Reasons for Sentence

Court File No.: CR-24-005 (Owen Sound)
Date: 2025-03-27
Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between:
His Majesty the King

• and -
  Tahir Ali

Appearances:
Elizabeth Barefoot, for the Director of Public Prosecutions
Anya Shahabi, for Tahir Ali

Heard: February 21, 2025
Judge: Peter Sproat

The Offences

[1] I found Mr. Ali guilty of the following offences:

a) Count one – possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. (89.6 g. seized from the Ford Edge.)

b) Count two – possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking. (731 g. seized from the Ford Edge, 205.5 g. from the camper trailer and Ford F350, and 11 g. from the Kincardine house.)

c) Count three – possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking. (1.9 g. seized from the Ford Edge, 16 g. from the Mazda, and 60.9 g. from the Ford F350.)

d) Count four – possession of oxycodone for the purpose of trafficking. (329 pills seized from the Ford F350, and 147 pills from the camper trailer.)

e) Count eleven – possession of ammunition while subject to a weapons prohibition. (15 .22 calibre rounds from the Barrie apartment.)

f) Count twelve – possession of benzodiazepine for the purpose of trafficking. (Three vials seized from the Barrie apartment.)

The Circumstances of Mr. Ali

[2] Mr. Ali is 63 years of age.

[3] On April 3, 2020, he was convicted of possession of a Schedule I substance for the purpose of trafficking and received a 48-month custodial sentence with a mandatory weapons prohibition. A charge of manslaughter was dismissed.

[4] On October 18, 2021, Mr. Ali was convicted of possession of a Schedule I substance, and he received a suspended sentence and probation for 18 months.

[5] Mr. Ali has been incarcerated since March 24, 2022. As of March 26, he had 1,139 days in custody, which results in 1,709 days credit against his sentence on a 1:1.5 basis.

[6] Mr. Ali has spent almost 300 days in lockdown. Almost all of these days were due to staffing issues.

Other Evidence

[7] Dr. Ian Arra, the Medical Officer of Health and Chief Executive Officer of Grey Bruce Public Health, and Nicholas Saunders, the Chairperson of the Grey Bruce Board of Health, co-authored a community impact letter dated February 13, 2025, which Mr. Saunders read out, informing the court of the following:

Grey-Bruce, like other areas of Ontario, continues to experience the devastating effects of Canada’s opioid crisis, which has been fueled by an increasingly toxic and unpredictable unregulated drug supply and resulted in a significant increase in substance-related harms and deaths during and following the COVID-19 pandemic.

Grey Bruce Public Health is deeply concerned about the impacts of this crisis on local Indigenous communities, the communities of Grey and Bruce counties, and the families and individuals that reside in this part of southwestern Ontario.

IMPACT ON INDIVIDUALS

A key factor contributing to the high rates of opioid-related harms and overdoses locally, provincially, and nationally is the toxicity of the unregulated drug supply, largely caused by the mixing of powerful opioids, such as fentanyl, into the supply.

This has put individuals who use substances at greater risk of overdose, substance-related harms, and death.

From 2018 to 2021, Grey-Bruce saw a more than four-fold increase in the annual number of opioid-related overdose deaths. That number remained fairly steady in 2022 and 2023. The annual number of emergency department visits in Grey-Bruce attributed to opioid-related poisonings increased steadily from 2014 to 2021, increasing by 300% over that time period.

The opioid crisis continues to result in a significant number of drug overdoses, with 174 reported in Grey-Bruce in 2023 and 216 reported in 2024.

Opioid addiction can lead to severe physical and mental health challenges, result in isolation, and cause long-term health issues, such as liver damage and heart problems.

IMPACT ON FAMILIES

Opioid addiction and substance-related overdoses can have profound impacts on an individual’s entire family.

Addiction within a household can strain or disrupt family relationships, lead to separation or divorce, and impact the emotional and psychological development of children. It can also take a significant financial toll on families, and lead to job loss, or legal issues.

The loss of a family member due to overdose can affect grieving family members, particularly children, for life.

IMPACT ON COMMUNITIES

In addition to the human toll, the opioid crisis significantly impacts communities – both large and small – in Ontario.

According to a July 2024 report by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the opioid crisis has a profound social and economic impact on municipalities, producing significant budget pressure on key municipal services, like emergency response, homelessness prevention, affordable housing, and public health services.

The opioid crisis also overwhelms healthcare systems, with increased hospital admissions due to overdoses and related health complications. In addition, local governments, organizations, and residents have had to mobilize resources to address the crisis. Not to mention the opportunity cost – the social benefits these resources would have been able to achieve if they were deployed to address other key healthcare problems such as heart disease, cancer.

In addition, the social and emotional impacts of overdose deaths can be felt throughout communities, particularly in small or rural communities.

IMPACT ON INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES

Indigenous populations in Canada face an increased risk of overdose deaths and other substance use-related harms. Data suggests the harms associated with opioid misuse occur at disproportionately high levels in First Nations communities.

The drug poisoning crisis prompted both local Indigenous communities – Saugeen First Nation and the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation – to declare states of emergency in 2022 and 2023, respectively.

Mr. Nicholas Saunders, Chair of the Grey-Bruce Board of Health and a resident of the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation, shares the following regarding the impacts of the opioid crisis:

The opioid epidemic is going to continue to have long-lasting effects in the communities and region as we see many families that have been broken due to the effects of addictions. Children are having to go into the system of Children’s Aid and what is worse is we are losing a future generation of young people that will leave voids in communities of parents and guidance for learning basic life skills of these young people that have lost their lives to drug trafficking dealers pushing. This is a form of emotional, spiritual, mental, and physical abuse as the narcotics from dealers become stronger and rob people of these.

People do not grow up and dream about becoming addicts and having mental health needs; they are robbed of this choice. Families and Communities and Nations are left to pick up the pieces and clean up afterwards and bury loved ones.

[8] A community impact letter dated February 13, 2025 was also read in to the record by Nicholas Saunders, on behalf of Ogimaa Greg Nadjiwan of the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation, which explained:

The Chippewas of Nawash currently has a membership of approximately 2,400 registered in the First Nation and who reside in the surrounding areas and across Canada, with approximately 800 members residing on the First Nation.

From 2019-2023, the Community lost 58 members due to the Opioid Crisis and these deaths continue to grow as a result of individuals, such as the person standing trial, preying on, targeting, and trafficking these illegal toxins to our members, many that have social and economic disadvantages due to intergenerational trauma, unresolved grief, homelessness and low income and other demographics within the Region of Grey Bruce and surrounding area.

In 2023, as the Chippewas of Nawash was coming out of the COVID-10 pandemic, the Community had to declare another state of emergency due to the overwhelming distress of opioid overdoses and suicides over the past five years. Individuals such as this person standing trial and those who continue dealing and trafficking narcotics are killing our members, not just within the Boundaries of our First Nation, but across Turtle Island.

The overwhelming number of emergency hospital visits for non-fatal and fatal overdoses can be felt throughout many First Nations communities, but more concerning within the Chippewas of Nawash with the lack of resources to deal with the growing demand for Mental Health Services and rising Funeral Costs.

The future of this crisis and drug epidemic is going to have long-lasting impacts as more financial supports are required to assist our members to not only live a basic lifestyle, but to also overcome the physical, mental, emotional and spiritual harms that have been created because of drug dealers and traffickers. It is in all our best interests that an example be made of individuals who choose to harm the lives of innocent people.

Position of the Crown

[9] The position of the Crown was that there should be a global sentence of 10-12 years. The Crown also asked for a secondary DNA order and a s. 109 order on all of the counts.

[10] The Crown submitted that the sentence on count eleven, possession of ammunition while subject to a weapons prohibition, should receive a consecutive sentence of 1 year.

[11] The Crown also sought a forfeiture order, which I will later address.

Position of Mr. Ali

[12] Ms. Shahabi submitted that a sentence of 4-6 years was appropriate. She did not take issue with the DNA order or the weapons prohibitions.

Forfeiture

[13] I am in agreement with the written Argument for Forfeiture submitted on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada. The three vehicles in the possession of Mr. Ali were all used to transport or store illicit drugs. The three vehicles are, therefore, all non-chemical offence-related property. When Mr. Ali was arrested, the wholesale value of drugs in the console of his vehicle was over approximately $37,000. The console also contained a scale with drug residue. The vehicle contained six cell phones. $1,220 in cash was on the driver’s side floor. Drugs are a cash business. Mr. Ali received a monthly ODSP payment. Ms. Shahabi submitted that a reasonable inference is that the cash on the floor was simply Mr. Ali’s monthly payment. Given all the circumstances, I find that this is not a reasonable inference. As such, I have signed the requested forfeiture order.

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

[14] The aggravating factors are as follows:

a) Fentanyl is lethal and, as stated in Parranto, trafficking in fentanyl “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.”

b) Mr. Ali’s criminal record includes a conviction for trafficking in fentanyl for which he received a 48-month custodial sentence.

c) Mr. Ali commuted from Barrie to set up a drug trafficking operation in Grey-Bruce, a rural area that includes First Nations and other vulnerable communities.

d) While a relatively minor factor, at the same time Mr. Ali was trafficking in large quantities of drugs, he was in receipt of Ontario Disability Support payments from the government.

[15] Mr. Ali described himself to the author of the PSR as having had three heart attacks, a kidney removed, and being insulin dependant. No medical records were provided, and I do not know details as to when these health conditions arose and their nature and severity in terms of Mr. Ali’s day-to-day life. I do accept that, given his age and condition, serving his sentence will be more difficult than it would be for a person in good health. This is a mitigating factor that I take into account in determining the appropriate sentence.

[16] An additional mitigating factor is the time spent by Mr. Ali in lockdown due to staffing issues.

Case Law – Sentence

[17] While I have considered all of the cases cited by counsel, I will only refer to a few.

[18] In R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46, the Court discussed the increasing awareness of the threat posed by fentanyl, and effectively cautioned against judges sentencing today relying on cases decided when the danger of fentanyl was not fully recognized. In this regard, Brown and Martin JJ. stated:

[27] In some cases, however, an appellate court must also set a new direction, bringing the law into harmony with a new societal understanding of the gravity of certain offences or the degree of responsibility of certain offenders (R. v. Stone, para 239).... as a general rule, appellate courts should take the lead in such circumstances and give sentencing judges the tools to depart from past precedents and craft fit sentences. [Emphasis added.]

[28] This reflects the reality that "[i]t is a common phenomenon ... for sentences to increase and decrease as societal and judicial knowledge and attitudes about certain offences change" (R. v. Smith, 2017 BCCA 112, para 36, citing R. v. Nur, 2011 ONSC 4874, para 49).

[19] Moldaver J., concurring in the result, stated:

[96] Beyond its mere potential to cause harm, however, fentanyl has had – and continues to have – a real and deadly impact on the lives of Canadians. Indeed, trafficking in fentanyl is so deadly that various courts have described it as a national crisis, reflective of an increased understanding of the gravity of the harm it causes (see, e.g., R. v. Smith, 2017 BCCA 112, para 50; R. v. Vezina, 2017 ONCJ 775, para 58; R. v. Aujla, 2016 ABPC 272, para 1). This heightened understanding is supported by the available statistical evidence. The expert evidence on the record before us establishes, for instance, that fentanyl-related deaths in Alberta increased by 4,858 percent between 2011 and 2017, rising from 12 deaths in 2011 to 583 deaths in 2017. More broadly, federal statistics on opioid-related deaths show that, between January 2016 and March 2021, approximately 23,000 Canadians lost their lives due to accidental apparent opioid-related deaths, with fentanyl involved in 71 percent of these deaths (Special Advisory Committee on the Epidemic of Opioid Overdoses, Opioid and Stimulant-related Harms in Canada (September 2021) (online). The epidemic also shows no signs of abating, with over 6,000 accidental deaths occurring in 2020 alone, 82 percent of which involved fentanyl (Government of Canada, Federal actions on opioids to date (June 2021) (online)). These figures throw into stark relief the dark and inescapable reality that “[e]very day in our communities, fentanyl abuse claims the lives of Canadians” (R. v. Loor, 2017 ONCA 696, para 33).

[97] The scale of fentanyl’s devastating impact becomes even more apparent when one considers that, between 2016 and 2020, there were approximately 3,400 homicides across Canada, a number far below the number of fentanyl-related deaths (Statistics Canada, Table 35-10-0069-01 – Number of homicide victims, by method used to commit the homicide, July 27, 2021 (online)). This disparity makes clear that, in a very real way, those individuals responsible for the largescale distribution of fentanyl within our communities are a source of far greater harm than even those responsible for the most violent of crimes.

[98] The time has thus come for our perception of the gravity of largescale trafficking in fentanyl to accord with the gravity of the crisis it has caused. Largescale 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 simple, it is a crime that can be expected to not only destroy lives, but to undermine the very foundations of our society.

[20] While I appreciate that the scale and sophistication of Mr. Ali’s operation is not the same as the offender in Parranto, I rely upon these observations regarding the nature of fentanyl and its impact on society.

[21] In R. v. Musa, 2022 ONSC 3734, Charney J. provided a helpful review of a number of sentencing cases:

Possession of Fentanyl

[11] The possession of 130 grams of fentanyl is the most serious of the several counts. The maximum penalty for this offence is life imprisonment: ss. 5(3)(a) and 6(3)(a.1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

[12] In R. v. Loor, 2017 ONCA 696, para 33:

[F]entanyl 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.

[13] Referencing expert evidence introduced at trial, the Court of Appeal stated, at paras. 37 and 38:

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.

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.

[14] In Loor the Court of Appeal found, at para. 36, that fentanyl is 100 times more powerful than morphine and 20 times more powerful than heroin. The Court upheld a six year sentence, and concluded, at para. 50:

[G]enerally, offenders – even first offenders – who traffic significant amounts of fentanyl should expect to receive significant penitentiary sentences.

[21] Most recently the Ontario Court of Appeal specifically dealt with the range of sentences for a mid-level fentanyl trafficker in R. v. Lynch, 2022 ONCA 109. The Court stated, at para. 15:

It is a well-established principle that drugs vary in the degree of danger that they represent to those who consume them. Consequently, the more dangerous the drug being trafficked, the higher the penalty that will be imposed. Fentanyl is now known to be a much more dangerous drug than almost any other. That reality directs that a sentence imposed for trafficking in fentanyl should be as long or longer than a corresponding sentence for trafficking in cocaine: R. v. Olvedi, 2021 ONCA 518, para 56, leave to appeal to S.C.C. requested, 39854.

[22] The Court further stated, at para. 18:

Of course, those at the top of the supply chain deserve harsher sentences. But the fact that the respondent was not at the pinnacle of the drug dealing empire does not reduce the respondent’s level of moral blameworthiness or mean that his actions are not serious. The producers of a product cannot get it into the hands of the consumer if there is no one to sell and deliver it.

[23] In Lynch, the Court of Appeal substituted the trial judge’s four year sentence with a six year sentence, noting that the accused had pled guilty, and was relatively young (29 years of age).

[24] The Crown also relies on R. v. Sidhu, 2019 ONCA 880, where the Court of Appeal upheld a net sentence of eight years and two months for a 25 year old offender who trafficked in fentanyl, had a prior, related record, and returned to trafficking shortly after being released from custody. The quantity of fentanyl in Sidhu was 89 grams.

[25] In R. v. Disher, 2020 ONCA 710, para 36, the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal and reduced the sentence of Mr. Disher, also a mid-level trafficker (quantity 42.6 grams of drugs including fentanyl), with numerous drug trafficking convictions, to eight years. The Court stated:

Lower court cases are also consistent with a sentence of eight years. See, for example, R. v. Baldwin, [2018] O.J. No. 2447 (C.J.) (eight years; quantity of fentanyl was 115.09 grams); R. v. Shevalier, [2017] O.J. No. 7247 (C.J.) (eight years; quantity of fentanyl was 28.13 grams). While the Crown pointed to R. v. Vezina, 2017 ONCJ 775, where the offender was sentenced to 12 years less pre-trial custody, I do not see it as particularly helpful because the offender in Vezina had 204.49 grams of a blend of heroin and fentanyl for the purposes of trafficking – approximately five times the amount Mr. Disher possessed.

[22] In Musa, the primary mitigating factor was that the offender was 20 years old. He had served a prior sentence for trafficking. He was in pre-trial custody, which included 31 full and 6 partial lockdown days, for which he received Duncan credit. Charney J. discussed Duncan credit as follows:

[49] In the recent decision of R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344, para 49, the Court of Appeal stipulated that the Duncan credit is not deducted from the base sentence. Although the court noted, at para. 49, that the very restrictive conditions in jails and the health risks of COVID-19 are the kinds of circumstances that may give rise to a Duncan credit, these circumstances are a mitigating feature that is factored in when determining the base sentence and cannot dominate the analysis so as to result in an inappropriate sentence. The court states at paras. 52-53:

The “Duncan” credit is not a deduction from the otherwise appropriate sentence, but is one of the factors to be taken into account in determining the appropriate sentence. Particularly punitive pretrial incarceration conditions can be a mitigating factor to be taken into account with the other mitigating and aggravating factors in arriving at the appropriate sentence from which the “Summers” credit will be deducted. Because the “Duncan” credit is one of the mitigating factors to be taken into account, it cannot justify the imposition of a sentence which is inappropriate, having regard to all of the relevant mitigating or aggravating factors.

Often times, a specific number of days or months are given as “Duncan” credit. While this quantification is not necessarily inappropriate, it may skew the calculation of the ultimate sentence. By quantifying the “Duncan” credit, only one of presumably several relevant factors, there is a risk the “Duncan” credit will be improperly treated as a deduction from the appropriate sentence in the same way as the “Summers” credit. If treated in that way, the “Duncan” credit can take on an unwarranted significance in fixing the ultimate sentence imposed: R. v. J.B.. Arguably, that is what happened in this case, where on the trial judge’s calculations, the “Duncan” credit devoured three-quarters of what the trial judge had deemed to be the appropriate sentence but for pretrial custody.

[50] In R. v. Bristol, 2021 ONCA 599, para 12, the Court of Appeal reiterated that the Duncan credit is not a deduction but rather a factor to consider in sentencing. Consequently, while I accept that the lockdown conditions during the pandemic have resulted in harsher than usual conditions for Mr. Musa, I decline to assign this factor a specific mathematical deduction and will instead consider it as one of the mitigating features to be factored into the determination of a proper sentence for these offences.

[23] Charney J. concluded an 8-year sentence for 89 g of fentanyl was appropriate, although this was reduced to 7 years in light of an additional sentence for a loaded prohibited firearms offence and the totality principle.

[24] Local judges in Grey-Bruce have concluded that a 6-year sentence is appropriate even for 12-15 g of fentanyl. In R. v. Gagnon, 2017 ONSC 7470, Conlan J., then the Local Administrative Judge for Owen Sound, sentenced the offender, who was found to be in possession for the purpose of trafficking of 43 grams of methamphetamine and 12 grams of fentanyl. That offender had 11 prior convictions and one was for simple possession of methamphetamine, and one for simple possession of cocaine. Conlan J. indicated that the appropriate sentence would have been in the range of 5-6 years but for the extensive rehabilitation efforts made by the offender. In fact, he imposed a sentence of 4 years.

[25] In R. v. Girard and Bell, October 18, 2022, OCJ Owen Sound Court File 21-514, Morneau J. sentenced two individuals in possession of 15 grams of fentanyl and 9.4 grams of methamphetamine. Girard was a mid-level trafficker who was found guilty at trial and sentenced to 6 years. Bell was a lower-level trafficker who pleaded guilty after an unsuccessful Charter Application and was sentenced to 4 years. Mr. Girard had a less extensive criminal record than Mr. Ali. Mr. Bell had no criminal record, had taken treatment, and had full-time employment.

[26] As to whether the count eleven weapons prohibition offence should be consecutive, in R. v. Graham, 2018 ONSC 6817, para 41, Code J. stated that:

As explained above, I am of the view that the sentences for breach of the two s. 109 orders should be consecutive to the sentence for the s. 95 offence. I adopt the reasoning of the leading authorities in this Court, to the effect that separate punishment is required if court orders are to have real meaning. See: R. v. Manning, [2007] O.J. No. 1205 (S.C.J.); R. v. Ellis, 2013 ONSC 3092, aff’d R. v. Ellis, 2016 ONCA 598; R. v. Carrol, supra.

Analysis

[27] Mr. Ali’s moral blameworthiness is at the extreme high end of the scale, given that a 4-year penitentiary sentence and court orders have done nothing to deter him and the other aggravating factors I have noted. In such a case, denunciation and deterrence are the most important factors to consider. There is no evidence to suggest that there is any prospect of rehabilitating Mr. Ali.

[28] Duncan considerations are very significant in this case. 300 days of lockdown due to staffing issues was largely avoidable and highly punitive. But for Duncan considerations, a sentence at or near the high end of the range suggested by the Crown would have been appropriate.

[29] I appreciate that the circumstances are quite different than in Parranto, in which the offenders were inflicting the devastation of fentanyl on extremely remote northern communities. I do, however, view it as an aggravating factor that Mr. Ali would travel from the Barrie area to establish a drug trafficking operation in Grey-Bruce, which includes First Nations such as the Chippewas of Nawash which has lost many members to opioid overdoses.

[30] Mr. Ali, like the offender in Musa, is a mid-level drug trafficker. In Musa the offender possessed 130 g of fentanyl, 39 g of methamphetamine and 95 g of cocaine. I view those quantities and drugs roughly comparable in terms of blameworthiness to the 78 g of fentanyl, 947 g of methamphetamine, 89 g of cocaine, 329 oxycodone pills and 3 vials of benzodiazepine in the possession of Mr. Ali. In Musa, Charney J. imposed an 8-year sentence on the 20-year-old offender.

[31] While each case is different, the sentence I intend to impose derives some support from the following cases:

a) In Lynch, the 29-year-old offender pleaded guilty. He had one prior unrelated criminal conviction. His sentence was increased to 6 years on appeal.

b) In Sidhu, the court upheld an 8-year 2-month sentence for a 25 year old offender who had a prior related record.

c) In Disher, the court reduced the sentence imposed on a then 34 year old mid-level trafficker to 8 years. He had an extensive related record. He pleaded guilty on the first day of trial and, while awaiting trial, had completed a number of courses directed to rehabilitation. As a child, the offender had been the victim of repeated physical and emotional abuse.

[32] In my view, taking into account all of the circumstances, Mr. Ali is deserving of greater punishment than the 8-year 2-month sentence in Sidhu and the 8-year sentence in Disher. I also note that these cases were in 2019 and 2020, prior to the Parranto decision and at a time when the threat posed by fentanyl, and the devastation it causes, was not appreciated to the extent that it is in 2025.

[33] In light of Mr. Ali’s criminal record and taking into account his age and condition and Duncan considerations and the other relevant factors which I have canvassed, I find that an appropriate global sentence for the drug charges is 10 years. I agree with the Crown that the sentence for the count eleven offence of breach of a weapons prohibition should be consecutive, and I impose a 6-month consecutive sentence for that offence. I allocate the sentences as follows:

a) Count one – cocaine – 6 years concurrent to count three.

b) Count two – methamphetamine – 6 years concurrent to count three.

c) Count three – fentanyl – 10 years.

d) Count four – oxycodone – 6 years concurrent to count three.

e) Count eleven – weapons prohibition – 6 months consecutive to count three.

f) Count twelve – benzodiazepine – 1 year concurrent to count three.

The 10-year fentanyl sentence on count three is 3,650 days. From this, I deduct 1,709 days as a credit for pre-trial custody. The result is that Mr. Ali shall serve a custodial sentence of 1,941 days on count three and 182 days on count eleven for a total custodial sentence of 2,123 days.

Released: March 27, 2025

Peter Sproat