Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CR/18/90000653/0000

Date: 20200212

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

• and -

Ramin Piri

Counsel: R. Morin and I. Glasner, for the Crown George Gray, for Mr. Piri

Heard: October 17, 2019, January 16, 2020 and February 6, 2020

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

Kelly J.

[1] Mr. Ramin Piri has pleaded guilty to the following offences committed contrary to the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46 and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19:

Count	Offence	Amount
1	Trafficking heroin (containing fentanyl) on November 21, 2016.	0.96 grams
2	Possession of the proceeds of crime between November 21, 2016 and February 13, 2017.	$2,990
3	Trafficking fentanyl between December 9, 2016 and February 13, 2017.	2.16 grams
11	Trafficking fentanyl on March 7, 2017.	27.22 grams
12	Possession of the proceeds of crime on March 7, 2017.	$4,500
13	Possession of fentanyl on March 7, 2017.	6.97 grams

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

[3] The Federal Crown submits that the appropriate sentence is one of 7.5 years imprisonment. Counsel for Mr. Piri submits that Mr. Piri should receive a sentence of 3.5 to 4 years imprisonment.

[4] Both counsel agree that Mr. Piri should be given credit for the time he has spent in pre-sentence custody, pursuant to s. 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code and R. v. Summers.[^1] Both counsel also agree that Mr. Piri should receive credit for the time he has been subject to strict bail conditions, pursuant to R. v. Downes.[^2] This credit is granted.

[5] Lastly, Counsel also agree that Mr. Piri should be subject to a prohibition order banning him from possessing weapons for life and that he should be required to provide a sample of his DNA. These ancillary orders are granted.

[6] After having considered the facts giving rise to the pleas, the personal background of Mr. Piri and the relevant legal principles, I find that the sentence imposed should be a global one of 6 years’ imprisonment less 1 year, 6 days for a remaining sentence to be served of: 4 years, 359 days.

[7] What follows are my reasons.

The Facts

[8] The facts giving rise to the pleas were set out in an Agreed Statement of Facts which may be summarized as follows:

October 30, 2016: Officer Sukman of the Toronto Police Service (the “TPS”) was acting in an undercover capacity. He contacted Mr. Piri and asked for “popcorn” (a street name for fentanyl). Mr. Piri advised that he had sold all his fentanyl and there was no transaction.

November 21, 2016: Officer Sukman contacted Mr. Piri and set up a transaction for the purchase of a gram of heroin. When they met, Officer Sukman asked if Mr. Piri could provide him with fentanyl. He said that he could not because “Chinaman” was not around. Mr. Piri told Officer Sukman that he “loves the powder” and that “we have to be very careful when you buy fentanyl because it can cause you to overdose”. Mr. Piri sold Officer Sukman 0.96 grams of heroin in exchange for $200. Following analysis, the substance was found to be heroin mixed with fentanyl.

December 9, 2016: Officer Sukman and Mr. Piri agreed to meet for the purchase and sale of 2 grams of fentanyl powder. Officer Sukman advised that he only had $440 (as opposed to the agreed price of $500). Mr. Piri took the $440 and approached a Mini Cooper. The driver was identified by Mr. Piri as “Chinaman”. When he returned, Mr. Piri told Officer Sukman that he had purchased 3 grams of fentanyl and that he would cut it to provide Officer Sukman with 2 grams. Officer Sukman advised that he would try to sell some of the fentanyl to make a profit. Mr. Piri responded by saying, “Yes, we all need to make money. That’s why I said, the 500 for it.” Mr. Piri sold Officer Sukman 2.16 grams of fentanyl for $440.

December 13, 2016: Mr. Piri and Officer Sukman met for the purpose of a drug transaction. When Officer Sukman arrived, Mr. Piri took his cash, grabbed a scale and went to his supplier (“Chinaman”). Mr. Piri sold Officer Sukman 3.54 grams of fentanyl for $750.

December 29, 2016: Officer Sukman offered to purchase fentanyl. Mr. Piri advised that his supplier did not wish to sell at that time.

January 9, 2017: Mr. Piri advised Officer Sukman that he had a new supplier who could provide two types of fentanyl: cut and uncut. No deal was done on this day.

January 10, 2017: Officer Sukman offered to buy fentanyl. Mr. Piri advised that he was only available at 8:00 p.m. Since Officer Sukman was not available, no deal occurred.

January 12, 2017: Officer Sukman and Mr. Piri met. Officer Sukman entered Mr. Piri’s motor vehicle. When he did, Mr. Piri took a clear plastic bag out of the driver’s side door and began weighing the drugs. Mr. Piri advised that he would only give Officer Sukman 3 grams because “it’s so strong and good”. Officer Sukman convinced Mr. Piri to give him a little more. He did. Officer Sukman purchased 3.09 grams of fentanyl for $900.

January 18, 2017: Officer Sukman called Mr. Piri asking about “Chinaman”. Mr. Piri advised that he had a new supplier at Yonge Street and Finch Avenue. He would not provide any further information about his new supplier. No deal occurred on that day.

January 21, 2017: Mr. Piri provided a new phone number to Officer Sukman. He also advised that he had not heard from “Chinaman”. No deal was transacted.

February 13, 2017: Following a telephone conversation, Mr. Piri and Officer Sukman met. Officer Sukman purchased 3.41 grams of fentanyl for $700.

March 5, 2017: Arrangements were made for Officer Sukman to purchase 28 grams of fentanyl for $4,500. It was cancelled.

March 7, 2017: Officer Sukman and Mr. Piri met. Officer Sukman provided Mr. Piri with $3,000 for the purchase of 28 grams of fentanyl. He advised Mr. Piri that he would give him an additional $1,500 when he received the fentanyl. Mr. Piri advised that his “backend” would want all the money up front. Officer Piri gave him the remaining $1,500. Mr. Piri approached the backend. He obtained 34.19 grams of fentanyl. He gave Officer Sukman 27.22 grams and kept 6.97 grams for his own purpose. Mr. Piri was arrested. Thereafter, a search warrant was executed on Mr. Piri’s home and motor vehicle. No illicit narcotics or proceeds of crime were found in either location.

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

Mr. Piri’s Background

[10] Mr. Piri’s background may be summarized as follows:

a. Mr. Piri is currently 39 years of age.

b. Mr. Piri was born in Iran and he lived there until he was 12 years of age.

c. When he was one-year-old, his parents were arrested as political prisoners and were imprisoned for approximately 9 to 10 years. During that time, Mr. Piri was raised by his grandparents.

d. Mr. Piri grew up in Iran during the war between Iraq and Iran. He was living in Tehran which was successively bombed. It was essentially a war zone.

e. When Mr. Piri’s parents were released from prison, they separated.

f. At the age of 12, Mr. Piri came to Canada with his grandparents. They entered the country as refugees because of the political stance taken by his parents in Iran. His family did not want Mr. Piri and his brother to serve in the army overseas.

g. His mother arrived in Canada seven years after Mr. Piri. He was 19 years-old. His father remained in Iran.

h. Mr. Piri finished grade 6 in Canada. He struggled in high school, only finishing grade 9.

i. After leaving high school, Mr. Piri was steadily employed. He renovated homes and installed hardwood floors. Eventually, he opened his own business, approximately nine years ago. He earned varying amounts of income, depending on the contracts his company was able to secure.

j. Mr. Piri and his brother also bought a house and sold it to buy another. Eventually, the house was sold and he began to live with his girlfriend.

k. After having been arrested for these offences and while on a house arrest bail, Mr. Piri’s girlfriend had to quit her job at the Toronto District School Board because she was Mr. Piri’s surety. They thought that the terms of release required her to be with Mr. Piri at all times. It did not. Further, he was not able to work and his business closed. They began to fight and their relationship ended.

[11] Mr. Piri has had an addiction to opioids which led him to this (and other) appearances before the court. That history may be summarized as follows:

a. When Mr. Piri was approximately 19 years of age, his grandmother died, and Mr. Piri started using opioids. It eased the pain of her passing and he used them for a couple of weeks. When he tried to stop, he could not, leading to an addiction which has lasted over the past 20 years.

b. Mr. Piri began with the use of opium and moved to heroin at around 25 to 26 years of age. Mr. Piri began to use heroin daily — up to 1.5 to 2 grams per day. He was smoking and ingesting it. Because his tolerance increased, Mr. Piri required a greater dose of heroin. The cost, of course, was crippling for him financially.

c. To make matters worse, Mr. Piri’s girlfriend became addicted to heroin. Together, they were spending $700 to $1,000 on heroin every couple of days.

d. Mr. Piri was eventually introduced to fentanyl because it was mixed with heroin he had obtained.

e. Mr. Piri started using patches and smoked it. It was much stronger than heroin and the effects were faster. Eventually, powdered fentanyl was introduced into the market and to Mr. Piri. It was a lot easier to use but harder to find.

f. Mr. Piri says that to defray the cost of his mounting addiction to fentanyl, he partnered with others to reduce the cost. In other words, he would use the money from others, (i.e., Officer Sukman) as well as his own money to buy larger amounts of the drug which would reduce the cost. He bought what he needed, distributed some to his partner (i.e. Officer Sukman) and that amount would last a couple of days.

g. Mr. Piri advises that he has made serious attempts to discontinue his use of narcotics. He has succeeded and then relapsed. He was on the methadone program and met with success on occasion.

h. Mr. Piri has also seen Dr. J. Pasternak (a psychologist) for about 12 years to deal with his addictions.

i. He has attended both family and addiction counseling. Most recently, he has been on the methadone program and has met with some success.

[12] Mr. Piri has a criminal record with the following entries:

Date	Offence	Sentence
November 28, 2011	Traffic in a Schedule II substance.	Suspended sentence and probation for 12 months with a mandatory prohibition order.
August 15, 2007	Theft under $5,000.	Suspended sentence and probation for 12 months.
January 18, 2001	Assault.	Suspended sentence and probation for 18 months (2 days pre-sentence custody). Discretionary weapons prohibition for 10 years.
September 12, 2016	Possession of a Schedule I substance.	Suspended sentence and probation for 18 months.
October 2, 2019	Theft under $5,000.	Conditional discharge and probation for 18 months.

[13] I will now turn to the legal principles that must be considered on sentencing.

The Law

[14] In determining an appropriate sentence, 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 (iv); 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)).[^3]

[16] Pursuant to s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code, "[a] sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender". 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.[^4]

[17] The Federal Crown provided cases in support of their position, some of which are summarized as follows:

R. v. Bahari:[^5] Mr. Bahari pleaded guilty to four counts of trafficking in heroin. The offences included the following amounts: .08 grams for $40; .51 grams for $330; 1.12 grams for $350; and 5 grams for $1,500. In each case, Mr. Bahari appeared to be acting as an agent for a supplier. Mr. Bahari was 40 years of age and had a minor criminal record. There was some evidence that Mr. Bahari was addicted to heroin and had attended the Queen and Dufferin Rehabilitation Centre to begin the Methadone Treatment Program before these offences occurred. The Court of Appeal reduced the 8-year sentence imposed to 6 years.

R. v. Cinelli:[^6] Mr. Cinelli pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking and one count of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking. After a search of his car, police found a pencil case containing: 63 grams of heroin; 20 grams of fentanyl; $3,260 in cash; a digital scale; and 5 syringes. While out of custody, he was found to be in possession of a further 9.2 grams of heroin. He pleaded guilty to that offence as well. Thereafter, Mr. Cinelli attended a residential rehabilitation program. When released into the community, he was again arrested and found to be in possession of $2,020 in cash; 7.6 grams of heroin; and 0.8 grams of Clonazepam in pill form. In his reasons at para. 18, Bawden J. made the following observation about fentanyl:

18 Although there are significant dangers to the rapid consumption of fentanyl patches, those dangers pale in comparison to the dangers of consuming fentanyl powder. Fentanyl powder is typically synthesized in China. The drug can be snorted, injected, smoked or even absorbed through the skin. Fentanyl powder presents an enormous risk to first responders who must constantly guard against the possibility of toxic exposure to fentanyl.

Mr. Cinelli was not sentenced as an addict trafficker because he was unable to show a causal connection between his addiction to narcotics and his trafficking activities. He was given a global sentence of 7 years for possessing 20 grams of fentanyl and 7 years concurrent for each count of possessing heroin for the purpose of trafficking.

R. v. Fuller:[^7] Mr. Fuller was convicted of conspiracy to traffic fentanyl and methamphetamine. He was prosecuted as a prominent member of a drug trafficking ring in the Waterloo Region. The amount of drugs found in his possession was 3 kilograms. The sentencing judge observed the dangers and deleterious effects of fentanyl. He observed, at para. 51 that “it is clear that the range of sentence involving fentanyl, once settled, is going to be higher than it is for heroin, given the enhanced inherent deadliness of the narcotic”. Mr. Fuller was given a sentence of 15 years.

R. v. Lloyd:[^8] The British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of 6 years for a series of offences, including possession of a mixture of heroin and fentanyl (51.29 grams) and methamphetamine (25.7 grams) for the purpose of trafficking. Mr. Lloyd had recently been incarcerated and he was an addict.

R. v. Loor:[^9] Mr. Loor was a low-level member of a small drug trafficking ring dealing in fentanyl. Using a forged prescription, Mr. Loor obtained 45 patches of fentanyl from a pharmacy in Barrie. He was given a sentence of 6 years. That sentence was upheld by the Court of Appeal. Commencing at para. 33, the Court of Appeal made the following observations about fentanyl:

33 Unless used for therapeutic purposes, under proper medical supervision, fentanyl is a highly dangerous drug. Its widespread abuse, though recent, has quickly become entrenched in our country. Every day in our communities, fentanyl abuse claims the lives of Canadians.

35 Fentanyl, like heroin, is an opioid. Opioids are drugs that act on the central nervous system to relieve pain. Unlike heroin, which is illegal, fentanyl is a prescription drug, which can be obtained legally for therapeutic use.

37 Because fentanyl is so potent it becomes a very dangerous drug when it is not used for therapeutic reasons under medical supervision. Those who have a prescription for it and yet abuse it, or those without a prescription who buy a patch on the street or borrow one from a friend are at risk of toxicity and death.

38 The effects of fentanyl are why people abuse it. Fentanyl gives people a high, a feeling of well-being, of euphoria. Those who use it for a long time may become addicted. But because fentanyl depresses the central nervous system, it can slow down the way one's brain functions, decrease one's heart rate, and slow down one's breathing. A person who takes enough fentanyl may eventually stop breathing and die.

R. v. Lu:[^10] Mr. Lu was convicted of possession of four boxes of fentanyl patches for the purpose of trafficking. He was given a sentence of 30 months. The Court of Appeal upheld his sentence finding that, “Fentanyl is one of the most highly addictive and dangerous drugs. … General deterrence and denunciation are paramount factors.”

R. v. Prestula:[^11] Mr. Prestula was arrested after selling a half kg of cocaine. He was found to be in possession of 13.7 grams of fentanyl. When on release for these offences, he sold small quantities of drugs to another officer. A warrant executed on his home recovered 79.41 grams of cocaine, 81.6 grams of crack cocaine and 35.5 grams of methamphetamine. Mr. Prestula pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of narcotics for the purpose of trafficking, trafficking and possession of proceeds. He was given a sentence of 5 years, 3 months’ imprisonment.

R. v. Ribble:[^12] Mr. Ribble was found guilty of several offences, including possession of fentanyl, and a mixture of heroin and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking. He also possessed a loaded handgun. Mr. Ribble had a long criminal record but had never been to the penitentiary or reformatory. He was an addict but there was no causal connection between his addiction and trafficking. He had a virtual pharmacy of illicit narcotics when arrested. Mr. Ribble was aware of the dangers of fentanyl and had made no effort to deal with his own drug abuse. He had support in the community. Mr. Ribble was given a sentence of 8 years for the fentanyl offences.

R. v. Sidhu:[^13] Mr. Sidhu appealed his sentence of 9.5 years imposed for several convictions of trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking in heroin (42.8 grams), fentanyl (89.5 grams) and methamphetamine (214.3 grams). At the time of the offence, Mr. Sidhu was 25 years of age, had prior related convictions and had resumed trafficking narcotics within months of his release on parole. These offences also violated probation and prohibition orders. Mr. Sidhu had pleaded guilty and had strong family support. The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence. The Court found that, “The sentencing judge was mindful of the aggravating factors, not the least of which were the appellant’s calculated and near-immediate return to commercial trafficking within months of his release from custody; the nature and variety of highly addictive substances in which he trafficked; and the significant problems in the community in which the offences occurred with opioids, in particular fentanyl and its tragic consequences”.

[18] Counsel for Mr. Piri also provided cases in support of her position, some of which may be summarized as follows:

R. v. Klammer:[^14] Mr Klammer was found guilty following a trial for offences including trafficking in fentanyl, possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds. Mr. Klammer trafficking 5.5 patches of fentanyl to an undercover officer. He kept .5 of a patch for himself. Mr. Klammer was given a sentence of 33 months concurrent. The Court referred to this as a sentence that would allow him to return to the community to seek ongoing treatment for his drug dependency and mental health struggles. This sentence was reduced by the Ontario Court of Appeal to 20 months’ imprisonment.[^15] The Court of Appeal held that having “having regard to all of the circumstances of the appellant and the quantity of fentanyl at issue, a sentence of 20 months is reasonable for this first-time offender”.

R. v. Forget:[^16] Ms. Forget was found guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking. She was found in possession of 159 fentanyl patches with a street value of $105,000. Ms. Forget was 60 years of age at the time, pleaded guilty and did not have a significant and related criminal record. She had suffered from back pain and had lost a daughter to an overdose. Ms. Forget was given a sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment.

R. v. Medeiros-Sousa:[^17] Ms. Medeiros-Sousa was found guilty of one count of theft over $5,000 and three counts of trafficking Schedule 1 substances (oxycodone, hydromorphone and fentanyl). Ms. Medeiros-Sousa was a pharmacy assistant. While under surveillance, she was observed entering her pharmacy after hours with another. When they left, Ms. Medeiros-Sousa was found to be in possession of 222 oxycodone pills. Her associate was found to be in possession of 2,333 oxycodone pills, 1,727 hydromorphone pills and 57 fentanyl patches. A significant amount of narcotics was seized in the home of her associate. The street value was $105,760. Ms. Medeiros-Sousa was found guilty following a plea. She had no record and she was remorseful. She was suffering from an addiction to oxycodone and had taken steps to address her addiction. She had two teenage daughters at the time. The Court also recognized the detrimental impact of the drugs stolen from the pharmacy. The conduct was ongoing and was a breach of trust. The Court concluded that a sentence of 30 months was appropriate.

R. v. Azeez:[^18] Mr. Azeez pleaded guilty to four counts of trafficking in heroin between October 2012 and January 2013. At the time, he was a heroin addict. Since his arrest, he had participated in counseling and treatment programs. He remained drug free and indicated an intention to remain drug fee. The Court considered Mr. Azeez to be a low-level middleman in the drug trafficking operation. He was an addict trafficker “whose dealings were largely animated by his need to finance his dependence on heroin”. That said, his last offence involved the sale of a significantly larger quantity than that involved in street-level transactions. As such, Crown Counsel submitted that Mr. Azeez was “as much entrepreneur as addict-trafficker”. The Court reviewed Mr. Azeez’s history, including his addiction to heroin and his prior attempts to overcome his addiction, many of which were unsuccessful. His most recent attempts, before sentencing, met with some success. Dr. Gojer concluded that he would continue to do well in treatment and if he did, his risk for future offending remained low.

Greene J. reviewed much of the case law regarding sentences imposed for addicted traffickers at paras. 22-30. He concluded that in certain circumstances, an addict trafficker need not be incarcerated where there is evidence that they are making genuine efforts to deal with their addictions and there is a reasonable possibility that those efforts will be successful. Mr. Azeez was given a sentence of two years less one day to be served in the community and a suspended sentence for other offences.

[19] I will now consider the fit sentence in light of these principles.

Analysis

[20] In coming to my conclusion regarding the fit sentence, I consider the following to be the aggravating factors in relation to Mr. Piri’s circumstances:

a. The quantity of the drugs trafficked is significant: 39.42 grams of fentanyl and 0.96 grams of heroin mixed with fentanyl.

b. The quantity of fentanyl possessed for the purpose of trafficking is also significant: 6.97 grams.

c. The duration of the trafficking is lengthy. It involved trafficking on numerous occasions and spanned several months.

d. The contact was not completely one sided (i.e., from the officer to Mr. Piri). Mr. Piri took steps to maintain the relationship with the officer, including contacting him to advise of the new product as well as giving him an updated phone number.

e. Mr. Piri held the substance out as heroin in the first transaction, but it was mixed with fentanyl. Mr. Piri either knew this and did not advise the purchaser or he was willfully blind. Either way, he assumes the risk inherent in such a transaction.

f. On short notice and without hesitation, Mr. Piri graduated from a street level dealer to a mid-level dealer by trafficking one ounce during the last transaction. He must have known that because the officer was buying such a large quantity, he was going to traffic it to other members of our community.

g. Mr. Piri was involved in six separate and distinct drug transactions committed on different days. It is clear that he was aware of the dangers of fentanyl as disclosed in the facts giving rise to the convictions.

h. The nature of the drug (fentanyl) wreaks havoc on our society. There are obvious consequences for Mr. Piri, but the serious consequences for the addicted user and our community are immense.

i. Fentanyl use is a crisis in our community. Most of the deaths are accidental and related to overdoses. The death rate due to fentanyl use is increasing.

j. Fentanyl, in powder form (as in this case), is particularly dangerous as it may be absorbed through the skin. First responders are at risk, in addition to others in our community.

[21] I consider the following to be the mitigating factors:

a. Mr. Piri had a difficult childhood experience both in Iran and in Canada.

b. Despite difficulties in his upbringing, Mr. Piri was able to maintain employment, run his own business and maintain a stable relationship, showing that he is capable of leading a pro-social life.

c. Mr. Piri has significant addiction issues. He has been working on them for years. History has shown that he has met with some success but that said, and as he has stated, every day is a battle. He is committed to making efforts to win that battle.

d. Mr. Piri is an addicted trafficker. I do find that there was a causal connection between his addiction and the trafficking offences. It seems like he pooled money from others to purchase larger amounts of the drug, making the fentanyl cheaper for his own use.

e. It is evident that Mr. Piri did not rely on any income from trafficking to maintain a flashy lifestyle. During the time of these offences, he maintained a full-time job. Often, he did not answer Officer Sukman’s calls because of his employment. He was not always available to obtain and provide narcotics to Officer Sukman.

f. Mr. Piri pleaded guilty, which is a sign of remorse. It provided certainty of result.

g. Mr. Piri was not the supplier but simply a middle man for the purchase and sale of the narcotics.

h. Although he has a record for narcotics, this is explained by his addiction.

i. Mr. Piri has spent only a few days in custody. This will be his first significant period imprisoned.

j. Mr. Piri is making headway in his current treatment. As at the time of sentencing, his urinalysis showed that he had been “clean” for a week.

k. Despite his addiction, there is nothing to suggest that he has breached his bail, in any way, since his release.

l. Mr. Piri has support in the community.

m. There are collateral consequences to these convictions. He is a permanent resident in Canada, and he will be rendered inadmissible.

[22] I will now turn to a consideration of the fit sentence.

The Fit Sentence

[23] This is a very difficult case. I am cognizant of the horrific repercussions of fentanyl in our community. Deterrence and denunciation are significant considerations in sentencing a person like Mr. Piri who has been found guilty of serious offences. However, I cannot ignore Mr. Piri’s possible rehabilitation.

[24] Mr. Piri is committed to becoming drug free although he recognizes the severity of the battle. His testimony, particularly about his addiction, gave the court great insight into the gravity of his addiction and the lengths he would go to satisfy it. Needless to say, it painted a depressing picutre of a good man who was able to run his own business and maintain a relationship. He lost both due to his inability to resist the lure of illicit narcotics.

[25] Although Mr. Piri, to date, has not succeeded in ridding himself of his addiction, he is committed to doing so. I accepted his evidence in that regard as sincere. He is very aware of the battle that he faces daily but he should be commended for his efforts. As Wood J.A. said in R. v. Preston[^19] regarding attempts at rehabilitation:

Indeed, to expect a perfect result would be unrealistic, for it seems unlikely that a pattern of conduct and a lifestyle that has persisted for over 20 years can be changed overnight. There are bound to be relapses on the long road to recovery from any substance addiction.

What is important is that Mr. Piri has made, and continues to make, efforts to curtail his addiction.

[26] In imposing the appropriate sentence, I am also cognizant of the principles set out in R. v. Priest[^20] at para. 23:

It is a well-established principle of sentencing laid down by this court that a first sentence of imprisonment should be as short as possible and tailored to the individual circumstances of the accused rather than solely for the purpose of general deterrence.

[27] I am also mindful of the fact that this is Mr. Piri’s first visit to the penetentiary and of the direction of Rosenberg J.A. in R. v. Borde,[^21] that a “first penetentiary sentence should be as short as possible”. This is Mr. Piri’s first jail sentence of any significance. That said, the jump principle is not applicable due to the severity of the offences.

[28] I accept that the Federal Crown’s proposed sentence of 7.5 years is reasonable. However, in all of the circumstances, I find that the appropriate sentence is one of 6 years less credit for pre-sentence custody. Although the sentence of 6 years may be considered low by some, I find it meets the requirements of denunciation and deterrence. Six years is an extremely long time for a man like Mr. Piri to be incarcerated, thereby constituting specific deterrence for this offender.

[29] Mr. Piri is entitled to a reduction in sentence for a variety of reasons.

The Summers Credit

[30] Mr. Piri will be given credit for time spent in pre-sentence custody in accordance with s. 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code and Summers. I am advised that Mr. Piri was in custody for 4 days. Enhanced at 1.5 days for each day spent in presentence custody, Mr. Piri will be given credit for 6 days.

The Downes Credit

[31] Counsel for Mr. Piri seeks credit for the strict terms of release that Mr. Piri was subject to for a period of time. The Federal Crown agrees, but submits that the credit should be 9 months rather than 12 as submitted by Counsel for Mr. Piri. Mr. Piri was on bail since March 10, 2017 — 1,070 days with the following terms (amongst others):

a. That he reside with his surety; and

b. That he remain in his residence but for medical emergencies, unless in the presence of one of his sureties or in the presence of counsel.

[32] I find that Mr. Piri has suffered tremendous hardship. He has, essentially, been on house arrest because his wife was working (initially) as was his brother (who was also his surety). His relationship with his wife ended and his business closed due to the conditions imposed. In light of this hardship caused by the terms of his release, I am prepared to give Mr. Piri credit of 12 months, pursuant to the principles in Downes.

Conclusion

[33] Mr. Piri is sentenced to 6 years less 1 year, 6 days for a total sentence remaining to be served of: 4 years, 359 days. His record will reflect the following:

Count	Offence	Sentence
1	Trafficking heroin (containing fentanyl) on November 21, 2016.	1 year’s imprisonment concurrent to Count 11.
2	Possession of the proceeds of crime between November 21, 2016 and February 13, 2017.	6 months’ imprisonment concurrent to Count 11.
3	Trafficking fentanyl between December 9, 2016 and February 13, 2017.	2 years’ imprisonment concurrent to count 11.
11	Trafficking fentanyl on March 7, 2017.	6 years’ imprisonment less time served of 1 year 6 days for a remaining sentence of 4 years, 359 days to serve.
12	Possession of the proceeds of crime on March 7, 2017.	6 months’ imprisonment concurrent to Count 11.
13	Possession of fentanyl on March 7, 2017.	3 years imprisonment concurrent to Count 11.

[34] The following ancillary orders are imposed:

(a) A section 109 order for 10 years; and

(b) An order that Mr. Piri provide a suitable sample of his DNA.

Kelly J.

Released: February 12, 2020

court file no.: CR/18/90000653/0000

DATE: 20200212

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

• and -

Ramin Piri

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

Kelly J.

Released: February 12, 2020

[^1]: 2013 ONCA 147, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 575 [^2]: (2006), 2006 3957 (ON CA), 79 O.R. (3d) 321 (C.A.) [^3]: See: R. v. Nur, 2011 ONSC 4874, aff’d. 2013 ONCA 677, upheld 2015 SCC 15, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 773 [^4]: See: R. v. M. (C.A.), 1996 230 (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500, at para. 80 [^5]: (1994) 1994 1425 (ON CA), 78 O.A.C. 397 [^6]: 2018 ONSC 4983 [^7]: 2019 ONCJ 643 [^8]: 2019 BCCA 128 [^9]: 2017 ONCA 696 [^10]: 2016 ONCA 479 [^11]: 2018 ONSC 4214 [^12]: 2019 ONCA 640, 2019 ONCA640 [^13]: 2019 ONCA 880 [^14]: 2916 ONSC 4038 [^15]: R. v. Klammer, 2017 ONCA 416 [^16]: [2016] O.J. No. 3504 (S.C.J.) [^17]: 2014 ONCJ 626 [^18]: 2014 (ONCJ) 311 (C.J.) [^19]: 1990 576 (BC CA), [1990] B.C.J. No. 2886 (B.C.C.A.) [^20]: (1996), 1996 1381 (ON CA), 110 C.C.C. (3d) 289 [^21]: ( 1996), 1996 1381 (ON CA), 110 C.C.C. (3d) 289