Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CR/19/70000099/0000 Date: 2020-04-02 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen

• and -

Cary Taylor

Counsel: E. Haydon, for the Crown Alex Mamo, for Mr. Taylor

Heard: January 6 and March 27, 2020

Reasons for Sentence

Kelly J.

[1] Mr. Cary Taylor has pleaded guilty to the following offences:

a. Possessing a loaded restricted firearm[^1] contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46;

b. Possessing a prohibited device contrary to s. 92 of the Criminal Code;

c. Possessing the loaded firearm in contravention of two prohibition orders pursuant to s. 117.01(1) of the Criminal Code; and

d. Possessing cocaine for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19 (“CDSA”).

[2] Mr. Taylor now appears before me for sentencing.

[3] Crown Counsel submits that the appropriate sentence is a global one of 6 years (72 months) in custody. Counsel for Mr. Taylor submits that the appropriate sentence is a global one of 5.5 years (66 months).

[4] Both counsel agree that Mr. Taylor should receive credit for time served pursuant to R. v. Summers.[^2] They also agree that some credit should be given for the harsh conditions experienced by Mr. Taylor while incarcerated in the Toronto South Detention Centre (“TSDC”) pursuant to R. v. Duncan.[^3] They simply disagree on the amount.[^4]

[5] Lastly, both counsel agree that the following ancillary orders should be imposed:

(i) an order pursuant to s. 487.05 of the Criminal Code that Mr. Taylor provide a sample of a bodily substance for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis and storage in the national DNA database; and

(ii) an order pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code for life.

[6] After having considered the facts of the case, Mr. Taylor’s background, and the relevant legal principles, I find that the appropriate sentence is 5.5 years (66 months), less time served (48 months)[^5] for a further 18 months to be served.

[7] What follows are my reasons.

The Facts

[8] The facts giving rise to the pleas and convictions formed part of an Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”). The ASF may be summarized as follows:

a. On February 20, 2018, at approximately 7:30 p.m., two officers from the Toronto Police Service (“TPS”) were working in plain clothes in the area of Bain Avenue and Black Street in the City of Toronto.

b. While in the area, one of the officers noticed a male person standing on Bain Avenue. One of the officers recognized this male as Mr. Taylor. The officer believed that Mr. Taylor was the subject of a bench warrant.

c. The officer called out to Mr. Taylor by name, “Cary”. Mr. Taylor responded by saying “no” and walked to a nearby vehicle. A female was in the driver’s seat. Mr. Taylor got into the front passenger seat.

d. The officers pulled up in their vehicle beside the one in which Mr. Taylor had entered. They noticed that he was leaned over while seated in the front passenger seat. The officers exited their vehicle. Mr. Taylor exited his as well.

e. Mr. Taylor was promptly arrested on the strength of the bench warrant for failing to comply with his probation. Mr. Taylor denied that he was the subject of a bench warrant. The officers called a division of the TPS. An officer in records management confirmed that Mr. Taylor was wanted pursuant to a bench warrant. (This was inaccurate as the bench warrant had been rescinded, but TPS was not informed.)

f. During a search incident to arrest, the following items were found on Mr. Taylor’s person:

i. Two cellphones;

ii. A small digital scale;

iii. $7,123.65 in loose bills, change and in stacks bound with rubber bands;

iv. One plastic bag containing 6.59 grams of crack cocaine; and

v. One plastic bag containing 6.90 grams of powder cocaine.

g. One of the officers looked in the vehicle in which Mr. Taylor had been sitting. He observed what he believed to be the holster of a gun and a white bag containing a white substance under the front passenger seat.

h. A search warrant for the vehicle was granted. Found inside the vehicle and under the front passenger seat was the following:

i. One plastic bag with 34.75 grams of cocaine;

ii. A Taurus Model PT24/7 Pro .40 calibre centre fire semi-automatic firearm which meets the definition of a restricted firearm;

iii. A 15-shot capacity magazine which meets the definition of a prohibited device; and

iv. 13 cartridges of .40 calibre ammunition that fit the Taurus firearm.

i. Utterances at the roadside were made by Mr. Taylor. He confirmed that the contraband belonged to him.

j. Mr. Taylor was not licensed to possess the firearm and he did not have a registration certificate for it. At the time of his arrest, Mr. Taylor was subject to four weapons prohibitions dated August 5, 2009, September 9, 2013, May 22, 2015 and February 21, 2017 respectively.

[9] These are the facts upon which Mr. Taylor is being sentenced. I will now turn to a consideration of Mr. Taylor’s background.

Personal Background

[10] Mr. Taylor’s background was provided to the Court by way of submissions from him personally and from his counsel. Those submissions may be summarized as follows:

a. Mr. Taylor is 38 years-old. He was born on July 18, 1981. He is a Canadian citizen.

b. He is the youngest of five brothers and three sisters.

c. His parents were employed full time. His mother was employed at The Royal York Hotel. His father was a carpenter. Both parents were hardworking in their efforts to provide support to their family. However, that meant they were not available to their children for significant periods of time each day and therefore, Mr. Taylor did not have a lot of parental supervision growing up.

d. Mr. Taylor graduated from high school. He then attended Humber College for architectural technology; however, he did not finish the program.

e. Thereafter, Mr. Taylor completed an automotive technician’s course at Centennial College.

f. Mr. Taylor grew up in a neighbourhood that was prone to drug use and violence. He has used illegal drugs in the past, but not significantly. He began selling drugs at a young age.

g. Mr. Taylor has been employed in the past. He has worked in the automotive industry as a mechanic and he did so until about 2015. He has also been employed in the construction business. He would like to be in the legitimate business of building and renovating homes.

h. Mr. Taylor has used his time in custody to reflect on his future. He has reached out to construction unions and made inquiries about membership. He has spoken to people about how to get into programs for legitimate work. He is trying to get supports in place to avoid spending the rest of his adult years in jail.

i. Mr. Taylor has a 12-year-old daughter. Her mother does not approve of his lifestyle. He pays support when he can.

j. Mr. Taylor’s parents and siblings do not have criminal records. They are supportive of him. He recognizes that he needs a stable environment and plans to live with them upon his release.

k. Mr. Taylor suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. He was stabbed while in custody in 2006. He was stabbed again on January 14, 2014. He has a significant scar on his face resulting from a slice to his cheek while in custody.

[11] Mr. Taylor has a criminal record that contains 51 convictions (2 as a youth). His criminal record commences in 1996. The most relevant entries for the purposes of this sentencing include the following:

Date	Offence	Sentence
October 7, 2002	Carrying a concealed weapon.	15 days in custody.
March 11, 2005	Possession of a Schedule I substance for the purpose of trafficking.	30 days in custody in addition to 35 days of pre-sentence custody. Probation for 12 months.
September 21, 2006	Possession of a Schedule I substance.	4 months in custody.
	Possession of a Schedule II substance.	1 month concurrent.
July 28, 2007	Unauthorized possession of a prohibited restricted weapon.	1 day in custody in addition to 33 days of pre-sentence custody.
February 7, 2008	Possession of a firearm knowing the serial number has been tampered with.	2 months in custody in addition to 70 days pre-sentence custody. Probation for 3 years.
	Possession of a firearm knowing its possession is unauthorized.	2 months concurrent in addition to 35 days of pre-sentence custody.
	Possession of a firearm or ammunition contrary to a prohibition order (x2).	Concurrent, as above.
	Possession of a Schedule I substance for the purpose of trafficking.	Concurrent, as above.
August 5, 2009	Possession of a Schedule II substance.	90 days intermittent. Probation for 18 months.
October 22, 2014	Possession of a Schedule I substance.	1 day in custody in addition to 3 days of pre-sentence custody.

[12] When Mr. Taylor was asked if he wished to say anything during his sentencing proceeding, he did. He advised of an upbringing in Toronto that contextualized his criminal record and gave some insight into his plans for the future. Amongst other things, he said:

a. Growing up as a young black man in Toronto is “harder” than most people think. He felt that he was discriminated against and judged unfairly.

b. His conviction in 1996 was a reminder of the fact of being judged unfairly. He had intervened to stop a robbery of another person. Instead of being appreciated for his efforts, he was arrested, charged and convicted of assault. This initial conviction taught him that he could be punished even though he was trying to assist to prevent a criminal act from happening.

c. Mr. Taylor expressed shame for his 20-year history with the criminal justice system. He feels that his accomplishment has been to acquire a significant criminal record. He says that he “feels like a piece of shit”. He describes that he is “disgusted” and “disappointed” in himself. He is remorseful for his “whole life”.

d. He is addicted to selling drugs and is trying to fight it off. He agrees that he did have a firearm and drugs on his person when he was arrested. He agrees that he “should never have done that”.

e. He says that he has been wrongfully labelled a gang member and has paid the consequences of such a label. He has been assaulted several times as a result of what, he submits, is a wrongful association with various gangs.

f. COVID-19 has awoken Mr. Taylor. He feels helpless to assist his 75-year-old mother and his 12-year-old daughter. Upon release, he wishes to be employed and become a contributing member of society. He wishes to be a role model for his daughter and a support for his mother.

[13] I will now turn to a consideration of the relevant legal principles.

The Law

[14] In determining an appropriate sentence for Mr. Taylor, regard must be had to the sentencing objectives in s. 718 of the Criminal Code, which provides as follows:

718. 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 and 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 acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community.

[15] The sentencing judge must also have regard to the following: any aggravating and mitigating factors, including those listed in ss. 718.2(a)(i) to (vi); the principle that a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances (s. 718.2(b)); the principle that where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh (s. 718.2(c)); and the principle that courts should exercise restraint in imposing imprisonment (ss. 718.2(d) and (e)).[^6]

[16] Imposing a proportionate sentence is a highly individualized exercise, tailored to the gravity of the offence, the blameworthiness of the offender, and the harm caused by the crime.[^7]

[17] Both counsel have provided cases in support of their positions on sentence. The position advanced by both are within the appropriate range of sentence as set out in the cases. For example, Crown Counsel provided the cases of R. v. Hanse,[^8] R. v. Stewart,[^9] R. v. Sadikov[^10] and R. v. Dehaney.[^11] Counsel for Mr. Taylor provided helpful cases as well: R. v. Crevier,[^12] R. v. Browne,[^13] R. v. Bedward[^14] and R. v. Prosser.[^15]

[18] The case of R. v. Sadikov provided a review of cases that is most helpful in supporting the fit sentence. Mr. Sadikov was convicted of a number of offences, including possession of MDMA, methamphetamine, heroin, ketamine, proceeds of crime, possession of a loaded firearm and ammunition while prohibited from doing so, in addition to other offences. He received a global sentence of seven years. At paragraph 8 of her reasons, Thorburn J. (as she then was) provided a summary of cases as follows:

From a review of the cases provided to me by counsel many of which are cited below, it would seem that the range of sentence for possession of a loaded restricted firearm is between three and six years and the range of sentence for possession of this quantity of drugs for the purpose of trafficking, is between four and nine years:

i. In R. v. Duhamel, 2013 ONSC 1340, (S.C.J.) a 24 year old accused convicted of possession of a fully loaded automatic handgun and ammunition, approximately 137 grams of cocaine, drug paraphernalia and $2,055 who was on bail at the time he committed these offences and had a significant criminal record, was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment before taking into account time spent in pre-sentence custody. Among other things he received a sentence of three years for unauthorized possession of a loaded prohibited weapon, and one and one-half years consecutive for possession of 137 grams of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

ii. In R. v. Channer, [2013] O.J. No. 2912 (O.C.J.), a 35 year old offender with a criminal record, who pled guilty to possession of a loaded firearm, possession of crack cocaine and hashish and $946 was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment on the firearm charge and eight months’ concurrent for the drug charges. There is no indication of the quantity of the drugs in the reasons for sentence.

iii. In R. v. Wong … [2012 ONCA 767], a 24 year old first time offender was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for possession of a firearm, 35.8 grams of ketamine, 4 grams of cocaine, $2,000 and a set of scales.

iv. In R v. Burgher, [2014] O.J. No. 6322 (S.C.J.) a 31 year old offender with a lengthy criminal record received a global sentence of ten and one-half years for possession of two firearms with ammunition, 1 1/4 kilograms of cocaine and 1.14 grams of heroin for the purpose of trafficking, and breach of six court orders. He was sentenced to six and one-half years for possession of two loaded prohibited weapons and five and one-half years for possession of the drugs for the purpose of trafficking.

v. In R. v. Crevier, 2013 ONSC 2630, [2013] O.J. No. 2257, (S.C.J.), an offender with a lengthy criminal record who was convicted of possession of a loaded firearm and cocaine with an estimated street value of $10,000 was sentenced to four years in custody for possession of the loaded restricted firearm and two years consecutive for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

vi. In R. v. Johnson, 2013 ONSC 4217, [2013] O.J. No. 2957 (S.C.J.), a 26 year old offender who pled guilty to possession of a loaded firearm and possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking, and had a prior criminal record that included two prior counts of possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking, received a sentence of three years for possession of the loaded firearm and one year consecutive for possession of 6.47 grams of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

vii. In R. v. Peterkin, 2013 ONSC 2116, [2013] O.J. No. 1614 (S.C.J.), a 22 year old offender with no criminal record was sentenced to three years in custody for possession of a loaded firearm and one additional year for possession of 1.31 grams of cocaine and 7.7 grams of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.

viii. In R. v. Oraha, [2012] O.J. No. 973 (S.C.J.), a 25 year old first offender with a positive pre-sentence report who expressed remorse was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment for trafficking 3 kg of MDMA, 3 kg of cocaine, conspiracy to traffic cocaine and possession of 1.3 kg of MDMA for the purpose of trafficking.

ix. In R. v. Liu, [2009] O.J. No. 2390 (O.C.J.), a first time offender who pled guilty to trafficking 1 kilogram of methamphetamine, received a six year sentence.

x. In R. v. Dehaney, 2012 ONSC 3014, [2012] O.J. No. 2597 (S.C.J.), a 23 year old offender with a minor criminal record received a sentence of seven years for possession of a firearm and buying 1/8 of an ounce to one ounce of cocaine seven times.

xii. In R. v. Bajada, [2003] 169 O.A.C. 226 (C.A.), the court held that “sentences of five to five and one-half years are not uncommon for possession of a substantial amount of cocaine for the purposes of trafficking following an accused’s guilty plea or where the accused has no prior record.”

xiii. In R. v. Macias, [2003] O.J. No. 5564 (S.C.J.), a first time offender was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment for possession of approximately 1.3 kilograms of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

xiv. In R. v. W.C.A., [2010] O.J. No. 2677 (S.C.J.) at paras. 49-51 in addition to a six and one-half year sentence for a gun related offence, the offender received a sentence of one and one-half years for breach of several prohibition orders.

[19] While helpful, the submitted cases demonstrate that sentencing a person, such as Mr. Taylor, is a very individualized process. There is no such thing as a uniform sentence for a particular crime or a particular defendant.[^16]

[20] Further, regardless of which counsel provided the cases, one theme is consistent in all authorities dealing with firearms, especially in the City of Toronto. This is a theme that is often referred to regardless of the level of court: firearms pose a significant danger to our community to such an extent that exemplary sentences must be imposed which denounce such conduct and deter others from possessing such dangerous weapons.[^17]

Analysis

a. Mitigating and Aggravating Factors

[21] In considering the fit sentence, I find the following to be the aggravating factors:

a. Mr. Taylor possessed the restricted firearm in our city, a city which is currently plagued with firearm possession and use.

b. Also found with the firearm was a 15-shot capacity magazine as well as 13 cartridges of .40 calibre ammunition that functioned correctly in the seized firearm.

c. Mr. Taylor possessed this firearm and ammunition in breach of four prohibition orders.

d. Possession of a firearm and cocaine together is of concern.

e. Mr. Taylor appears to have been involved in selling cocaine for a commercial purpose.

f. Mr. Taylor has a significant criminal record. He has entries for similar and related offences. Despite being incarcerated in the past, he has not been deterred from committing criminal offences.

[22] There are mitigating circumstances to consider in sentencing Mr. Taylor as well:

a. There was a plea of guilt. The plea resulted in a saving of resources in a post-Jordan era.

b. Mr. Taylor has shown remorse by pleading guilty.

c. I also accept the submission of Mr. Taylor as a sign of remorse.

d. The plea provided certainty of result. The witnesses did not have to testify.

e. Mr. Taylor was misidentified as a person wanted on a bench warrant. The bench warrant had been rescinded, but the TPS had not been informed at the time of his arrest. A potential Charter application was abandoned.

f. Although he has a significant criminal record, he has not been given a penitentiary sentence in the past.

b. The Fit Sentence

[23] So what is the fit sentence?

[24] This is a difficult case. The appropriate sentence imposed must be one from which our society feels protected and which deters others from committing similar crimes, without crushing the hopes of Mr. Taylor. However, Mr. Taylor deserves a sentence that addresses the appropriate legal principles in consideration of his background and the facts.

[25] The sentence for breaching the court orders must be consecutive. Those charges represent a separate and distinct offence from that of possessing the firearm and ammunition.[^18]

[26] In reaching my conclusion about the fit sentence, I also cannot ignore the principle of totality. However, I find that the primary sentencing objectives in this case are denuciation and deterrence.

[27] In all of the circumstances, I find that the appropriate sentence is a global one of 5.5 years (66 months). Mr. Taylor is entitled to a reduction in sentence for a variety of reasons.

c. The Summers Credit

[28] Mr. Taylor will be given credit for time spent in pre-sentence custody in accordance with s. 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code and Summers. Mr. Taylor has been in custody since February 20, 2018. As such, as of April 2, 2020 he has spent 773 real days in custody. Enhanced at 1.5 days for each day spent in pre-sentence custody would result in a credit of 1,160 days. Of those days, 60 were used pursuant to a sentence of failing to comply with probation in February 2020, leaving a remaining available credit of 1,100 days. In all of the circumstances, Mr. Taylor will be given a credit of 37 months.[^19]

d. The Duncan Credit

[29] In certain circumstances, particularly when harsh conditions prevailed during pre-sentence incarceration, mitigation greater than the 1.5 days credit set out in s. 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code may be appropriate. In considering whether any enhanced credit should be given, the court will consider the conditions of the pre-sentence custody and the impact of those conditions on the defendant. If the court finds that there is an adverse effect on the defendant flowing from the pre-sentence conditions, the sentence can be reduced further to reflect the added mitigation for the conditions of the pre-sentence incarceration.[^20]

[30] Crown Counsel submits that Mr. Taylor should be given credit of 4-6 months based on the principles set out in Duncan. Counsel for Mr. Taylor submits that he should receive credit of 12-14 months.

[31] During the time that Mr. Taylor was incarcerated, it is agreed that there were a considerable number of days of full and partial lockdowns. The records, to March 2, 2020, show 241 days of partial and full lockdowns. That being said, Mr. Taylor advises that he has kept his own records regarding lockdowns. His personal records suggest that he has spent well over 400 days subject to full or partial lockdowns.[^21]

[32] Mr. Taylor provided an affidavit to the Court that explains the impact of the lockdowns on him personally. He states the following:

a. The lockdowns cause him stress. When under lockdown, the inmates are confined to their cells with their cellmates. There is no privacy. Some lockdowns last for multiple days.

b. There is limited access to showers. This results in hygiene issues. Further, clean clothing is not being provided regularly.

c. Access to the phones is also difficult. As such, communication with family and counsel is limited. Visits have also been cancelled. Losing touch with his family has caused Mr. Taylor to feel “isolated” and “alone”.

d. The lockdowns have increased the violence within the institution. Mr. Taylor has been assaulted by a group of inmates following a lengthy lockdown period. He ascribes the reason for increased violence to frustration.

e. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, concern amongst the inmates has increased. The inmates are in close proximity to each other. They are concerned that the virus could spread rapidly amongst the prison population. The inmates have limited access to news about the virus because the guards are concerned that the inmates will panic.

f. The institution has been under constant lockdown since a correctional officer employed there tested positive for COVID-19. Staff shortages have increased as a result.

[33] Mr. Taylor has been the subject of misconducts during his period of incarceration since his arrest on these charges. They include the following:

June 7, 2019: Mr. Taylor admitted and was found guilty of, “has contraband or attempts to bring”.

June 4, 2019: Mr. Taylor refused to admit or deny but was found guilty of, “has contraband or attempts to bring”.

November 21, 2018: Mr. Taylor admitted, with an explanation, “commits/threatens assault (on other)”.

March 6, 2018: Mr. Taylor denied, but was found guilty of “wilfully disobeys order of officer”.

March 6, 2018: Mr. Taylor denied but was found guilty of, “makes a gross insult at a person” and “commits/threatens assault (on other)”.

[34] While I appreciate that there is a significant discrepancy in the record of lockdown days at the TSDC (i.e., 241 recorded in the TSDC records, versus over 400 recorded by Mr. Taylor), I am cognizant that there have been problems in the record keeping by the institution in the past. This is not a criticism, simply an observation. For the purposes of these reasons, I am prepared to accept that there have been more lockdown days than recorded by the institution. I accept that there have been 400 lockdown days during Mr. Taylor’s incarceration.

[35] While I agree with Crown Counsel that the impact of the lockdowns on Mr. Taylor has resulted in the loss of certain privileges and that there is no evidence of a significant impact on his personal health, I accept there has been some impact. Like all inmates, he has lost the opportunity to participate in the shower program regularly and have access to communication with his family and lawyer. As such, I accept the consequences have had a negative impact on Mr. Taylor during the lockdowns.

[36] I also accept that the COVID-19 pandemic has heightened the anxiety of those incarcerated, like Mr. Taylor. It is difficult to comprehend compliance with the recommendation for social distancing when the inmates are housed so closely together, combined with the requirement for interaction with others daily. Further, the inmates may not have suitable access to the products that are required to prevent the spread of the virus (i.e., soap, sanitizers, etc.). This is not a criticism of the institutions but simply an observation. These are, indeed, unusual times with information about the virus and recommendations to restrict it changing daily.

[37] I acknowledge that Mr. Taylor has been the subject of misconduct citations as a result of his own conduct in the institution. However, I acknowledge that anxiety is heightened during the times that the institution has been in lockdown due to staffing shortages and may result in less than exemplary behaviour. That said, Mr. Taylor is responsible for his own conduct. He has paid the consequences for such misconduct by the penalties he has received.

[38] There is no mathematical equation for the amount of time to be credited as compensation for being incarcerated under harsh conditions. However, the message must be sent that it is inappropriate for inmates awaiting trial and who are presumed innocent, to be punished because the institutions are not properly staffed. Again, this is not meant as a criticism of those employed at the institution; however, more needs to be done to ensure that it is properly staffed. The COVID-19 pandemic further complicates matters, worsening the conditions rather than improving them.

[39] Based on the evidence before me, and in these most unusual times, I am prepared to give Mr. Taylor a further credit of 11 months given his harsh experience while in pre-sentence custody.

Conclusion

[40] In conclusion, Mr. Taylor is sentenced to a global sentence of 5.5 years (66 months) less the following credits:

a. Summers credit: 37 months; and

b. Duncan credit: 11 months.

[41] When the credits (48 months) are deducted from the sentence of 5.5 years (66 months), Mr. Taylor is required to serve another 18 months in custody.

[42] The sentence shall be recorded as follows:

Offence	Criminal Code Section	Sentence
Possession of a loaded restricted firearm while not the holder of an authorization or licence for the firearm with ammunition.	95(1)	3.5 years (42 months) less 37 months for a further 5 months to serve.
Possession of an overcapacity magazine without being the holder of a licence.	92	18 months concurrent.
Possession of a firearm while prohibited from doing so by an order pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code.	117.01(1)	1 year (12 months) less 11 months for 1 month to be served in custody, consecutive.
Possession of a firearm while prohibited from doing so by an order pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code.	117.01(1)	1 year in custody, concurrent.
Possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.	5(2) of the CDSA	1 year in custody, consecutive.

[43] Mr. Taylor will be subject to the following ancillary orders:

(i) an order under s. 487.05 of the Criminal Code that Mr. Taylor provide a sample of a bodily substance for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis and storage in the national DNA database;

(ii) a forfeiture order; and

(ii) an order under s. 109 of the Criminal Code for life.

Kelly J.

Released: April 2, 2020

[^1]: The firearm was located with readily accessible ammunition: a 15-shot capacity magazine and 13 cartridges of 40 calibre ammunition that functioned correctly in the seized firearm.

[^2]: 2013 ONCA 147, aff’d 2014 SCC 26, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 575

[^3]: 2016 ONCA 754

[^4]: Crown Counsel submits that Mr. Taylor should receive 4-6 months’ credit. Counsel for Mr. Taylor submits that he should receive 12-14 months’ credit.

[^5]: I have granted 37 months of credit pursuant to Summers and 11 months pursuant to Duncan.

[^6]: See R. v. Nur, 2011 ONSC 4874, 275 C.C.C. (3d) 330, aff’d 2013 ONCA 677, 117 O.R. (3d) 401, aff’d 2015 SCC 15, [2015] 1 SCR 773

[^7]: See R. v. M. (C.A.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500, at para. 80

[^8]: 2019 ONSC 1640

[^9]: 2017 ONSC 5613

[^10]: 2015 ONSC 4447, aff’d 2018 ONCA 609

[^11]: 2012 ONSC 3014

[^12]: 2015 ONCA 619, 330 C.C.C. (3d) 305

[^13]: 2014 ONSC 4217

[^14]: 2016 ONSC 939

[^15]: 2014 ONSC 6466

[^16]: R. v. Hamilton (2004), 72 O.R. (3d) 1 (C.A.)

[^17]: See e.g., R. v. Danvers (2005), 199 C.C.C. (3d) 490 (Ont. C.A.) and R. v. Nur, 2015 SCC 15, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 773

[^18]: See R. v. Ferrigon, [2007] O.J. No. 1883 (S.C.)

[^19]: The actual calculation is a little less than 37 months (36.66 months), but I have rounded it up to 37 months.

[^20]: R. v. Duncan, at paras. 6 and 7

[^21]: As of March 2, 2020, the records from the TSDC indicate that Mr. Taylor was subject to 241 days of full or partial lockdowns. However, in other proceedings involving individuals incarcerated in the TSDC, I have been advised that since the COVID-19 pandemic started, the lockdowns have increased and that in March 2020 alone, the institution was locked down for all but 7 days as staff are remaining in their homes.