COURT FILE NO.: CR-21-90000568
DATE: 20240111
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
– and –
SUKHSIMRAT PAWAR
Accused
Ashli Pinnock, for the Crown
Angelo Musitano and Michael Del Gobbo, for the Accused
HEARD: November 3, 2023
b.a. allen j.
REASONS FOR DECISION ON SENTENCING
BACKGROUND
[1] The trial of this matter was heard by a judge alone. I found Sukhsimrat Pawar and his two co-defendants not guilty of conspiracy to traffic cocaine and not guilty on their substantive charges of trafficking cocaine, possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine, and possession of proceeds of crime.
[2] On a search of his home, Mr. Pawar was found in possession of 214 grams of opium and was charged with possession of opium for the purpose of trafficking. He pleaded guilty and stands to be sentenced on that offence.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES
Objectives
[3] Section 718 of the Criminal Code sets down the principles to govern determinations on sentencing, being: to denounce unlawful conduct; to deter the offender and other potential future offenders from committing offences; to separate offenders from society; to assist in rehabilitating offenders; to provide reparations for harm done to victims or the community; and to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders.
Proportionality
[4] Proportionality is a guiding principle for sentencing. A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence, determined on the particular facts of the case. The narrow focus of the sentencing process is directed at imposing a sentence that reflects the circumstances of the specific offence and the attributes of the specific offender: [Criminal Code, s. 718.1 and R. v. Hamilton (2004), 1986 C.C.C. (3d) 129 (Ont. C.A.)].
Parity
[5] Parity, another governing principle, requires a sentence to be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed under similar circumstances. Sentencing is, however, an individualized process which necessarily means that sentences imposed for similar offences may not be identical: [R. v. Cox, 2011 ONCA 58 (Ont. C.A.) and R. c. M. (L.), 2008 SCC 31, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 163 (S.C.C.)].
Totality
[6] The totality principle must be considered for some sentences. Section 718.2(c) of the Criminal Code provides “where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh.” The principle is engaged where there is a sentence for multiple offences and requires the court to craft a global sentence on all offences that is not excessive: [R. v. M. (C.A.), 1996 CanLII 230 (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500, at para. 42, (S.C.C.)]. If the cumulative sentence is too harsh, the court must adjust the total sentence so it not to be out of proportion to the gravity of the offences. This principle is not applicable in this case as Mr. Pawar faces a conviction on only one offence.
[7] Section 10(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, addressing specifically sentencing on drug offences, operates in concert with the principles in s. 718 of the Criminal Code.
10(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.
CASE LAW ON OPIUM OFFENCES
[8] Opium is a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act which places it among the drugs that have more serious social consequences for its addictive properties. However, there are few cases in which sentencing for opium offences is at issue. The majority of those cases involve trafficking and importing larger quantities of opium than 214 grams.
[9] Unlike heroin or its other derivatives, raw opium is not readily marketable except among certain ethnic groups in our community such as the Punjabi community, which Mr. Pawar is a member of, and the Iranian community. Courts have found that a custodial sentence is more than appropriate given the societal harms of trafficking in a Schedule I substance. These cases offer some but limited guidance for sentencing in the case before me. The cases do provide some interesting insights into the properties of opium and its impact on certain communities.
[10] In paragraph 12, R. v. Rashidi-Alavije, cited below, refers to the case of R. v. Abolmolouk, [1987] O.J. No. 926, Ontario Court of Appeal, where Mr. Justice Lacourciere states as follows:
Opium ... is only one-tenth the strength of heroin. The final report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs (the LeDain Commission) notes at p. 300, that the major constituent of opium, namely, morphine, was first isolated in 1803 and that raw opium is about ten per cent morphine by weight. Opium is a physically addictive drug. According to the Addiction Research Foundation's publication, Drugs and Drug Abuse, A Reference Text (1983) at p. 477, "Opium has a dependence liability similar to that of morphine."
The LeDain Commission notes at p. 301 that the modes of use of raw opium, such as smoking or ingestion, produce a "decidedly lower dependence liability" than the infection of morphine or heroin. Nevertheless, it cannot be equated to hashish, even if the street value of opium is only slightly higher than hashish."
[11] The following cases offer some guidance:
[12] R. v. Bhangal, [2010] O.J. No. 3915 (Ont. S.C.J.): offender pleaded guilty to trafficking in opium and possession of crushed opium poppy pod for the purpose of trafficking. Over 3 kilograms of opium poppy powder, paraphernalia for crushing the opium poppy into powder, a debt list and almost $2,000.00 in cash were seized; offender charged with possession of opium for the purpose of trafficking; sentenced to 90 days incarceration for possession of opium poppy pod, to be served intermittently; and a 20-month conditional sentence on the charge of trafficking in opium.
[13] R. v. Golizadeh, 2023 ONSC 4686 (Ont. S.C.J.): police seized 28 kilograms of opium; offender pleaded guilty to the offence of possessing 28 kilograms of opium for the purpose of trafficking; offender was remorseful; used opium to help him deal with pain from a back injury; after his arrest, he slowly stopped using and had been sober for years; open to counselling for substance abuse, emotional issues and trauma; sentenced to 4 years in custody.
[14] R. v. Rashidi-Alavije, [2006] O.J. No. 4015 (Ont. C.A.): offender immigrated from Iran; customs officers employed by Canada Border Services Agency found 5.9 kilograms of opium, with a street value of approximately $118,000.00 in the false sides of a suitcase being carried by offender; expert testimony for the Crown indicated the average daily use of opium by a consumer would be approximately 3 grams per day or as much as 10 grams per day by a heavy user. For an average daily user, the opium seized in this case amounted to a 16-year supply. For a heavy consumer, 5.9 kilograms would be a 1.6-year supply. Therefore, the amount of opium seized was not for personal consumption; court declined a conditional sentence; accused given a sentence of 5½ years.
[15] R. v. Goodarzi, [2011] O.J. No. 6701 (Ont. S.C.J.): Canada Border Services Agency seized over 1500 grams of opium hidden in cans of tomato paste; sentenced on each of the 3 counts remaining, namely, importing, possession for the purpose of trafficking and conspiracy to commit those offences, sentenced to 5 years and 335 days in a penitentiary, to be served concurrently.
[16] R. v. Foumani, 2018 ONCJ 700 (Ont. C.J.): offender pleaded guilty to a charge of possession of opium for the purpose of trafficking; no prior criminal record; was an opium addict like most of his family in Iran who use opium; attended counselling with his wife aimed at enhancing the treatment for his addiction; sentenced to 90 days intermittent and 2 years’ probation.
AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
[17] The aggravating factor in this case is the fact that Mr. Pawar had in his possession a highly addictive Schedule I drug sufficient in quantity to be for the purpose of trafficking. Custodial sentences have most often been set for opium offences because of the danger of this drug in communities like the Punjabi community. The opium, however, was found not to be pure but rather to consist of opium, acetaminophen and caffeine.
[18] Mr. Pawar, who is 42 years of age, is a Canadian citizen who immigrated to Canada in 2007. He has been employed in a variety of jobs since his arrival. His most recent position was as a driver with a trucking company which position he lost when he was arrested. A conviction on the opium charge will bar him from working in trucking.
[19] As a first-time offender Mr. Pawar has no criminal antecedents. He was on bail for three years and was required to be in his residence every night with restrictions on cellphone access and contact with other parties. He was fully employed throughout his bail term with no violations of his bail conditions.
[20] Mr. Pawar has strong family ties but his arrest has caused the breakup of his marriage and has affected his relationship with his 16-year-old son. Mr. Pawar has suffered much humiliation in his family and the tight-knit Punjabi community. He was arrested in his home in front of his wife. As a result, he has developed anxiety and depression.
[21] Early on, Mr. Pawar expressed that he did not wish to contest the opium charge. He did not want his wife to be called to testify against him at trial. Mr. Pawar pleaded guilty to the charge which prevented the need to litigate that charge at trial.
[22] Mr. Pawar indicates he has been addicted to opium since about 2018, consuming around 3 to 5 grams a day. He had possession of the drug for personal use, not for commercial gain. There were no drug paraphernalia, drug lists or evidence of a sophisticated drug operation located in his home. I accept that Mr. Pawar was addicted to opium.
THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS
[23] Both parties are seeking non-custodial sentences. I agree that this case does not require a jail sentence.
[24] The Crown seeks a 24-month conditional sentence order. She asks that 12 months be served on house arrest, six months on curfew, and six months without a curfew. The Crown asks that the conditional sentence be followed by a term of probation of either one or two years. The Crown further seeks a DNA order.
[25] The defence is seeking either a discharge, a suspended sentence or a fine. The defence seeks the advantage of Mr. Pawar obtaining a discharge to prevent a conviction that would bar him from working in the trucking business. A probationary period is not proposed by the defence.
CONDITIONAL SENTENCES
[26] With the November 2022 amendments to the Criminal Code, which removed mandatory minimum sentences for offences such as firearm and drug offences, conditional sentences became available for those crimes. In deciding the appropriateness of a conditional sentence, courts are guided by the sentencing principles set down under sections 718 to 718.2 and s. 742.1 of the Criminal Code.
[27] Section 742.1 provides:
742.1 If a person is convicted of an offence and the court imposes a sentence of imprisonment of less than two years, the court may, for the purpose of supervising the offender’s behaviour in the community, order that the offender serve the sentence in the community, subject to the conditions imposed under section 742.3, if
(a) the court is satisfied that the service of the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community and would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in sections 718 to 718.2;
(b) the offence is not an offence punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment;
[28] To decide whether an offender should serve their sentence in a federal prison, a reformatory, or in the community under strict terms including house arrest, consideration must be given to whether permitting the offender to serve their sentence in the community will endanger the safety of the community.
[29] The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Proulx endorsed the principle that conditional sentences were introduced by Parliament to reduce reliance on incarceration and to increase the use of restorative justice principles in sentencing: [R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61, at para. 20]. The Court presented some factors to consider:
… [T]wo factors should be taken into account: (1) the risk of the offender re-offending; and (2) the gravity of the damage that could ensue in the event of re-offence. If the judge finds that there is a real risk of re-offence, incarceration should be imposed. Of course, there is always some risk that an offender may re-offend. If the judge thinks this is minimal, the gravity of the damage that could follow were the offender to re-offend should also be taken into consideration. In certain cases, the minimal risk of re-offending will be offset by the possibility of a great prejudice, thereby precluding a conditional sentence.
[R. v. Proulx, at para. 69]
[30] In answer to the query whether a conditional sentence can sufficiently satisfy the principles of denunciation and deterrence that incarceration seeks to achieve, R. v. Proulx posits:
The conditional sentence incorporates some elements of non-custodial measures and some others of incarceration. Because it is served in the community, it will generally be more effective than incarceration at achieving the restorative objectives of rehabilitation, reparations to the victim and community, and the promotion of a sense of responsibility in the offender. However, it is also a punitive sanction capable of achieving the objectives of denunciation and deterrence. It is this punitive aspect that distinguishes the conditional sentence from probation, and it is to this issue that I now turn. [emphasis by the author]
[R. v. Proulx, at para. 22, emphasis by author]
[31] The Crown seeks a conditional sentence in the community. The court must weigh the aggravating factors against the mitigating factors in deciding whether the release of the offender into the community on conditions will endanger the community or pose a risk of re-offence.
[32] Mr. Pawar is a positive prospect for a conditional sentence and a good candidate for rehabilitation. He lived a pro-social life before and after his arrest while on bail. He has had steady employment since he arrived in Canada and has worked throughout his bail period without any bail violations.
[33] I find there is little or no risk of Mr. Pawar re-offending or endangering the community if he serves his sentence in the community.
SUSPENDED SENTENCES
[34] With the 2012 amendments to the Criminal Code, which imposed mandatory minimum sentences for such offences as drug offences, conditional sentences were not available. Courts began to focus on the appropriateness of suspended sentences in certain cases as an alternative to incarceration. As noted earlier, with the amendments of November 2022, conditional sentences once again became available.
[35] A suspended sentence involves the court imposing a sentence after conviction. The sentence is suspended or delayed to allow the offender to serve a period of probation which cannot exceed 3 years. The offender must comply with the conditions of probation. Failing compliance the offender can be sentenced for the offence of breach of probation and the suspended sentence can be revoked.
[36] Principles set out in the Criminal Code guide the sentencing judge in their determination of whether to impose a custodial or suspended sentence. For example, the court can rely on s. 718.2(d) which provides “an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances”; and, s. 718.2(e) which provides that “all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders”.
[37] Drug trafficking cases have garnered special attention from the courts. The Ontario Court of Appeal has held that the appropriate range of sentencing for street-level trafficking in cocaine is six months to two years less a day. Cases that involve larger-quantity narcotics offences, committed during probation, should attract sentences at the higher end of the range: [R. v. Woolcock, [2002] O.J. No. 4927, at paras. 8 and 15, (Ont. C.A.)].
[38] With the unavailability of conditional sentences before the November 2022 amendment, trial judges imposed suspended sentences in certain circumstances, for example: [R. v. Thevarajah, 2016 ONSC 6739 (Ont. S.C.J.); R. v. McGill, 2016 ONCJ 138, [2016] O.J. No. 1346, at para. 61, (Ont. C.J.); R. v. Caputi, [2013] O.J. No. 6447, unreported (Ont. C.J.); R. v. Azeez, 2014 ONCJ 311, 2014 ONCJ 311 (Ont. C.J.); R. v. Moniz, unreported, 2015 (Ont. C.J.); and R. v. Duncan, [2016] O.J. No. 25 (Ont. C.J.)].
[39] However, most often, courts tended to impose custodial sentences in drug cases. It has been observed that reported cases imposing suspended sentences for an offender convicted of offences involving Schedule I drugs like cocaine or heroin are rare: [R. v. McGill, at para. 61]. In considering a suspended sentence, courts have relied on the doctrine of “exceptional circumstances”.
[40] Courts have found exceptional circumstances in cases involving the following mitigating circumstances:
• rehabilitation after arrest [R. v. Duncan, [2016] O. J. 25 (Ont. C.J.)];
• a guilty plea to trafficking in cocaine [R. v. McGill, 2016 ONCJ 138, [2016] O. J. 1346 (Ont. C.J.)];
• a guilty plea to trafficking in MDMA [R. v. Caputi, [2013] O.J. 6447 (Ont. C.J.)];
• small amounts of drugs, post-conviction sobriety and no prior convictions for some of the accused [R. v. Voong, 2015 BCCA 285, [2015] B.C.J. No. 1335 (B.C.C.A.)];
• no related record, rehabilitation, youthful offender [R. v. Dickey, [2015] B.B.J. No. 1465 (B.C.S.C.); affirmed [2016] B.C.J. No. 615 (B.C.C.A.)];
• a guilty plea and rehabilitation [R. v. Carillo, [2014] B.C.J. No. 873 (B.C.C.A.)]; and
• a guilty plea, no criminal record, good prospects for rehabilitation [R. v. Orr, [2015] B.C.J. No. 1553 (B.C.P.C.)].
[41] The case before me involves some of the exceptional circumstances recognized by other courts: a guilty plea to possession of opium for the purpose of trafficking; no prior criminal record; and good prospects for rehabilitation.
[42] Added to those factors are the further mitigating factors of the breakdown in Mr. Pawar’s marriage and his relationship with his son; the impact of a conviction on the prospect of his returning to the trucking business; his opium addiction; the absence of compliance issues during bail; and the mental health impact of his arrest on the opium, conspiracy and cocaine trafficking charges.
ABSOLUTE AND CONDITIONAL DISCHARGES
[43] A discharge does not result in a conviction which means there is no criminal record. The effect is that the offence is discharged absolutely or conditionally with a probationary period. No record may be disclosed to any person by a federal agency, except to verify fingerprints, without the consent of the Solicitor General. This applies after 1 year for an absolute discharge and after 3 years for a conditional discharge under s. 6.1 of the Criminal Records Act.
[44] Section 730 of the Criminal Code governs discharges:
- (1) Where an accused, other than an organization, pleads guilty to or is found guilty of an offence, other than an offence for which a minimum punishment is prescribed by law or an offence punishable by imprisonment for fourteen years or for life, the court before which the accused appears may, if it considers it to be in the best interests of the accused and not contrary to the public interest, instead of convicting the accused, by order direct that the accused be discharged absolutely or on the conditions prescribed in a probation order made under subsection 731(2).
[45] The factors to consider are: (a) whether a discharge is in the best interests of the accused, and (b) that a discharge not be contrary to public interest. Both factors have to be established.
[46] There is reason to believe that a discharge is in Mr. Pawar’s best interests. He had no criminal record before the offence and he would have a criminal record with a conditional sentence or a suspended sentence. With a discharge, he would not have a criminal record and would be able to return to work in the trucking industry.
[47] Courts have considered the meaning of “not contrary to the public interest”. Some of the factors to consider in addressing whether a discharge is in the public interest are discussed by the courts:
...it is only common sense that the more serious the offence, the less likely it will appear that an absolute discharge, or even a conditional one, is “not contrary to the public interest”. In some cases the trivial nature of the offence will be an important consideration; in others, unusual circumstances peculiar to the offender in question may lead to an order that would not be made in the case of another offender.
[R. v. Sanchez-Pino 1973 CanLII 794 (ON CA), 11 C.C.C. (2d) 53; as cited in R. v. Rodrigues, 2008 CanLII 25723 (ON SC), at para. 28].
[48] In reviewing the cases, I look to the principle set down by the Ontario Court of Appeal that the narrow focus of the sentencing process is directed to imposing a sentence that reflects the circumstances of the specific offence and the attributes of the specific offender: [R. v. Hamilton (2004), 2004 CanLII 5549 (ON CA), 186 C.C.C. (3d) 129, 72 O.R. (3d) 1 (Ont. C.A.)]. On determining the suitability of a discharge it has been held that “each case must be carefully considered on its own facts and on the criteria laid down by the statute”: [R. v. Caffrey, [1988] O.J. No. 1609, at p. 2, (Ont. C.A.)].
[49] R. v. Fallofield, 1973 CanLII 1412 (BCCA): court listed some factors; court found that nothing in the language of the section permitting absolute and conditional discharges limits it to “technical or trivial violations” and that the second condition, the public interest in the deterrence of others, must be given due weight but does not preclude the judiciary’s use of the discharge provisions.
[50] R. v. Carroll, [1995] B.C.J. No. 365 (BCCA): first-time offender convicted of a serious unprovoked assault during a soccer game which caused a great deal of damage to the victim’s face requiring reconstructive surgery; offender was unlikely to re-offend and had worked for years at a credit union; had been out of work and searching for a new job; court found the decisive factor was the fact that a record would destroy the offender’s ability to pursue his chosen career in the field of financial services, an area in which he had been employed for over 10 years; sentenced to a conditional discharge.
[51] R. v. Sweeney, [2001] O.J. No. 1899 (Ont. S.C.J): court imposed a conditional discharge following a vicious assault where the offender stomped on the complainant and had to be pulled away; victim suffered serious injuries as a result; given the pre-sentence report, court found no necessity to place offender on probation in order to bring about rehabilitation; also a possibility if the offender was denied a discharge and was convicted, he would suffer the loss of at least one of his jobs.
[52] R. v. Jimenez, [1999] O.J. No. 1847 (Ont. S.C.J.): on a sentence appeal from a summary conviction, court substituted a conditional discharge; personal injuries to the complainant were serious but resulted from a single punch that was considered to be an impulsive act; offender was young and a landed immigrant with a promising career in professional baseball; there was immediate remorse after the incident occurred; restitution order to compensate the victim for his injuries was also imposed.
[53] R. v. Oduro, 2014 ONSC 3122 (Ont. S.C.J.): offender admitted to the charge of possession of 1.06 grams of crack cocaine; offender had no criminal record; committed the offence when he was young, at age 21; offence not violent and the small quantity of crack was not in his possession as part of a commercial enterprise; offender had plans to return to school before he was arrested and will follow through with his schooling; has a close, loving family who watches over him and is very concerned about his well-being.
CONCLUSION
[54] The sentencing judge has broad discretion to fashion a sentence. Judicial discretion refers to a judge’s power to make a decision based on their individualized evaluation of the case before them guided by the applicable principles of law. The Supreme Court of Canada spoke to this discretion:
No one sentencing objective trumps the others and it falls to the sentencing judge to determine which objective or objectives merit the greatest weight, given the particulars of the case. The relative importance of any mitigating or aggravating factors will then push the sentence up or down the scale of appropriate sentences for similar offences. The judge’s discretion to decide on the particular blend of sentencing goals and the relevant aggravating or mitigating factors ensures that each case is decided on its facts, subject to the overarching guidelines and principles in the Code and in the case law.
[R. v. Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6, [2010] 1 S.C.R., at para. 43]
[55] As noted earlier, s. 718.2(d) of the Criminal Code provides “an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances”; and, s. 718.2(e) which provides that “all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders”.
[56] Mr. Pawar is a first-time offender. The Ontario Court of Appeal made the following observation on judicial discretion in deciding a sentence for a first-time offender:
The duty to explore other dispositions for a first offender before imposing a custodial sentence is not an empty formalism which can be avoided merely by invoking the objective of general deterrence. It should be clear from the record of the proceedings, preferably in the trial judge's reasons, why the circumstances of this particular case require that this first offender must receive a sentence of imprisonment.
[R. v. Priest, 1996 CanLII 1381, [1996] O.J. No. 3369, at para. 18, (Ont. C.A.)]
[57] I have carefully reviewed the various sentencing options proposed by the parties. I find that Mr. Pawar is a suitable candidate for each of the three proposals, a conditional sentence, a suspended sentence or a discharge. For the following reasons, I find the minimum necessary intervention that is adequate in the particular circumstances of this case is a conditional discharge.
[58] Mr. Pawar is a relatively young man with a history of being a hard-working person from the time he immigrated to Canada until his arrest when he lost his job in the trucking business. He maintained his work ethic throughout his period on bail. He demonstrated his capacity to obey court orders in that he never acted in non-compliance with his bail terms during the 3-year bail period. I find he is a good prospect to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.
[59] Early on, Mr. Pawar decided he was not going to oppose the opium charge. This is a demonstration of regret about his crime even though his plea was motivated by not wanting to involve his wife in his trial. He saved the time that the offence would have consumed in being litigated at trial.
[60] Important to my determination are the factors of the absence of criminal antecedents and the barrier that a conviction would create for Mr. Pawar’s ability to continue in his longstanding choice of employment in the trucking business. The cases I have cited and many more, in imposing conditional discharges, have recognized the impact of a conviction on an offender’s future employment opportunities in a chosen field. Moreover, conditional discharges have been allowed in cases involving violent crimes and other offences more serious than Mr. Pawar’s.
[61] I also took into account Mr. Pawar’s addiction to opium.
[62] For all the reasons cited, I impose a conditional discharge with an 18-month probationary period. On the terms set out in my order.
SENTENCE
[63] I will now pass sentence. Sukhsimrat Pawar, will you please stand?
[64] I order a conditional discharge and 18 months probation on the following terms:
(a) You shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour;
(b) You shall appear before the court when required to do so by the court;
(c) You shall notify the court or the probation officer in advance of any change of name or address, and promptly notify the court or the probation officer of any change of employment or occupation;
(d) You shall report to a probation officer within two working days, or such longer period as the court directs, after the making of the probation order;
(e) You shall attend and actively participate in counselling programs as recommended by your probation officer, particularly for drug addiction, and sign any necessary releases allowing the probation office to monitor your involvement in the programs.
(f) You shall abstain from the consumption of drugs, except in accordance with a medical prescription, and from alcohol and any other intoxicating substance.
Allen J.
Released: January 11, 2024
COURT FILE NO.: CR-21-90000568
DATE: 20240111
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
– and –
SUKHSIMRAT PAWAR
Accused
REASONS FOR DECISION ON SENTENCING
Allen J.
Released: January 11, 2024