) and 3.4 grams of methamphetamine. Accused had an addiction and is described as a remorseful first offender.
d) R. v. Aden, 2021 ONSC 2370 – seven-year sentence imposed for repeat offender who was on parole when the offence committed with 113.9 grams of fentanyl, and 9.3 grams of crack cocaine.
e) R. v. Ansah, 2021 ONSC 6339 – four-year sentence imposed for possession of 85 grams of fentanyl. Accused was a young first-time offender. Offender also sentenced two years (consecutive) for possession of a firearm. The accused was not a drug user; his motivation for the crime was purely financial gain.
f) R. v. Musa, 2022 ONSC 3734 – seven-year global sentence for offender with 130 grams of fentanyl, 36 grams of crack cocaine, 39 grams of methamphetamine, 59 grams of cocaine and a small quantity of oxycodone pills. The offender was on bail for robbery offences when the offence was committed. The sentence imposed was in addition to a 33-month consecutive sentence for possession of a loaded handgun. Charney, J. originally found that the sentence for the fentanyl possession should be eight years, but reduced it to seven to account for totality.
g) R. v. Owusu, 2024 ONSC 671. Seven-year sentence imposed for offender found with 127.75 grams of fentanyl. The trial judge reduced sentence from nine years to account for totality. Offender received a seven-year consecutive for two counts of possession of loaded handguns and one-year consecutive for breaching a weapons prohibition order. Accused was on community supervision from a youth sentence at the time that the offence was committed. Total sentence imposed was 15 years.
h) R. v. Ali, 2025 ONSC 1613 – Ten-year global sentence for a repeat offender with 78 grams of fentanyl, 947 grams of methamphetamine, 89 grams of cocaine, 329 oxycodone pills.
[85] There are a multitude of other cases where offenders with between 20 and 60 grams of fentanyl receive penitentiary sentences in the five to seven year range: see R. v. Irwin, 2025 ONCJ 247 (six and a half years imposed for an addict-trafficker offender with 56.2 grams of fentanyl with a significant, but unrelated prior record); R. v. Sivashothy, 2024 ONSC 6564 (five year sentence imposed for young accused with no prior record with 55.78 grams of fentanyl). In R. v. Lynch, 2022 ONCA 109, the Court of Appeal found that the appropriate range of sentence for a “mid-level trafficker” of fentanyl was between six and eight years. In this case the accused was in possession of 41.37 grams of fentanyl along with 965.01 grams of cocaine and 149.28 grams of MDMA. The accused had an unrelated record with only one prior conviction.
[86] Denunciation and deterrence are the primary sentencing goals in cases of this nature and the Court must pay heed to the will of Parliament as evidenced by the fact that the maximum sentence for this offence is life in prison. Although it is clear in this case that Ms Hier did not consider the ramifications of her actions and the impact selling fentanyl would have on the people that she sold to, this cannot affect the efficacy of the sentencing regime imposed by Parliament.
[87] Similarly, although Ms Hier’s crime is significant, incarcerating her to a lengthy term in the penitentiary will probably not change the scourge of fentanyl. I have no doubt that as soon as she was incarcerated, other drug traffickers stepped up to take her place. However, as Justice Moldaver put it in his concurring opinion in Parranto, supra, at paragraph 60:
Even if “criminal justice responses alone cannot solve the problem”, however, the courts must use the tools Parliament has provided to address societal ills (Friesen, at para. 45). Parliament has chosen to employ the mechanisms of criminal law and sentencing law to advance public safety, hold those who distribute drugs accountable, and communicate the wrongfulness of poisoning people and communities. This is perhaps most apparent in the maximum sentence for trafficking in a Schedule I drug, which is life in prison (CDSA, s. 5(3)(a)). As stated in Friesen, “[m]aximum penalties are one of Parliament’s principal tools to determine the gravity of the offence” (para. 96, citing C. C. Ruby et al., Sentencing (9th ed. 2017), at § 2.18; R. v. Sanatkar (1981), 64 C.C.C. (2d) 325 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 327; Hajar, at para. 75).
[88] Although denunciation and deterrence appear to be primary sentencing principles in cases involving possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, judges who do not fully consider an accused person’s rehabilitative potential and the principle of restraint will be in error and subject to correction by the Ontario Court of Appeal. See R. v. Disher, 2020 ONCA 710.
Mitigating Factors
[89] I accept that Ms Hier is contrite and remorseful for what she has done. I accept the additional evidence in the addendum to the Pre-Sentence Report, her letter to the Court and her allocution that she now has some insight into her behaviour, sincerely wants to turn her life around and make amends.
[90] I accept that Ms Hier had a traumatic childhood. As a consequence of this, she has never made healthy choices in adulthood. She needs long-term therapy to address her mental health issues that are a product of her life experiences. She needs long-term therapy to address a life of addiction.
[91] I accept that she professes to have a commitment to engage in her rehabilitation. This is tempered by the fact that despite prior conditional sentence orders, probation orders and attempts at treatment, Ms Hier has not been able to control her drug problem. What is new here is that she now professes to have insight into the social determinants of her offending behaviour. Whether this insight and commitment will bear fruit in the long term remains to be seen.
[92] While not a youthful offender (Ms Hier will be 35 in December), if she applies herself to her rehabilitation, she is young enough to turn her life around and be a pro-social and contributing member of society for the rest of her days.
[93] I accept that she entered a plea of guilt. This is tempered by two things.
[94] Firstly, I agree with the Crown that the mitigating effect of that early guilty plea has been largely neutralized by the passage of time and the fact that Ms Hier absconded from treatment facilities.
[95] Secondly, I find that this was not a complicated case where there were significant triable issues. Had a trial proceeded, it was unlikely to take a significant amount of court time. This also has the effect of neutralizing a great deal of the mitigation that comes with a guilty plea: see R. v. Lynch, supra, at paragraph 20.
Aggravating Factors
[96] I have already touched on the impact which fentanyl trafficking has had in Pembroke and the significance of the amount of fentanyl that Ms Hier had in her possession.
[97] Ms Hier does have a prior conviction for a designated substance offence. The effect of this prior conviction, and the rest of her criminal record for that matter, however, is tempered somewhat by the fact that Ms Hier has never served more than 18 days in custody.
The Sentence Imposed
[98] Having regard to the caselaw and the aggravating and mitigating factors, I find that the appropriate total sentence is six and half years. I do not find that the mitigating factors are sufficient to bring Ms Hier’s sentence for such a significant quantity of such a devastating drug to the four years that defence counsel eloquently advocated for.
[99] I am mindful of the need to craft a sentence that makes denunciation and deterrence the primary sentencing goals. However, I find that the eight-year sentence advocated by Crown counsel is too long. It would crush Ms Hier’s rehabilitative potential.
[100] Ms Hier needs a sentence that works to send a clear message to her and to others that the Court will order denunciative and deterrent sentences for this offence. She needs a sentence that also pairs extensive in-custody treatment and counselling with robust parole options to test her in the community.
[101] I find that a six-and-a-half-year sentence strikes the right balance.
[102] The sentence that I impose is:
a) 12 months for time served, for which I will grant 18 months credit,
b) the remaining balance, five years, shall be served in the penitentiary,
c) a weapons prohibition for the rest of her life,
d) an Order for the taking of Ms Hier’s DNA for inclusion on the National DNA Databank, and
e) a waiver of the victim fine surcharge given the undue hardship Ms Hier will face if required to pay any form of monetary penalty upon her release from custody.
Released: July 16, 2025
Signed: Justice J.R. Richardson
[^1]: In small town Ontario, fighting opioid crisis requires personal touch | CBC News
[^2]: Ontario Northland provides bus service between Pembroke and Ottawa and Pembroke and North Bay twice a day.
[^3]: I understand that Renfrew County has received funding for a shelter which is scheduled to be opened this fall. New Homelessness and Addiction Recovery Treatment (HART) Hub opening in Pembroke | Pembroke Observer
[^4]: Mobile team checking in on homeless people in Renfrew County | CBC News
[^5]: ‘This is it. Shut it down‘: Neighbours of The Grind call for an end to the madness | The Eganville Leader ; The Grind calls press conference to respond to neighbours' concerns | Pembroke Observer