Reasons for Sentence

Court File No.: CR-22-90000578-0000
Date: 2025-03-13
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Between:
His Majesty the King – and – Marlon Ramon-Vasquez

Appearances:
Ryan McShefferey, for the Crown
Jonah Parkin, for Mr. Ramon-Vasquez

Heard: November 13, 2024
Released: March 13, 2025
Judge: R.F. Goldstein

1. Overview

[1] On November 13, 2024, Mr. Ramos-Vasquez pleaded guilty to one count of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking. He had previously brought an application to exclude the evidence based on a Charter violation. Justice Molloy dismissed that application on October 17, 2024. He now comes before the court for sentencing.

2. Facts

[2] On February 23, 2022, at 7:19 pm, the Toronto Police found Mr. Ramos-Vasquez lying on the ground outside a gas station. The police attended in response to a 911 call. Mr. Ramos-Vasquez had been stabbed and shot. Paramedics arrived a few minutes later. Mr. Ramos-Vasquez was taken by ambulance to Sunnybrook Hospital. While he was in the ambulance a large knife fell out of Mr. Ramos-Vasquez’s pant leg. The paramedics turned the knife over to the police. The paramedics also turned his property over to the police.

[3] Mr. Ramos-Vasquez’s property included a satchel. When Mr. Ramos-Vasquez was at the hospital the police searched the satchel. They found 2.15 grams of crack cocaine as well as 25.81 grams of fentanyl. Some of the drugs were separated and packaged into smaller baggies. The police also seized a scale and several empty plastic bags.

3. Circumstances Of The Offender

[4] I have reviewed a pre-sentence report for Mr. Ramos-Vasquez. It is a very positive PSR. He is now 22 years old. He was 19 at the time of his arrest. He does not have a criminal record. He was born and raised in Toronto. He grew up in an intact family – his parents were together except for a brief period of separation. He is close to his older sister. He currently lives with his family. He stated that his childhood was free of any kind of abuse. He is currently in a relationship but did not wish to provide any contact information for his partner; he also did not want to provide contact information for any of his siblings other than his oldest sister.

[5] According to Mr. Ramos-Vasquez’s mother, he left high school early, after starting grade 10. He is currently employed as a carpenter framing houses. He works as a subcontractor for a friend. Mr. Ramos-Vasquez indicated to the probation officer that he did not have a substance abuse problem. That was confirmed by his family members and friends. Mr. Ramos-Vasquez also indicated that his religious beliefs played a role in giving up alcohol and marijuana, which he did previously consume.

[6] Mr. Ramos-Vasquez was cooperative with the probation officer. He indicated that he plays the bass. He copes with stress and anger by prayer. His sister, mother, and pastor all indicated to the probation officer that he is hardworking, respectful, and has a good heart. His mother (and pastor) confirmed that he attends church regularly. The probation officer described him as being in a pro-social relationship with a good family support system and strong support within the community. Mr. Ramos-Vasquez apparently took responsibility for the offence with the probation officer and understands now that dealing drugs is wrong.

[7] The defence called two character witnesses at the sentencing hearing to give evidence about Mr. Ramos-Vasquez’s character and his transformation since his arrest.

[8] Rodolfo Antonio Viera is Mr. Ramos-Vasquez’s pastor. He has known Mr. Ramos-Vasquez for 15 years. He is an active member of the church and plays bass in the church orchestra. He described Mr. Ramos-Vasquez as having been transformed since the arrest. He has shown a lot of maturity. He has never known Mr. Ramos-Vasquez to have a problem with drugs.

[9] Domingo Ramos is Mr. Ramos-Vasquez’s father. He says that since the arrest Mr. Ramos-Vasquez has been transformed. He is much more responsible. He works as a carpenter and is planning on getting a carpenter’s licence. He works framing houses. He also attends church on a regular basis. Domingo Ramos does not know whether Mr. Ramos-Vasquez had a problem with drugs prior to the arrest. Since the arrest, he can say that Mr. Ramos-Vasquez absolutely does not have a drug problem.

4. Impact on The Community

[10] Much has been said about the impact of fentanyl on the community. It is a scourge, causing death, destruction, and leaving ruined lives in its wake. I can do no better than to quote Moldaver J. in R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46 at para. 98:

The time has thus come for our perception of the gravity of large scale trafficking in fentanyl to accord with the gravity of the crisis it has caused. Large scale trafficking in fentanyl is not a crime marked merely by the distribution and sale of an illicit substance; rather, it is a crime marked by greed and the pursuit of profit at the expense of violence, death, and the perpetuation of a public health crisis previously unseen in Canadian society. In many ways, “[t]rafficking in fentanyl is almost the equivalent of putting multiple bullets in the chambers of a revolver and playing Russian roulette. It is the most efficient killer of drug users on the market today” (R. v. Frazer, 2017 ABPC 116, para. 11). Put simply, it is a crime that can be expected to not only destroy lives, but to undermine the very foundations of our society.

5. Legal Parameters

[11] Possession of a schedule 1 substance for the purpose of trafficking is punishable by up to life imprisonment.

6. Positions of the Crown and Defence

[12] Crown counsel argues that a four year term of imprisonment is appropriate. There is no evidence that Mr. Ramos-Vasquez had any substance abuse issues. Accordingly, he was trafficking in fentanyl at the ounce level. A four year sentence takes into account the principles of general and specific deterrence, as well as recognizing that Mr. Ramos-Vasquez is a very good candidate for rehabilitation. Defence counsel argues that there are significant mitigating factors that ought to take this sentence into the range of 2 ½ years.

7. Case Law

[13] The parties relied on several cases. I will simply mention a few.

[14] R. v. Loor, 2017 ONCA 696: the offender used a forged prescription to obtain 45 fentanyl patches. Loor was a low-level member of a drug trafficking ring. The trial judge sentenced Loor to six years after he was found guilty at trial. The fentanyl was worth somewhere between $18,000 and $20,000 on the streets of North Bay. In upholding the sentence, Laskin J.A. for the court noted that even first offenders who traffic significant amounts of fentanyl should expect to go to the penitentiary.

[15] R. v. Campbell, 2022 ONCA 666: the offender was arrested in possession of 14.33 grams of heroin mixed with fentanyl. The offender was found guilty after a trial and sentenced to six years. He had a lengthy criminal record. He was a mid-level trafficker. There were few mitigating factors. The Court of Appeal upheld the six-year sentence.

[16] R. v. Richer, 2022 ONSC 6872: a jury convicted the offender of trafficking an ounce of fentanyl to an undercover officer. She assisted the principal as a broker of the deal. The trial judge found that the offender continued to lack insight into her behaviour. She blamed her former partner and lacked insight into the gravity of the offence and the impact of fentanyl. There were mitigating factors: she had been an addict but had cleaned up by the time of sentencing. She had made strides in her rehabilitation. The sentencing judge imposed a four-year penitentiary sentence.

[17] R. v. Bieber, 2022 ONCJ 53: The offender was pulled over on a traffic stop. The offender appeared drowsy. The officer conducted a search of the vehicle and found drugs. It turned out that the offender had (among other drugs) 14.1 grams of fentanyl, 57.2 grams of methamphetamine, 47.4 grams of cocaine, as well as marijuana and pills of various kinds. The offender pleaded guilty to several counts, including possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking. The offender had no criminal record. He had a difficult upbringing, including fathering a child at the age of 18. He had made several unsuccessful attempts at rehabilitation for his drug addiction, but after arrest had made greater rehabilitative strides. The offender pleaded guilty. The sentencing judge imposed a sentence of 42 months less three months for Downes credit.

[18] R. v. Tonkin, 2023 ONSC 2139: The offender pleaded guilty to one count of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and one count of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking. The police stopped the offender and another person in a car as they were delivering drugs. The police seized 55.62 grams of cocaine, 27.15 grams of fentanyl, 20.41 grams of marijuana, and a cutting agent. The offender was 21 at the time. Nakatsuru J., the sentencing judge, found that the offender had a limited role in the drug transportation scheme, had incurred a Charter violation in his dealings with the police, pleaded guilty, and had excellent prospects for rehabilitation. He imposed a sentence of 29 months on the fentanyl count, and 15 months concurrent on the cocaine count.

[19] R. v. Hillier, 2021 ONCJ 634: The offender pleaded guilty to possession for the purpose of trafficking in methamphetamine and possession for the purpose of trafficking in fentanyl. The police observed the offender in a car in contravention of a bail condition. They arrested the offender and searched him incident to arrest. He had in his possession 28.1 grams of fentanyl, 18.7 grams of methamphetamine, 9.2 grams of cocaine, and just over $1000 in cash. The sentencing judge found the offender to be a mid-level drug trafficker. The offender did use opioids and his drug dealing supported his habit, in part – part was for profit as well. He did show remorse into the offences by pleading guilty. He also had a criminal record, including a previous drug possession conviction. The trial judge sentenced the offender to a global sentence of 4 ½ years.

[20] See also: R. v. Oksem, 2019 ONSC 6238; R. v. Cinelli, 2018 ONSC 4983.

[21] After reviewing the cases, I agree with the Crown that the range of sentence for fentanyl trafficking at the ounce level is generally between 4 and 6 years, but that often reflects a position after a contested trial. Considering the Court of Appeal’s decision in Loor, and the decision in Tonkin, I would say that the starting point for the sentencing of non-addict traffickers in fentanyl at the ounce level who plead guilty and take responsibility begins at two to two and a half years. A two-year or two-and-a-half year sentence is, however, only justified for the most sympathetic accused with a great many mitigating factors, no other criminal involvement, great rehabilitative potential, and real insight into the offence – the kind of insight that is demonstrated by a guilty plea. Very few offenders will fit that description. Most offenders trafficking fentanyl at the ounce level will receive a sentence of between 4 and 6 years especially after a contested trial.

8. Mitigating and Aggravating Factors

[22] It seems clear from the circumstances under which Mr. Ramos-Vasquez was arrested that he was, at the time, involved in a significant way in the drug trade. Someone shot and stabbed him. I don’t think it takes a crystal ball to divine that it had something to do with the ounce of fentanyl and the large knife he was carrying. His degree of involvement is aggravating.

[23] As well, it is aggravating that the substance involved was fentanyl. As the Supreme Court has made clear in Parranto, currently fentanyl is the worst of the hard drugs, responsible for more death and agony than any other hard drug.

[24] It is aggravating that Mr. Ramos-Vasquez was also in possession of a small amount of cocaine.

[25] The fact that Mr. Ramos-Vasquez was armed with a large knife is also aggravating. It is, I suppose, not as bad as carrying a firearm but it is clear that he was armed to protect himself and his stash.

[26] There are, of course, very important mitigating factors. Mr. Ramos-Vasquez has taken tremendous rehabilitative steps. He was very young when this happened. He has no criminal antecedents. He enjoys the support of his family and his community. He has used the time on bail to work productively, become very involved with his church, and develop a very pro-social life. It is mitigating that he has no criminal record. Although it is not mitigating that Mr. Ramos-Vasquez stayed out of trouble and did not breach the conditions of his bail – after all, we expect people to abide by the law – but it is noteworthy. Not everyone stays out of trouble.

[27] It is also mitigating that Mr. Ramos-Vasquez has pleaded guilty. He has shown insight into his crime. That said, the plea is not as mitigating as it could be. Mr. Ramos-Vasquez lost a Charter motion and chose to resolve at that point. While I do not say that the motion was frivolous, and of course it is not aggravating that he chose to litigate his Charter rights, once he lost that motion conviction was inevitable. Thus, while the plea is mitigating in the sense that it shows that Mr. Ramos-Vasquez has taken responsibility, he still chose to litigate at least an aspect of this case.

[28] All that having been said, the tenor of the witnesses for Mr. Ramos-Vasquez, and the pre-sentence report indicate that he takes responsibility, has done what he can to rehabilitate himself, he has shown insight into his behaviour, and he is remorseful.

9. Principles of Sentencing

[29] The fundamental principle of sentencing is that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. In cases involving “hard” drugs in commercial quantities, the most important principles are denunciation and deterrence, especially general deterrence. I agree with and adopt the comments of my colleague Code J. in R. v. Owusu, 2024 ONSC 671 at para. 34:

As with heroin and cocaine trafficking, deterrence and denunciation are the primary sentencing objectives in cases of fentanyl trafficking. Young first offenders with good rehabilitative prospects receive significant penitentiary sentences in these cases, even after pleading guilty and after assisting the police and the Crown by testifying against their co-accused… The policy reasons for taking this strict deterrent and denunciatory approach to sentencing in fentanyl trafficking cases is the same as in cocaine and heroin trafficking cases, namely, the extraordinary harm associated with these drugs, the collateral crime associated with them (including crimes of violence), and the premise that rationally premediated commercial crimes like drug trafficking by a non-addict are particularly amenable to deterrence.

[30] Although deterrence and denunciation remain the primary sentencing principles in cases of fentanyl trafficking, other sentencing principles play a role and must be considered by a sentencing judge.

[31] In my view, given the significant rehabilitative steps taken by Mr. Ramos-Vasquez, the principles of rehabilitation and restraint – especially for such a young man – take on more importance than they typically would in a case involving an ounce of fentanyl: R. v. Borde. I do therefore give weight to those principles, notwithstanding that deterrence and denunciation remain the primary sentencing objectives.

10. Sentence Imposed And Ancillary Orders

[32] Cases such as these always present a great difficulty to a sentencing judge. On the one hand, Mr. Ramos-Vasquez committed a significant crime that calls for a significant exemplary sentence. On the other hand, he has shown that he has great rehabilitative potential and has made great strides towards rehabilitation. Time in custody may well set him back, but there is no doubt that custody – and custody in the penitentiary – is required. What I must grapple with as a sentencing judge is the fact that the principles of denunciation and deterrence call for a lengthy sentence, whereas the principles of restraint and rehabilitation call for a less punitive sentence. It is a balancing process.

[33] When considering the appropriate sentence I take into account the following:

• Unlike many of the offenders who received higher sentences, Mr. Ramos-Vasquez had no criminal record – indeed, he was only 19 at the time of this offence.
• Mr. Ramos-Vasquez has done exceptionally well on bail; he works, he attends church regularly, he is supported by his family and his community.
• Although Mr. Ramos-Vasquez has done well since his arrest, at that time he was obviously a mid-level drug dealer and appears to have been leading a criminal lifestyle.
• His involvement in fentanyl was purely for profit, given that he does not appear to have been addicted to hard drugs.
• Fentanyl is an incredibly harmful substance and Mr. Ramos-Vasquez did possess it at the ounce level.
• Mr. Ramos-Vasquez has taken responsibility for his actions and shown insight into his behaviour.

[34] When I consider all of the principles of sentencing, as well as the aggravating and mitigating factors, I find that a sentence at the lower end of the range I described is appropriate. A sentence at the lower end will permit Mr. Ramos-Vasquez to continue with his rehabilitative efforts without being crushing, and still fulfill the principles of deterrence and denunciation. I therefore impose a sentence of 2 ½ years or 30 months in the penitentiary.

[35] In addition, there will be a s. 109 order for ten years, and a DNA order.

R.F. Goldstein

Released: March 13, 2025