ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

DATE: 2025-11-12

COURT FILE No.: Hamilton 24-47100989

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

GARRY MOORE

Before: Justice J.P.P. Fiorucci

Heard on: January 31 and August 22, 2025

Reasons for Sentence released on: November 12, 2025

Counsel:

• Ruth McGuirl and Astor Li, counsel for the Crown
• Cristina Valeri, counsel for the accused Garry Moore

FIORUCCI J.

Overview

[1] Garry Moore entered a guilty plea to the offence of producing methamphetamine, a Schedule I substance, between April 1 and August 2, 2023. The Crown seeks a 10-year penitentiary sentence. The defence says that a sentence in the range of 4 to 5 years jail is appropriate. The parties agree on the ancillary orders. These reasons explain why I impose a sentence of 5 years jail less pre-sentence custody.

Circumstances of the Offence

[2] Mr. Moore's offence occurred within the context of Project Odeon, a joint forces investigation into a large-scale drug network operating in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. The network was directed by senior figures and involved multiple clandestine laboratories producing fentanyl and methamphetamine, as well as storage sites for chemicals and equipment. Between July 28 and August 10, 2023, search warrants were executed at ten locations, including 6800 Sixteen Road, Smithville. The total evidence seized in the project included approximately 18 kilograms of methamphetamine, 1.3 kilograms of fentanyl, and other drugs, along with precursor chemicals and specialized laboratory equipment.

[3] Between April 1 and August 2, 2023, Mr. Moore participated in the production of methamphetamine at a rural property located at 6800 Sixteen Road, Smithville, which contained a residence and several outbuildings. Mr. Moore lived in one of the outbuildings and was regularly observed moving between the residence and the outbuildings carrying buckets, jugs, gas canisters, and other items. He also changed clothing before entering the outbuilding, which investigators believe was for personal protection.

[4] Moore worked under the direction of an associate and played a lower-to-middle level role in the hierarchy of the drug network. His activities included assisting in transporting chemicals and equipment, including during a trip on July 11, 2023, when Mr. Moore helped load and unload laboratory equipment and chemicals from a U-Haul truck at both the Smithville property and 4057 Bethesda Road, Whitchurch-Stouffville, a location associated with fentanyl production. These items were used to set up and maintain a clandestine laboratory for synthetic drug production.

[5] On August 2, 2023, investigators executed a search warrant at the Smithville property and arrested Mr. Moore. A methamphetamine laboratory was found in one of the outbuildings, along with precursors, chemicals, and specialized equipment. Mr. Moore admits that he participated in producing methamphetamine at this location.

Circumstances of the Offender

[6] Mr. Moore is 47 years old. He was raised in a stable two-parent household in Hamilton and describes his upbringing as generally positive. He has no prior criminal record. Mr. Moore has two children: an adult son and a ten-year-old daughter, with whom he has had no contact since his arrest. He is described as a caring and involved father.

[7] His employment history reflects a strong work ethic. He has worked in labour-intensive roles such as painting, fruit picking, commercial contracting, and has had positions at multiple automotive centres. His most recent employment was at Kubes Steel in Hamilton, for approximately two and a half years, where he held various positions.

[8] Mr. Moore provided the author of the pre-sentence report with a list of potential career paths he wishes to pursue when released from custody. While serving pre-sentence custody, he obtained his Ontario Secondary School Diploma (June 27, 2024) and completed several rehabilitative courses.

[9] Mr. Moore reports ongoing health issues consistent with Ménière's disease, including vertigo and hearing loss, which have affected his ability to work. These symptoms were under medical investigation before his arrest. There is a family history of similar conditions.

[10] Substance abuse was not identified as a contributing factor. Mr. Moore denies any dependency on drugs or alcohol, though he used cannabis as a sleep aid. At the time of the offence, he was unemployed, without prescribed medication, and under financial strain. He asserts that he was functioning in "survival mode" and was exploited by others. He acknowledges responsibility for his actions, expresses genuine remorse, and states that he now understands the seriousness of his conduct.

[11] Mr. Moore has the support of his siblings; two brothers and a sister. He has regular contact with his brother, Roger Moore, who provides him with some financial assistance. Collateral sources describe Mr. Moore as non-criminally oriented, hardworking, and eager to please, a trait that appears to have made him vulnerable to manipulation. He has demonstrated efforts toward self-improvement and reintegration.

Purpose and Principles of Sentencing

[12] Section 718 of the Criminal Code instructs that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful, and safe society. Sentencing judges strive to achieve this goal by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: (a) denunciation of the unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by the unlawful conduct; (b) specific deterrence of the offender and general deterrence of other persons who might commit similar offences; (c) separation of offenders from society, where necessary; (d) assistance in rehabilitating offenders; (e) reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and (f) promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm they have caused to victims or to the community.

[13] Ultimately, the fundamental principle of sentencing, set out in s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code, is to impose a sanction that is proportionate to the gravity of the offence committed and the degree of responsibility of the offender: see *R. v. Nasogaluak*, 2010 SCC 6, at para. 40.

[14] Individualization is central to the proportionality assessment: see *R. v. Parranto*, 2021 SCC 46, at para. 12. As Chief Justice Wagner wrote, at paragraph 12 of Parranto, "[w]hereas the gravity of a particular offence may be relatively constant, each offence is 'committed in unique circumstances by an offender with a unique profile'".

[15] In order to tailor a sentence to the specific circumstances of both the offence and the offender, a sentencing judge may need to consider collateral consequences. Taking these consequences into account allows the judge to impose a proportionate sentence by reflecting all relevant factors connected to the offence and the individual being sentenced: see *R. v. Suter*, 2018 SCC 34, at para. 46.

[16] There is no fixed formula for considering collateral consequences. A collateral consequence includes any consequence arising from the commission of an offence, the conviction for an offence, or the sentence imposed for an offence, that impacts the offender: Suter, at para. 47. The principle of proportionality governs every sentencing decision. Collateral consequences may be considered, but they cannot justify reducing a sentence to the point where it no longer reflects the seriousness of the offence or the offender's moral blameworthiness: Suter, at para. 56.

[17] Section 718.2(b) states that a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances. This is known as the principle of parity.

[18] The principle of restraint is contained in ss. 718.2(d) and (e) of the Criminal Code mandating that an offender should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and 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.

Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances

[19] Section 718.2(a) of the Criminal Code states that a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender.

Aggravating Circumstances

[20] Mr. Moore participated in the production of methamphetamine at a clandestine meth lab. Methamphetamine is a dangerous drug that is highly addictive. Chronic abuse of methamphetamine can result in significant health consequences: see *R. v. Ngo*, 2023 ONSC 282, at para. 32. The police investigation revealed that the individuals Mr. Moore was associating with were involved in large-scale commercial drug trafficking.

[21] When they searched the lab, the police located precursors, chemicals, and specialized equipment used in the production of methamphetamine. The production of methamphetamine creates specific and significant risks to the community arising from the surreptitious use and disposal of dangerous chemicals: see Ngo, at para. 18.

[22] It is an aggravating circumstance that Mr. Moore participated in a commercial methamphetamine production enterprise which made a dangerous and highly addictive drug available to consumers and contributed to the risks associated with its production.

Mitigating Circumstances

[23] Mr. Moore is 47 years old. He has no prior criminal record. He entered a guilty plea which is an indication of his remorse and acceptance of responsibility for the offence. His guilty plea has spared the judicial resources which would have been required for his trial and has absolved the Crown of its obligation to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

[24] Numerous individuals were arrested as part of Project Odeon. The Crown separated accused persons into groups to manage the complexity of the prosecutions. The Crown acknowledges that Mr. Moore's guilty plea has significantly reduced the complexity of the trial for the lone accused person remaining in his prosecution group.

[25] In the period during which he committed the offence, Mr. Moore had taken a leave of absence from his employment on the advice of his doctor. He was experiencing dizziness and extreme vertigo, symptoms commonly associated with Ménière's disease. This made it unsafe for Mr. Moore to operate machinery and therefore he could not work. He was receiving employment insurance benefits at the time of his arrest and was under significant financial strain. It also affected him emotionally, causing him to be depressed, because his inability to work affected his ability to support his daughter.

[26] Collateral sources describe Mr. Moore as non-criminally oriented and hardworking. His work history and the steps he has taken to obtain his high school diploma and complete institutional programs suggest that Mr. Moore's involvement in the meth production lab was out of character.

[27] Mr. Moore has positive rehabilitative prospects. He has accepted responsibility for his offence and worked toward bettering himself while incarcerated by advancing his education and participating in rehabilitative programming. He has a strong desire to re-enter the workforce, has a proven track record of employment in various fields, and has supportive family who can assist him.

Collateral Consequence

[28] Mr. Moore has been detained in custody since his arrest on August 2, 2023. Although Mr. Moore has not been formally diagnosed with Ménière's disease, his family physician had referred him for specialized testing in May and June of 2023 because he was experiencing symptoms related to the condition and his father was diagnosed with the condition.

[29] Defence counsel filed medical records which show that, during his incarceration, Mr. Moore continued to experience the physical symptoms associated to the condition which include nausea, dizziness, memory difficulties, brain fog, vertigo, and hearing issues. While in custody, Mr. Moore was prescribed a medication that greatly relieved his symptoms and allowed him to participate in daily activities including volunteering for work in the institution.

[30] In January of 2025, the detention centre was unable to obtain this medication for Mr. Moore. The medical records confirm the interruption in the availability of this medication. During his allocution to the court at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, Mr. Moore addressed me on this issue. According to Mr. Moore, without the medication, he was bedridden for a 10-day period and could not eat or drink. The effects of the interruption were severe.

[31] Mr. Moore reports that during this same period, his father, who has the same condition, continued to receive the medication. I am prepared to find that because of the interruption in this medication during his incarceration, Mr. Moore experienced physical effects which made his pre-sentence custody more difficult. I am prepared to treat it as a collateral consequence of his commission of the offence and his pre-sentence incarceration.

Analysis

[32] Counsel for the Crown and Mr. Moore provided authorities to support their respective positions but agreed that there is a broad range of sentence for producing methamphetamine. I have found the authorities discussed below to be of most assistance in arriving at a proportionate sentence for Mr. Moore.

[33] In *R. v. DiBenedetto*, 2019 ONCA 496, the offender appealed his convictions and sentence of 5 years jail for production of methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime. The offender was convicted after a judge alone trial. The appeal from conviction was dismissed. The evidence linked the offender to a rural property on which there was a barn that housed a meth lab. In the offender's residence, which was also searched pursuant to a warrant, the police located evidence of the purchase of lab equipment and literature explaining the steps necessary to produce methamphetamine, as well as $50,000 in cash.

[34] On the sentence appeal, Mr. DiBenedetto submitted that the trial judge failed to consider his rehabilitative prospects and to properly apply the principle of restraint when determining the quantum of sentence to impose on a first offender. The sentence appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal in DiBenedetto was not persuaded that the trial judge's reasons for sentence reflected an inadequate consideration of rehabilitative prospects or the principle of restraint. In doing so, the Court, at paragraph 23, said:

The sentencing objectives that occupy positions of prominence in cases involving commercial production of dangerous drugs are denunciation and deterrence. To these objectives, rehabilitation must occupy a position of lesser importance. The sentence imposed here falls well within the range of appropriate sentencing dispositions for this mature, commercially-motivated offender.

[35] The offender in *R. v. Ngo*, 2023 ONSC 282, was found guilty of production of methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime over $5000. The findings of guilt were made after what Justice Roberts characterized as "a brief and efficient trial". The offender was sentenced to 7 years in the penitentiary.

[36] The methamphetamine lab in Ngo contained a kilogram of finished methamphetamine when the search warrant was executed. This was a large-scale operation, involving the coordinated efforts of numerous people, over at least a month. The offender, along with others, was regularly seen inside the lab for hours at a time on a covert camera installed by police. The court noted that Mr. Ngo and others were in the lab on average nine hours a day on eleven days over the twelve-day period leading up to the search. Mr. Ngo was usually the last one out of the lab, locking the door for the night. The lab produced significant quantities of methamphetamine.

[37] When police searched Mr. Ngo's home, they found flasks similar to those found in the lab and used in the production of methamphetamine, and other containers consistent in size, colour and shape to containers found at the address of the meth lab. Police also seized $11,000 in cash from Mr. Ngo's home.

[38] On the date of sentencing, Mr. Ngo was 46 years old and had a dated but unrelated criminal record. At trial, he denied his involvement in the production of, or presence of, methamphetamine at the address where the lab was located. He claimed that he had a renovation company and his only purpose for being at that address was to renovate a bathroom. Justice Roberts rejected his explanation. The court was given no further information about his occupation or work history for purposes of sentencing.

[39] At paragraph 18 of Ngo, Justice Roberts discussed the range of sentence for production of methamphetamine:

The range of sentence for producing methamphetamine in a clandestine lab is broad, spanning about 5 to 16 years. The offence has been likened to importing. As Justice Clark explained, for both importing and production, the accused is "the principal means by which the drug becomes available to the Canadian consumer": *R. v. Chui*, 2015 ONSC 2490, at para. 50; see also *R. v. Ling*, 2012 ONSC 654, sentence upheld 2014 ONCA 808; and *R. v. Chen*, 2019 ONCJ 385, at para. 24. The production of methamphetamine also imposes specific and significant risks on the community arising from the surreptitious use and disposal of dangerous chemicals. Case law from Ontario is summarized in a sentencing chart at Appendix A. In addition to the now-repealed statutory aggravating factors set out above, factors relevant to situating a case within the range include:

• the size, scale, sophistication, and location of the laboratory;
• the duration of production;
• the role of the accused;
• the amount and value of methamphetamine produced and found;
• whether the motive is profit or addiction;
• potential harm to the surrounding community, including presence of explosive, flammable, reactive and toxic chemicals, toxic waste produced by production, associated environmental damage, and the presence of armed and dangerous criminals associated with the trade in illegal drugs;
• the harmful nature of methamphetamine, including the fact that it is highly addictive, the serious risk it poses to a user's health (including brain and/or heart damage), and its potential for inducing aggression and violence: *R. v. Cote*, 2002 BCCA 29, at para. 10.

[40] Justice Roberts found that Mr. Ngo played a significant role in the production of methamphetamine at the organized, large scale methamphetamine lab, although Crown counsel acknowledged that she could not prove the precise role he played.

[41] In Ngo, Justice Roberts emphasized that methamphetamine is an extremely dangerous and highly addictive drug, causing severe physical and psychological harm, and its production poses significant risks of fire, toxic waste, and community danger. Courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada, have long recognized the devastating impact of hard drugs on individuals, families, and society, as well as the violence and hazards linked to trafficking and clandestine labs. Given this "staggering" harm, the principles of general deterrence and denunciation must dominate sentencing for importation and production, with appellate courts warning that those who engage in such conduct should expect severe penalties to discourage participation in the drug trade.

[42] In *R. v. Nguyen*, 2011 ONSC 6229, the offender entered guilty pleas to producing methamphetamine and arson by negligence. The offender operated a clandestine methamphetamine lab in a residential home. A fire broke out while he was boiling methanol, causing severe burns to 70% of his body and requiring five weeks of hospitalization. The lab contained compressed gas cylinders and hazardous chemicals, creating a real risk of explosion that could have destroyed multiple homes. Finished methamphetamine valued at $249,000 was found; the lab's potential yield was estimated at $3.5 million. Approximately 200 kg of toxic waste would have been disposed of in the community.

[43] Mr. Nguyen was 20 years old at the time of the offences and had no criminal record. At the time of sentencing, he was 23 years old. He expressed his remorse and accepted responsibility for his decision to participate in the lab in the hopes of making quick money. He was not the controlling mind of the operation, but he was in control of the operation, nonetheless. Justice McWatt sentenced Mr. Nguyen to serve 5 years in jail for producing methamphetamine and 2 years jail for the arson by negligence to be served concurrently.

[44] In *R. v. Pham*, 2016 ONSC 7943, the offender, a 40-year-old father of three, was convicted after a trial of producing methamphetamine and possessing it for the purpose of trafficking. The police discovered a makeshift lab containing chemical precursors, equipment, and 522.94 grams of finished methamphetamine. The court applied the sentencing principles under s. 10 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and s. 718 of the Criminal Code, emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, proportionality, and parity. Aggravating factors included the significant quantity and value of methamphetamine, its highly addictive and harmful nature, the commercial motive, the offender's high-level role in the production chain, and the chemical fire that posed serious risks to persons and property. Mitigating factors were the offender's limited criminal record, steady employment, family support, and compliance with stringent bail conditions, including house arrest. While prospects for rehabilitation were considered good, the court found that deterrence and denunciation required a substantial custodial term. The offender was sentenced to 4.5 years imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently.

[45] I find that a sentence of 5 years jail is appropriate in Mr. Moore's case. The agreed statement of facts filed as Exhibit 1 does not include details about the size, scale and sophistication of the meth lab that police located at the Smithville property, nor did it contain details about the duration of production, or the amount and value of methamphetamine found or produced at the lab. Mr. Moore's role was described as lower to middle level in the hierarchy of this drug network. The agreed statement of facts says that he was generally following instructions and directions from his associate at the Smithville property.

[46] Mr. Moore's guilty plea and genuine expression of remorse are mitigating factors which are absent in the cases of DiBenedetto, Ngo, and Pham. Mr. Moore's rehabilitative prospects are comparable to the offender in Pham and better than those of the offender in Ngo. Mr. Moore's involvement in a large-scale commercial drug trafficking network requires a denunciatory and deterrent sentence but the mitigating circumstances, and the collateral consequence Mr. Moore experienced while incarcerated due to an interruption in his prescription medication, make a sentence at the lower end of the range a proportionate sentence in the circumstances. It prioritizes denunciation and deterrence and gives proper weight to the principles of restraint and rehabilitation.

The Sentence

[47] I impose a 5-year jail sentence for production of methamphetamine, contrary to s. 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Mr. Moore has served 834 days of pre-sentence custody, which is equivalent to 1,251 days when enhanced at the Summers rate of 1.5 to 1. Mr. Moore has 574 days jail left to serve. Since the remaining term of imprisonment is within the provincial reformatory range, I find that a period of probation of 2 years following Mr. Moore's incarceration will assist him with his rehabilitation.

[48] In terms of ancillary orders, I require Mr. Moore to provide a sample of his DNA and, pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code, I prohibit him from possessing any prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device and prohibited ammunition for life, and any other firearm or any cross-bow, restricted weapon, firearm part, ammunition and explosive substance for 10 years. I make the forfeiture order which has been filed on consent by the parties. I waive the victim surcharge as I find that it would cause undue hardship to Mr. Moore.

Released: November 12, 2025

Signed: Justice J.P.P. Fiorucci