Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CR-22-391 DATE: 2024-11-26 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

RE: R. AND Ryan Mark Daigneault and Daniel Bell, Offenders

BEFORE: Justice Spencer Nicholson

COUNSEL: K. Mildred, for the Crown A. Mamo, for Daigneault R. Farrington, for Bell

HEARD: September 26, 2024

Sentencing Decision

NICHOLSON J. (ORALLY):

[1] Ryan Daigneault and Daniel Bell appear before me today for the purpose of sentencing.

[2] Mr. Daigneault and Mr. Bell pled guilty on the eve of trial to the following charges:

• Transferring or offering to transfer a handgun knowing they were without authorization to do so, contrary to s. 99 of the Criminal Code; and
• Two counts of trafficking in cocaine contrary to section 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

[3] There was a pause in the sentencing process while Mr. Daigneault explored whether Gladue considerations applied to him. A letter dated July 16, 2024 from a Gladue writer indicates that she was unable to confirm Mr. Daigneault’s claim to Indigenous ancestry. Mr. Daigneault withdrew his claim that Gladue considerations applied on his sentencing.

Circumstances of the Offences

[4] On consent of all parties, a lengthy Agreed Statement of Facts was filed in relation to each offender.

[5] Briefly, Mr. Daigneault and Mr. Bell belong to the London chapter of the Outlaws motorcycle club. Mr. Daigneault is the president of this chapter of the Outlaws and is known as “Big Red”. Mr. Bell is known as “Tattoo”.

[6] In October of 2020, a Police Agent infiltrated the club and gained the trust of Mr. Daigneault. There were also judicial authorizations relied upon to intercept the private communications between the Police Agent and Mr. Daigneault.

[7] From approximately November 12, 2020 to January 19, 2021, the Police Agent purchased significant quantities of cocaine and a handgun from Mr. Daigneault. The negotiations were done directly with Mr. Daigneault. Mr. Bell had a secondary role, primarily as a courier, transporting the drugs and gun to complete the transactions.

[8] On December 4, 2020, the Police Agent purchased a black, Luger style handgun from Mr. Daigneault for $4,000.

[9] On January 15, 2021, the Police Agent attended at Mr. Daigneault’s residence and paid him $30,000 as half the payment for a kg (actually 1042g) of cocaine. This transaction was completed when the Police Agent paid a further $30,000 a few days later.

[10] On February 17, 2021, the Police Agent purchased another kg of cocaine (1040g) for the sum of $60,000.

[11] Those transactions form the charges to which Mr. Daigneault and Mr. Bell pleaded guilty. There were several other transactions for which they were charged but do not form part of the guilty plea. In total, approximately 3.5 kg of cocaine was purchased from Mr. Daigneault during this operation over a span of approximately four months. Mr. Bell was the courier.

Positions of the Parties on Sentence

[12] In respect of Mr. Daigneault, the Crown seeks a total sentence of ten years, less one year factoring in Downes and Duncan credits. It is suggested that Mr. Daigneault receive eight years in relation to the drug trafficking convictions and four years for the firearm conviction, reduced from twelve years to ten years based on the totality principle, less one year for the aforementioned credits.

[13] From this proposed sentence, the Crown acknowledges that Mr. Daigneault is entitled to a Summers credit for time served, at one and a half time. To the date of submissions on September 26, 2024, Mr. Daigneault was entitled to a pre-sentence credit amounting to 982.5 days. By my calculations, he has been in custody for a further sixty days for a total credit of 1,072.5 days. I would ask counsel to check my arithmetic.

[14] Counsel for Mr. Daigneault argues that the appropriate sentence is seven years after considering the totality principle and the Downes and Duncan credits. From that sentence, the Summers credit would then be applied. As at the date of the sentencing submissions, this would have amounted to a further four years and three months to be served.

[15] The Crown proposes ancillary orders that include secondary DNA orders and a ten-year s. 109 weapons prohibition. Mr. Daigneault does not oppose those ancillary orders.

[16] In respect of Mr. Bell, the Crown and Mr. Bell have a joint submission for the court’s consideration. They submit that a fit and proper sentence is five years in total. It is suggested that Mr. Bell be sentenced to three years in relation to the firearm offence and a further four years in relation to the trafficking convictions, reduced by two years to account for totality. Mr. Bell has been on interim judicial release since his arrest and Duncan and Summers’ credits do not apply. He does not seek a Downes’ credit.

[17] The joint submission in respect of Mr. Bell includes secondary DNA orders and a ten-year s. 109 weapons prohibition.

Principles of Sentencing

[18] The Criminal Code sets out the fundamental purpose of sentencing in s. 718. That fundamental purpose is to protect society and to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions. Six objectives are then listed, as follows:

(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.

[19] In cases involving drug trafficking and firearms, the primary focus is on denunciation and deterrence. As noted in R. v. Wong, 2012 ONCA 767, at para. 11, drugs and guns are a toxic combination that pose a pernicious and persisting threat to public safety and the welfare of the community.

[20] There may still be a role for rehabilitation, but the focus is on denunciation and deterrence.

[21] In R. v. Graham, 2018 ONSC 6817, at paras. 44-46, Code J. described at length the harm caused by cocaine due to its addictiveness, and its association with violence. Trafficking in drugs such as cocaine are “rationally premeditated commercial crimes driven by the profit motive. Because of the significant harms and violence associated with cocaine trafficking, and because it is a planned and premeditated commercial crime, the courts have repeatedly stressed that denunciation and deterrence are the most important sentencing principles in these cases.”

[22] Sentencing judges are reminded by s. 718.1 that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

[23] Thus, sentencing is a highly individualized, discretionary process. Somewhat paradoxically however, the principle of parity requires the court to impose similar sentences to those in similar circumstances who have committed similar offences.

[24] Courts must be mindful of the principle of totality, which is codified in s. 718.2 of the Criminal Code. Where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be “unduly long or harsh”. The totality principle requires the sentencing judge requiring an offender to serve consecutive sentences for multiple offences to ensure that the cumulative sentence rendered does not exceed the overall culpability of the offender (see: R. v. Parry, 2012 ONCA 171).

[25] In Mr. Bell’s case, the principle of restraint reminds judges to impose the shortest possible sentence in cases involving first time offenders. However, the sentence must still be consistent with the relevant sentencing principles, including proportionality to the gravity of the offence. Nonetheless, while the objectives of denunciation and deterrence must be given adequate weight, they should rarely be the sole determinants of the length of a first penitentiary sentence (see: R. v. Francis, 2022 ONCA 729, at para. 80).

[26] In respect of Mr. Bell, counsel have made a joint submission. In R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 SCR 204, the Supreme Court of Canada described resolution discussions between Crown and defence counsel as essential to the criminal justice system. Plea agreements permit the system to function smoothly and efficiently. Accordingly, judges are instructed not to depart from a joint submission on sentence unless the proposed sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or is otherwise contrary to the public interest.

[27] The administration of justice will be brought into disrepute or be contrary to the public interest if the proposed sentence is so “markedly out of line with the expectations of reasonable persons aware of the circumstances of the case that they would view it as a breakdown in the proper functioning of the criminal justice system”.

[28] The Supreme Court described “[r]ejection denotes a submission so unhinged from the circumstances of the offence and the offender that its acceptance would lead reasonable and informed persons, aware of all of the relevant circumstances, including the importance of promoting certainty in resolution discussions, to believe that the proper functioning of the justice system had broken down”.

Review of Similar Cases

[29] I do not intend to refer to each of the parties’ cases at any great length. Nevertheless, it is important to consider the sentencing decisions in cases involving the same offences and similar circumstances.

[30] The Crown brief included the following cases:

• R. v. Bryan, 2011 ONCA 273;
• R. v. Wong, 2012 ONCA 767;
• R. v. Winchester, 2014 ONSC 2591;
• R. v. Battista, 2011 ONSC 6394;
• R. v. Burke, 2020 ONSC 29;
• R. v. Collins, 2023 ONCA 2;
• R. v. Currant, 2018 ONSC 7094;
• R. v. Graham, 2018 ONSC 6817;
• R. v. McGregor, 2017 ONCA 399;
• R. v. Muise, 2008 ONCA 665;
• R. v. Nero, 2008 ONCA 622; and
• R. v. Wawrykiewicz, 2019 ONCA 21.

[31] In Bryan, the Ontario Court of Appeal described a proper range of sentence to be five to eight years for a person without a record convicted of trafficking slightly more than a lb of cocaine.

[32] In Battista, the offender had trafficked approximately ten kgs of cocaine. Parfett J. described that dealers who insulate themselves from the actual sales and deliveries of drugs should be dealt with severely. In relation to trafficking cocaine, she imposed a sentence of ten years, concurrent to other sentences.

[33] In Burke, Akhtar J. reviewed many cases involving cocaine trafficking, including some of those listed earlier. He imposed a sentence of nine years, after trial, in relation to a conviction for 2.320 kg of cocaine.

[34] In Collins, the offender had 1.3 kg of cocaine. The Court of Appeal stated that the sentencing judge made no error in finding that the appropriate range in that case was five to eight years. Her sentence fell at the low end of the range due to the mitigating circumstances, including a Charter breach.

[34] In McGregor, the offender was a long-time distributor of cocaine for a criminal organization. The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the Crown appeal with respect to a sentence of five years for trafficking cocaine. At para. 13, the Court stated:

[13] We agree with the Crown that the case law supports the submission that eight years is toward the low-end of the accepted range for conspiracy to traffic in cocaine for mid-level dealers trafficking in quantities that include the kilogram level. …”

[35] In Muise, the offender trafficked in 3 kgs of cocaine and was sentenced to eight years. Of note, Muise was a member of the Hells Angels.

[36] Nero is an informative case. Again, the offender was a member of the Hells Angels. The Court of Appeal held that the sentencing judge had erred in imposing a sentence of five years for trafficking. The Court noted that there were two offences of trafficking each of 1 kg of cocaine, one month apart. These offences were committed while Nero was on bail and probation which is a distinguishing feature. However, the Court described that it was an error in principle for the sentencing judge to consider a five-year sentence adequate. The significant quantities of cocaine trafficked over a three-month period was indicative of the offender’s extensive involvement in and familiarity at a high level with the drug business. The Court of Appeal indicated that the appropriate sentence for the three counts involving cocaine would have been eight years. Overall, after considering totality, Nero received a sentence of nine years factoring in his other convictions.

[37] The focus of the Crown’s cases was the trafficking charges. In respect of the firearm conviction, Nordheimer J. (as he then was) referred to several cases involving the sale of firearms in Winchester. The range of sentences he identified was from three years (albeit on a joint submission) to nine years. However, most of those cases involved the sale of a significant number of handguns.

[38] Mr. Daigneault also provided me with several cases to consider with respect to range of sentence. These include the following:

• R. v. Shaikh and Tanoli, 2024 ONSC 774;
• R. v. Datta, 2021 ONSC 2136;
• R. v. Allison, 2021 ONSC 2455; and
• R. v. Owusu, 2024 ONSC 671.

[39] Shaikh and Tanoli was a trafficking and firearm case after an extensive undercover police operation. Importantly, it was a joint submission, following a judicial pre-trial with the sentencing judge. Molloy J. referred to several cases supporting a four-year sentence for firearm trafficking. Ultimately, after reviewing the cases, Molloy J. found that the range for trafficking firearms was three to five years.

[40] In Datta, the offender sold firearms to an undercover police officer. Forestell J. found the range for trafficking two firearms to be three to five years.

[41] In Allison, Kelly J. dealt with a sentencing in a case involving organized crime importing narcotics and firearms. With respect to the firearm offences, one offender was sentenced to four years and the other to seven years.

[42] Recently, Code J. in Owusu, referred to R. v. Lynch, 2022 ONCA 109, where the Court of Appeal held that the appropriate range for “mid-level traffickers” in cocaine was five to eight years.

[43] From these cases, it appears that trafficking cocaine in comparable quantities results in sentences in the range of five to eight years, although several cases have landed at the high end, particularly at kg levels. The appropriate range for gun trafficking appears to be three to five years.

Circumstances of the Offenders

Daniel Bell:

[44] Daniel Bell is 37 years old. He is currently in a common-law relationship of long duration, and they have a young child. He has two other children from a previous relationship that no longer live with him.

[45] I am advised that Mr. Bell has no addiction issues. He has suffered from some depression but is not currently taking any medication.

[46] Mr. Bell is nine credits short of achieving his grade 12 diploma. Since his arrest, he has been attending the North America Trade School, taking welding courses.

[47] In terms of aggravating factors, Mr. Bell was part of a criminal organization, even if he was not a high-level member. He was caught exchanging very significant quantities of cocaine and his involvement in the offences would have been financially motivated, although his share of the proceeds is likely far less than those higher up. The firearm was loaded.

[48] In terms of mitigating factors, Mr. Bell does not have a prior criminal record, which strikes me as remarkable given his associations and his age. His guilty plea, although on the eve of trial, is a mitigating factor. He has been on bail for the past three years waiting trial and has adhered to the conditions associated with his bail. As noted, he does not seek credit for strict bail conditions.

[49] I agree with the submissions of both the Crown and defence counsel that Mr. Bell was only a middleman in these transactions and, “it is clear who was calling the shots”. In the Agreed Statement of Facts, Mr. Bell was physically reprimanded via a blackened eye and bloodied nose for forgetting to bring the product during a transaction. He is clearly a grunt within the hierarchy of the motorcycle club.

[50] Again, the principle of restraint applies to Mr. Bell due to his lack of a criminal record and requires that where incarceration must be imposed, the term should be as short as possible and tailored to the individual circumstances of the accused (see: R. v. Batisse, 2009 ONCA 114, at paras. 32-34).

[51] I note that Mr. Bell addressed the court. He apologized and indicated that he is prepared to accept the consequences of his actions. He indicated that he is doing his best to get out of the criminal lifestyle with which he has been associated.

Ryan Daigneault:

[52] Mr. Daigneault was born on May 25, 1976. He is accordingly 48 years of age at present.

[53] I have reviewed the pre-sentence report in respect of Mr. Daigneault. I note that Mr. Daigneault’s mother and brother were interviewed for the pre-sentence report.

[54] I note that Mr. Daigneault’s parents divorced when he was 14 years of age, and his mother was his primary caregiver. She also raised his two younger brothers. His relationship with his father appears strained, but improved as they aged but they remain estranged. I understand that his father passed away while Mr. Daigneault was in custody. Mr. Daigneault appears to have a good relationship with his brother, Robert, and Robert’s family.

[55] The pre-sentence report notes that Mr. Daigneault has been a member of a motorcycle organization in London since 1995. In 2008, Mr. Daigneault was shot three times in the chest. His brother describes him as becoming more withdrawn since that event.

[56] Mr. Daigneault has been involved in a relationship for nine years, although his partner struggled with drug addiction. They separated in January of 2023. Mr. Daigneault has no children.

[57] Mr. Daigneault dropped out of high school at grade 11. He attended the Toronto School of Business and obtained a diploma in Hotel Management in 2002. He reportedly obtained employment for two years as a Machine Operator. He then started a tattoo shop but discontinued this business due to a bad slip and fall. He has been in receipt of Ontario disability support due to the slip and fall in 2007 in which he suffered an injury to the lumbar area of his back.

[58] At an early age, Mr. Daigneault experimented with alcohol and drugs. This included marijuana and hash. He was prescribed oxycontin as a result of his shooting and his back injury. His mother and brother report that drug use is no longer a concern.

[59] Mr. Daigneault has struggled with obesity, although he has lost a tremendous amount of weight while incarcerated awaiting trial and now this sentencing. He accordingly has had issues with sleep apnea, high blood pressure and diabetes.

[60] Mr. Daigneault told the author of the pre-sentence report that “he is not the same person” and that he has learned his “moral responsibility as a citizen”.

[61] Indeed when Mr. Daigneault addressed the court as part of his sentencing, his comments were of the same ilk. He indicated that he now has a foundation from having taken Bible studies while in custody. He has attempted to stay focussed on his schoolwork. He professed to be a changed man.

[62] In terms of mitigating factors, I note that Mr. Daigneault gets the benefit of having pleaded guilty. The fact that he did so on the eve of trial and in the face of an overwhelming Crown case lessens this mitigating factor.

[63] Also mitigating are the efforts by Mr. Daigneault to better himself while in custody. As noted, he is taking Bible Studies and courses in Canadian Law. His transcripts were filed, and Mr. Daigneault is achieving high grades. Words of encouragement are written on the transcripts from his teacher. Certificates of completion of these courses were filed. Three separate letters from educators at the Penetanguishene Learning Centre were filed, again indicating that he has made significant effort and has done well.

[64] I note that Mr. Daigneault does appear to have family support—his mother and brother, whom I understand have attended in court during these proceedings.

[65] The mitigating circumstances are far outweighed by the aggravating circumstances.

[66] First, Mr. Daigneault is part of a sophisticated criminal enterprise that was motivated primarily by financial gain and greed. Not only is he part of this enterprise, but he was the president of the London chapter. The Agreed Statement of Facts indicate that he was under consideration for National leadership. Accordingly, Mr. Daigneault was one of the Outlaw’s leaders. It is also noteworthy that while Mr. Daigneault was negotiating the transactions with the Police Agent, he was insulating himself from detection through the use of lower-level members of the club, such as Mr. Bell.

[67] Second, the Agreed Statement of Facts indicate that Mr. Daigneault was able to traffic in very high quantities of cocaine, on short notice. He pleaded guilty to trafficking just over 2 kgs of cocaine. The Agreed Statement of Facts indicate that he moved over 3.5 kgs in just four months. Clearly, Mr. Daigneault had easy and fast access to large quantities of cocaine.

[68] Third, these are very serious offences. As noted by Code J., in Graham, supra, at para. 44:

[44] …cocaine is a hard drug because it is addictive and because it causes significant direct and indirect damage to users, to their families, and to the safety and security of society. As a very experienced trial judge, Bassel J., put it in R. v. Amour, [2004] O.J. No. 1537 (Ont. C.J.),

This was a lifestyle or life conduct choice or course of action, for profit. I agree with the submission of Mr. Devlin that the cocaine offence is not a victimless crime. One only has to walk through the Old City Hall here to see three courts dedicated to drug offences in the main, involving the possession and sale of cocaine. The devastating health effects on cocaine drug users, the terribly addictive aspect of this drug, the disastrous effects on their families, and the ruination of their lives, all reflect very real victims, which is an aggravating factor. In addition, the terrible addiction and need for money to feed the addiction is a significant underlying cause of many crimes that are prosecuted in the courts, including thefts, robberies, break and enters, soliciting for the purpose of prostitution, assaults, with a whole other category of victims. A very tragic but graphic illustration of the misery flowing from this drug is seen daily with numerous addicts pleading guilty and receiving sentences of incarceration for street-level transactions of small amounts of cocaine.

[69] As Justice Code noted at para. 45, cocaine trafficking is associated with violence. It spawns collateral violent crime, either to protect territory, to protect and enforce unlawful transactions, or simply to steal an unlawful product or its unlawful proceeds. He then quoted from Doherty J.A., in R. v. Hamilton (2004), 186 C.C.C. (3d) 129 (Ont. C.A.) at para. 161:

[161] The use and sale of cocaine kills and harms both directly and indirectly. The direct adverse health effects on those who use the drug are enormous and disastrous. Cocaine sales and use is closely and strongly associated with violent crime. Cocaine importation begets a multiplicity of violent acts. Viewed in isolation from the conduct which inevitably follows the importation of cocaine, the act itself is not a violent one in the strict sense. It cannot, however, be dissociated from its inevitable consequences. Unlike the trial judge, I characterize cocaine importation [and possession for the purpose of trafficking, in this case] as both a violent and serious offence: see R. v. Pearson (1992), 77 CCC (3d) 124 at pp. 143 to 144 (S.C.C.).

[70] In addition to the cocaine trafficking convictions, Mr. Daigneault was convicted of trafficking a handgun. The ills of handguns have been well described in our courts and I will not repeat that exercise. Handguns such as the one sold in this case are concealable. This one was loaded. The only purpose for handguns is to injure, maim and kill. Further, in the Agreed Statement of Facts it is clear Mr. Daigneault had the capability of obtaining many more firearms for distribution, if requested.

[71] In short, these are very serious offences.

[72] Fourth, Mr. Daigneault has a very lengthy and relevant criminal record that goes back to 1997. There are, by my count, twenty-three prior convictions. These include assaults, theft, fraud, unauthorized possession of a firearm, drug trafficking and drug possession.

[73] Notably, the Crown has produced the transcript from the sentencing proceedings with respect to the most recent conviction, from November of 2016. At that hearing, Mr. Daigneault professed that he intended to move to another city and get a fresh start. Accordingly, Schnall J. imposed a sentence of probation for two years.

[74] Clearly, from the Agreed Statement of Facts, the three convictions before me, the fact that Mr. Daigneault is or was the president of the local chapter of the Outlaws and that he was under consideration for National leadership, his stated intention of a fresh start did not come to fruition.

[75] Unlike Mr. Bell, the issue of credits arises with Mr. Daigneault. There are three credits at play.

[76] A Duncan credit is available for harsh presentence incarceration conditions. In R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754, the Ontario Court of Appeal indicated that the court should consider the conditions of the pre-sentence incarceration and the impact of those conditions on the accused. In Duncan, the offender had served a considerable part of his pre-sentence incarceration in “lockdown” conditions due to staffing issues in the correctional facility at which he was housed.

[77] In R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344, the Court of Appeal described that the 1.5:1 Summers credit already takes into account the difficult and restrictive circumstances offenders often encounter during pre-trial custody, before any finding of guilt has been made with respect to an accused still presumed to be innocent.

[78] The Summers credit is a specific calculation made after a fit and proper sentence is determined and is not a mitigating factor. On the other hand, a Duncan credit is not a deduction from an otherwise fit and proper sentence. It is a mitigating factor, and it is not necessarily appropriate to quantify the Duncan credit as a specific amount of time. It is permissible to quantify the reduction for the Duncan credit, provided it does not result in an unfit sentence.

[79] There must be an evidentiary foundation for a Duncan credit. Here, I have specific records from Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre that show that Mr. Daigneault, as of July 15, 2024, was subjected to 39 institutional lockdowns, including both partial and full lockdowns. He was also subjected to 14 separate lockdowns for unit discipline. There have been periods of time when Mr. Daigneault shared a cell with another individual, and a brief period of time when he had two cellmates.

[80] Similarly, while housed at Central North Correctional Centre, Mr. Daigneault was triple bunked for two days in 2024. He was subjected to lockdowns on 98 occasions due to “staffing issues”. There were other lockdowns for contraband searches, investigations and for medical reasons.

[81] I was advised during the sentencing submissions that Mr. Daigneault was triple bunked at that time.

[82] In R. v. Shaikh, supra, Molloy J. described the impact of lockdowns on inmates at the Toronto South Correctional Centre at para. 73. I am prepared to accept that lockdowns at EMDC and CNCC would present comparably difficult circumstances for inmates housed there. I do not, however, have the evidence before me to conclude, as Molloy J. did, that the conditions were “not humane”.

[83] In R. v. Downes, 2006 ONCA 3957, 79 O.R. (3d) 321, [2006] O.J. No. 555, the Court of Appeal addressed the impact of strict house arrest bail conditions. Similar to a Duncan credit, the Court is obligated to take into account stringent bail conditions as a relevant mitigating circumstance. This is because there has been an imposition upon the liberty of an accused prior to a finding of guilt. Again, it is a mitigating factor, not a specific deduction like a Summers credit. Some courts have done a calculation, while others have simply applied a general deduction for strict bail conditions.

[84] There must be some evidence of impact of the strict bail conditions upon the accused. It is the impact of the bail conditions upon the accused that matters. Thus, even if a person is subjected to stringent conditions, if it has minimal impact on them, it may be inappropriate to apply a significant, or perhaps any, reduction.

[85] Similar to the Duncan credit, a Downes credit ought not to be utilized if it would make an otherwise fit and proper sentence unfit.

[86] Mr. Daigneault was on strict house arrest from April 8, 2021 to January 12, 2023, or a total of 645 days. In this case, unlike the evidence provided in support of the Duncan credit, I have little, really no, evidence of the impact of the house arrest conditions that I understand were imposed upon Mr. Daigneault pre-trial. Mr. Daigneault was not legally employed, such that there was no impact on his employment.

[87] I recognize, however, that the Crown has effectively conceded in its submissions that Mr. Daigneault was subjected to a significant term of pre-trial house arrest with strict conditions. Therefore, the lack of specific evidence from Mr. Daigneault is somewhat unnecessary given that acknowledgement.

The Fit and Proper Sentences

Daniel Bell:

[88] As noted, this is a joint submission.

[89] The cases establish that the range of sentences is five to eight years for cocaine trafficking and three to five years for gun trafficking.

[90] Mr. Bell, as you are a lower-level courier in this criminal enterprise, it is my view that an appropriate sentence would fall at the lower end of each range. This would bring the sentence to the eight-year range (five years for the drugs and three years for the gun).

[91] You are also a first-time offender, at the age of 37. You have, apparently, taken positive steps towards rehabilitation and to distance yourself from the criminal lifestyle. I am satisfied that there remains potential for rehabilitation.

[92] You are entitled to the benefit of the totality principle and the principle of restraint.

[93] I cannot conclude that the joint submission in this case would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or is otherwise contrary to the public interest. To the contrary, I accept that the Crown and Defence counsel have realistically evaluated your role in the Outlaws and agreed upon a sentence that is proportionate to yours level of moral responsibility.

[94] That is not to say that absent a joint submission, a low-level member of a criminal organization would receive the same consideration as Mr. Bell.

[95] Mr. Bell, would you please stand.

[96] In accordance with the joint submission, I sentence you to five years of penitentiary time.

[97] I impose a four-year sentence in respect of each of the cocaine trafficking counts, Counts 8 and 11, to be served concurrently. Each of these is reduced to three-years concurrent, to reflect the totality principle.

[98] In respect of the gun trafficking charge, Count 3, I sentence you to three years, to be served consecutively with the sentences imposed for Counts 8 and 11. This shall be reduced to two years on the basis of the totality principle.

[99] In accordance with the joint submission, there will be no further reduction on account of a Downes credit. Given the range of sentences that applies to these convictions, the overall sentence of five years properly, in my view, reflects any mitigation that stringent bail conditions would entitle you to.

[100] Additionally, I impose a secondary DNA order and a ten year weapons prohibition under s. 109 to commence upon the completion of your sentence.

Ryan Daigneault:

[101] Mr. Daigneault, given that this is not a joint submission, your situation is more complicated than Mr. Bell’s.

[102] You were, or perhaps remain, the head of the local chapter of the Outlaw motorcycle club. You were under consideration for the National presidency. Your moral responsibility is far greater than Mr. Bell’s.

[103] As described, cocaine trafficking is motivated by profit and greed. As the Agreed Statement of Facts show, vast sums of money were paid in relation to the drugs in this case. Obviously, those sums add up.

[104] Those at the highest echelons of these enterprises presumably reap the highest rewards. With those benefits, comes the risk that if caught, those at the highest echelons will face the harshest consequences.

[105] It is my view that the Crown’s position in this case is eminently fair and reasonable and does not necessarily reflect the high end of the range for an offender in your position. Your circumstances most closely resemble the circumstances of the offenders in McGregor, Muise and Nero.

[106] I repeat that in McGregor, the Court of Appeal described that eight years was toward the low-end of the accepted range for conspiracy to traffic in cocaine for mid-level dealers trafficking in quantities that include the kilogram level.

[107] In Muise, the offender pled guilty to two counts of trafficking in cocaine totalling 3 kgs and was sentenced to eight years in custody before considering credits.

[108] In Nero, the Court of Appeal described that the appropriate sentence for three counts involving cocaine trafficking of 1 kg each was eight years.

[109] Respectfully, the sentence proposed by your counsel is too low given your position within the organization.

[110] The range of sentences for firearm trafficking is three to five years. Again, your moral culpability, is at the highest end. The Crown position of four years again falls squarely within the appropriate range, and I would not deviate from it, except on account of totality.

[111] I have considered the Downes and Duncan credits. I have reservations that the circumstances of your pre-trial bail merit any significant reduction, but given the concession by the Crown, I will impose a mitigating credit of three months.

[112] I am more sympathetic to the harsh conditions that inmates endure in our correctional facilities. Nonetheless, it is my view that the mitigating credit should not result in what would otherwise be a fit sentence, becoming an unfit sentence. I will reduce your sentence on account of the Duncan credit by a further nine months.

[113] As I promised you I would, I considered what you told me during the sentencing submissions. I have considered the certificates of achievement and the letters of reference. I am pleased that you have been participating in productive activities, pursuing your education and religion. Most importantly, I have considered your stated desire to put this life behind you and reform.

[114] It is clear you were given an adequate opportunity to do so by Justice Schnall when she imposed sentence upon you in November of 2016. At that time, you were given the benefit of the doubt and she accepted that you intended to “get a fairly fresh start at things”.

[115] Only four years later, you were at the helm of the Outlaw Motorcycle club, trafficking cocaine, and firearms. You were under consideration for the National presidency. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that you had no intention to get a fresh start. Rather, you escalated.

[116] Accordingly, you have already had your opportunity for a fresh start, and you are not entitled to a further one from this Court today.

[117] Mr. Daigneault, if you would please stand.

[118] It is my view that the Crown’s position is entirely reasonable in the circumstances of this case, and it is my considered view that in your unique circumstances, should not be taken as the high watermark, but rather within the range.

[119] Accordingly, I sentence you to eight years in respect of Counts 8 and 11, concurrently. With respect to Count 3, I sentence you to a further four years consecutive to the sentence imposed for Counts 8 and 11. This amounts to twelve years and I agree that this should be reduced to ten years to account for totality.

[120] Further, I apply a three-month mitigating Downes credit and a nine-month mitigating Duncan credit. This reduces the sentence by a further year to a total sentence of nine years.

[121] I would allocate this as six years and three months for the drug trafficking counts, concurrent, and two years and nine months for the firearm, consecutive.

[122] To the global figure, you are entitled as a matter of law to the Summers credit for pre-sentence detention. By my calculations, and I invite counsel to confirm, to date, you are entitled to credit for time served in the amount of 1,072.5 days. Roughly, you have approximately six years and three weeks remaining on this global sentence. Again, I would ask counsel to confirm this math.

[123] Further, I impose a secondary DNA order and a 10-year s.109 weapons prohibition to commence upon the completion of your sentence.

[124] Counsel, other than perhaps the result, are there any concerns that we should address, ie, my calculations or the ancillary orders?

[125] What shall we do with the remaining charges?

“Justice S. Nicholson” Justice Spencer Nicholson Date: November 26, 2024