Reasons for Sentence
Court File No.: CR-24-20000474-0000
Date: 2025-05-01
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Between:
His Majesty the King – and – Jamaal Lloyd Williams
Appearances:
Daniel Santoro, for the Crown
Nabeel Sheiban, for Jamaal Williams
Heard: April 10, 2025
Himel J.
Introduction
[1] Jamaal Lloyd Williams entered a plea of guilty to charges of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (“CDSA”), possession of a loaded restricted firearm without being the holder of a licence or registration permitting such possession contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code, and breach of a prohibition order made pursuant to s. 109(3) contrary to s. 117.01(1) of the Code. He had elected to be tried by a judge sitting alone.
[2] Mr. Williams confirmed that he was entering this plea voluntarily, that he understood that the plea was an admission of the essential elements of the offences, that he was aware that he was giving up his right to have a trial, that he understood the nature and consequences of the plea and that he was aware that this court was not bound by any agreement made between counsel regarding the sentence. He also confirmed that he is a Canadian citizen but that he recognizes there may be consequences which flow from a conviction on these offences.
[3] Counsel have provided their submissions on sentence. The following are my reasons for sentence.
Factual Background
[4] On October 6, 2010, Mr. Williams was prohibited from possessing firearms for life in accordance with s. 109(3) of the Code by Justice S. Ray of the Ontario Court of Justice as a result of a conviction for possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm. On April 13, 2017, Mr. Williams was prohibited from possessing firearms for life in accordance with s. 109(3) of the Code by Justice P. Newton of the Ontario Court of Justice as a result of a conviction for possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm.
[5] In mid-2023, members of the 55 Division Major Crime Unit entered into an investigation in relation to Jamaal Williams trafficking drugs within the City of Toronto. A search warrant was issued on October 26, 2023, authorizing the search of his residence, Unit 312, 106 Goodwood Park Court, Toronto, Ontario and a vehicle, a black Honda Accord.
[6] The Information to Obtain (ITO) for the search warrant relied on five confidential sources. All provided information that an individual with the street name “Focus” was dealing drugs out of a bar called Tommy’s located on the Danforth and identified Focus as Jamaal Williams, by a photograph. Confidential Informant #1 had provided reliable information five times in the past leading to seizures of drugs and firearms. Confidential Informant #2 had provided information twice in the past which led to arrests and charges. Confidential Source #4 had provided information once in the past which led to the seizure of drugs and a firearm. Police confirmed through surveillance that Mr. Williams was present at Tommy’s Bar on the Danforth.
[7] On October 26, 2023, members of 55 Division Major Crime Unit located and arrested Mr. Williams in the underground parking garage of his residence located at 106 Goodwood Park Court in the City of Toronto.
[8] During a search incident to arrest, police located in Mr. Williams’ right jacket pocket a loaded Springfield Armory Hellcat handgun with two of the three serial numbers on the firearm obliterated. The firearm contained one round of 9mm Luger ammunition in the chamber and 13 rounds of 9mm Luger ammunition in the magazine. A quantity of Canadian currency was located in his right jean pocket and a quantity of powder cocaine and crack cocaine as well as a functional digital scale were located in his left inside vest pocket. Mr. Williams’ residence keys were found attached to the belt loop of his pants.
[9] Police then attended the address of Unit 312, 106 Goodwood Park Court and executed a CDSA search warrant. Upon entering the apartment, they located a loaded Glock 19 handgun in the laundry hamper in Mr. Williams’ bedroom. The firearm was equipped with a laser attachment and had one round 9 mm Luger ammunition in the chamber and 10 rounds of 9 mm Luger ammunition in the magazine. Police searched the living room and located a black Herschel backpack on the floor. Upon searching the backpack, they found a large quantity of a substance believed to be cocaine in clear Ziploc bags contained within a black PC Optimum reusable shopping bag, a quantity of ammunition contained within a blue reusable Walmart shopping bag, a black firearm holster, a large weight scale with white powdery residue on top, additional functional digital scales and two high-capacity extended magazines. One of the high-capacity extended magazines contained 31 rounds of 9mm Luger ammunition and the other contained 12 rounds of 9mm Luger ammunition.
[10] In summary, the firearm located in the right jacket pocket was a Springfield Armory Hellcat handgun. The drugs located within the vest pocket were 17.54 grams of crack cocaine and 23.94 grams of powder cocaine. The amount of currency found on Mr. Williams’ person was $2,070.00. The firearm located in the laundry hamper was a Glock 19 handgun. The drugs found inside the backpack were 361.40 grams of powder cocaine. The ammunition in the backpack was 31 rounds of 9mm Luger ammunition in a high-capacity magazine, 12 rounds of 9 mm Luger ammunition in a high-capacity magazine, 38 rounds of loose 9 mm Luger ammunition, 4 rounds of .40 caliber Smith and Wesson green tip ammunition and the amount of currency found was $210.00.
[11] On the basis of these facts and the admission of the defence, I found Mr. Williams guilty of these three offences charged.
Evidence on the Sentencing Hearing
[12] Crown counsel, Mr. Santoro, filed an Agreed Statement of Facts which was marked as an exhibit. Mr. Santoro submitted Mr. Williams’ criminal record which dates back to 2001 in Youth Court where he was found guilty of theft under $5,000 and sentenced to 18 months of probation; on May 8, 2003, in Youth Court, he was found guilty of assault and sentenced to 18 months of probation; on June 27, 2003, in Youth Court, he was found guilty of possession of property obtained by crime over $5,000 and sentenced to 18 months of probation and on July 23, 2003, in Youth Court, he was found guilty of theft under $5,000 and sentenced to 18 months of probation.
[13] On March 7, 2005, he was convicted of theft under and obstruct peace officer and received time served of 17 days and 18 months of probation on each charge concurrent; on April 12, 2005, he was found guilty of theft under $5,000 and possession under $5,000 and sentenced to time served of 60 days and 2 years of probation. On March 18, 2009, he was convicted of traffic in Schedule I substance and sentenced to 3 months and 15 days in addition to 7 days of pre-sentence custody; on August 14, 2009, he was convicted of aggravated assault and received 1 day in addition to 175 days of pre-sentence custody and 2 years of probation; on October 6, 2010, he was convicted of trafficking in a Schedule I substance and possession of a Schedule I substance for the purpose of trafficking and possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm and sentenced to 41 months in addition to 5 months of pre-sentence custody. On September 20, 2016, he was convicted of fail to comply with recognizance and sentenced to 30 days concurrent with possession of a Schedule I substance for which he received 90 days. On April 13, 2017, he was convicted of possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm, possession of a firearm while prohibited, and possession of a prohibited or restricted weapon knowing its possession is unauthorized for which he received 4 years of imprisonment with credit for the equivalent of 378 days of pre‑sentence custody; for possession of a Schedule I substance for the purpose of trafficking, he received a 6-month sentence concurrent. For the offence of fail to comply with recognizance (2 counts) he received a $5 fine on each count.
[14] The defence subpoenaed a Lockdown Summary and records from the Toronto South Detention Centre and the Toronto East Detention Centre regarding Mr. Williams’ incarceration. Those records from the Toronto South Detention Centre, which reflect the period of October 27, 2023 to December 18, 2024, indicate that there were 60 lockdowns mainly due to staff shortages and that during lockdowns, inmates are given 30 minutes to complete phone/shower and in some cases, have access to the yard. There was some triple bunking. The records from the Toronto East Detention Centre indicate a total of 43 nights of triple bunking for the period of December 18, 2024 to February 17, 2025 and I am advised that this has continued.
[15] Mr. Sheiban also submitted an affidavit from Mr. Williams outlining his background and describing the conditions of his incarceration at the Toronto South Detention Centre and the Toronto East Detention Centre. In the affidavit, he included the impact of these conditions on him and his hopes for the future.
Positions of the Parties
[16] Crown counsel and defence counsel join in their submission to the court that an appropriate sentence in this case is a global sentence of approximately 7.25 years of imprisonment, with 6 years for the s. 95 offence, 4 years for the possession for the purpose of trafficking offence served concurrently and 8.5 months consecutive to that sentence for the breach of the prohibition order offence, which essentially leaves 5 years of imprisonment remaining to be served. Mr. Williams was arrested on October 26, 2023. As of the date of the sentencing submissions, he had served 17.5 months in pre-sentence custody. At 1.5:1, that would equate to 26.25 months in custody in accordance with R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26 and s. 719(3.1) of the Code. Counsel agree that this submission takes into account the harsh conditions at both the Toronto South Detention Centre and, in particular, the Toronto East Detention Centre where he has had triple bunking for 96 days and Mr. Williams has been and continues to sleep on the floor. Counsel also agree that this sentence takes into account any mitigating factors stemming from systemic racism. The Crown and the defence join in requesting the following ancillary orders: a s. 109 order for life, an order that a DNA sample be taken as this is a secondary designated offence pursuant to s. 487.051(3), and an order of forfeiture of the property seized which includes the guns, ammunition, drugs, and paraphernalia.
[17] The aggravating factors in this case are that the offences are extremely serious, and that Mr. Williams has a criminal record which includes possession of a loaded firearm and several possession of scheduled substances for the purpose of trafficking. The mitigating factors are that Mr. Williams has entered a guilty plea and has saved the administration of justice a significant amount of court time. Counsel further submits that in accordance with R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344, harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody have already been considered as a mitigating factor as have the factors of systemic racism outlined in R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680 in reaching this joint submission.
[18] Mr. Santoro submits that the appropriate range of sentence for a case of this kind is 7.5-8 years. Accordingly, a global sentence of 7.25 years bearing in mind the factors in this case with the credit for pre-sentence custody of 26.25 months, would leave a sentence to be served of 5 years or approximately 60 months of imprisonment.
[19] Crown counsel points out that the offences are serious, that Mr. Williams has a criminal record with prior possession for the purpose of trafficking and possession of a loaded firearm offences. In his submission, this joint position takes into account all of these factors.
Counsel for the defence, Mr. Sheiban, also submits that the sentence proposed is an appropriate one in light of Mr. Williams' personal circumstances including his difficult upbringing, the Morris factors and the harsh conditions of his pre-sentence custody.
Analysis and the Law
[20] Before turning to the specific circumstances of this case, I first consider the general sentencing principles which apply. The fundamental purpose of sentencing is set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code. It is to ensure respect for the law and to promote a just, peaceful, and safe society. The imposition of just sanctions requires that I consider the sentencing objectives referred to in this section. They are denunciation of unlawful conduct, deterrence of the offender and other persons from committing offences, separating offenders from society where necessary, rehabilitation of offenders, providing reparation for harm done to victims or to the community, promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and the community.
[21] A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. When imposing sentence, I am to consider certain factors which may increase or reduce the sentence because of aggravating or mitigating circumstances. The sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances. Where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentences should not be unduly long or harsh. The offender should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions are appropriate and all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances, should be considered for all offenders, particularly Aboriginal offenders.
[22] I now turn to the relevant jurisprudence concerning the offences in this case. The courts have repeatedly stated that the principles of denunciation and deterrence are paramount objectives for gun-related crimes: see R. v. Danvers, para 78. In R. v. Nur, 2015 SCC 15, the Supreme Court of Canada emphasized the objectives of denunciation and deterrence when sentencing persons found in possession of loaded firearms. While striking down the mandatory minimum sentence for possession of a firearm contrary to s. 95(2), the court upheld the sentence of 40 months for a 19-year-old first offender.
[23] In the decision of the Court of Appeal at 2013 ONCA 677, Doherty J.A. wrote at para. 206:
Individuals who have loaded, restricted or prohibited firearms that they have no business possessing anywhere or at any time, and who are engaged in criminal conduct or conduct that poses a danger to others should continue to receive exemplary sentences that will emphasize deterrence and denunciation.
[24] The Ontario Court of Appeal also stated in R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, para 71, that a three‑year sentence may be appropriate for “the vast majority of offences” under s. 95 but that various aggravating circumstances may raise the appropriate range of sentence. They would include where the offender has the gun on his person in a public place and attempts to discard it while escaping from the police and the presence of a criminal record for gun offences. In accordance with what the Supreme Court has said in R. v. Nur, the objectives of denunciation and deterrence are paramount. In the decision of R. v. Kawal, 2018 ONSC 7531, para 16, the court wrote:
The danger handguns pose to the community cannot be overstated. Word must circulate that appropriate and fit sentences for handguns will necessarily be severe and lengthy sentences.
In R. v. Sinclair, 2018 ONSC 7028, para 47, the court noted that unlawful possession of firearms is a menace to society and exemplary sentences are needed to denounce and deter such conduct.
[25] In decisions involving persons convicted of trafficking and possession for the purposes of trafficking in controlled substances, the courts have ruled that deterrence, and the protection of the public are of paramount consideration. The nature and quantity of the drug are relevant to the issue of sentencing. The nature of the transactions and the criminal antecedents of the offender are all relevant considerations. Whether there is a significant element of commercialism, the role of the offender and the circumstances of the offender are also relevant considerations. In passing sentence, the court may consider the well-being of younger but presently uncommitted potential users of drugs and in so doing, impose a sentence which emphasizes the protection of the public. The court will also look to the circumstances of the offender including whether the offender has an addiction to drugs. The jurisprudence has highlighted that cocaine is a dangerous and addictive drug.
[26] Sentences for the offence of fail to comply with recognizance or breach of prohibition order are typically ordered to be served consecutively to any substantive offences in order to demonstrate that the breach is different from the substantive offence and engages different societal interests: see R. v. Maddigan, 2009 ONCA 269, para 1. In R. v. Husband, McKelvey J. wrote at para. 43 concerning a breach of a s. 109 prohibition order:
The sentence is consecutive, consistent with the principle that an intentional violation of an unequivocal court order requires some effective additional sanction. Offenders must understand that court orders governing their conduct must be followed or there will be real consequences for their violation.
The Factor of Systemic Racism
[27] In Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, the court considered the factor where an accused has experienced anti-Black racism but said at para. 97:
There must, however, be some connection between the overt and systemic racism identified in the community and the circumstances or events that are said to explain or mitigate the criminal conduct in issue.
This would involve the background of the offender and his exposure to gun violence as well as being subject to anti-Black racism and the offences he has committed. Where the past hardship including the factor of anti-Black racism is connected to the criminal activity, that is a relevant mitigating factor to be taken into account. At paras. 79, and 81, the Ontario Court of Appeal highlighted the principles of denunciation, deterrence, protection of society and rehabilitation and the role of mitigating personal circumstances and the offender’s prospects for rehabilitation. The court took into account the matter of anti-Black racism as a relevant consideration. The court also emphasized the considerable discretion given to sentencing judges to decide how best to blend the various legitimate objectives of sentencing.
The Issue of Credit for Harsh Pre-Sentence Conditions in the Jail
[28] In deciding whether enhanced credit is appropriate for harsh conditions in the jail during pre-sentence custody, the court will consider the conditions of the presentence incarceration and the impact of those conditions on the accused: see R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONSC 653, para 6. In R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344, paras 50-53, Justice Doherty wrote at para. 52:
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.
[29] In the case before me, the information concerning the harsh conditions is referenced from the lockdown records of the jail. Mr. Williams submitted an affidavit outlining the impact of such conditions on him.
[30] There is considerable jurisprudence on the impact of harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody and courts have expressed concern about the number of lockdown days and the conditions of incarceration at the Toronto South Detention Centre in particular: see R. v. Persad, 2020 ONSC 188; R. v. Spicher, 2020 ONCJ 340, paras 59-68; R. v. Jama, 2021 ONSC 4871, paras 51, 53, 55.
[31] In the case at bar, counsel have considered the issue of credit for harsh pre‑sentence conditions in the jail in the formulation of the joint submission.
Decision
[32] Sentencing involves the exercise of discretion and requires the sentencing judge to consider the individual circumstances of the offender, the circumstances of the offence and the need for the sentence to meet the sentencing objectives outlined by Parliament. The goal of sentencing is to impose a just and fit sentence, responsive to the facts of the individual offender and the particular circumstances of the commission of the offence: see R. v. Wust, 2000 SCC 18, para 44.
[33] In considering both the circumstances of the offence and the circumstances of this offender, I consider the relevant aggravating and mitigating circumstances. I must also consider that like offenders should be treated alike. I consider the following circumstances to be relevant in the case of Mr. Williams.
[34] Mr. Williams is 37 years old and was born on September 1, 1987. He was raised by his mother. His father was 15 years old when he was born, and his mother was 18 years old. He grew up in the Scarborough area and lived in government housing. He had half-siblings from each of his father and mother. Mr. Williams has an 18-year-old daughter and a 10-year-old daughter. Defence counsel submitted to the court that he was carded by police frequently.
[35] After he was released from custody on parole in December 2018, Mr. Williams worked at GFL Environmental on Arrow Road as a line worker. He worked there from January to April of 2019. It was extremely difficult for him to commute from the half-way house at Shuter and Jarvis Streets because, in order to start work at 7:00 a.m., he had to leave his house at 3:30 a.m. to get there on time. He then secured employment at Boston Pizza in downtown Toronto as a line cook but was let go during the COVID-19 pandemic. While he worked there again in 2022, he left because of a conflict with another employee. From 2022 on, he was not able to find employment.
[36] Mr. Williams says that his life went into a downward spiral in 2023. He had one brother from his father’s side, Shaheed Brown, who died from a drug overdose in February 2023. He has two siblings from his mother’s side of the family. Mr. Williams’ father, Headley Brown, died in June 2023 while he was in the Niagara Detention Centre.
[37] Following Mr. Williams’ arrest on these charges, he did not apply for bail because he did not have a surety or a plan to propose. He did well at the Toronto South Detention Centre although there were 60 days of lockdowns during the time he was there, which meant limited time on the phone or to have a shower. Because of good conduct, he was moved to Tier 4, the lowest security area at the TSDC and had no misconducts. However, he was transferred to the Toronto East Detention Centre on December 18, 2024. He has had a difficult time there because of extensive triple bunking which means that he sleeps on the floor.
[38] Mr. Williams says he looks forward to being transferred to the penitentiary where he will not be triple bunked, he will have opportunities for programming, and he can enhance his skills. Mr. Williams says that he has the support of his girlfriend and his mother.
[39] With respect to the circumstances of the offences, the offences were possession of a loaded restricted weapon without being the holder of a licence or registration, possession of a very large quantity of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and breach of a prohibition order. He was already on a prohibition order for life not to possess any weapons.
[40] In terms of mitigating factors, Mr. Williams pleaded guilty and has demonstrated remorse, thus taking responsibility for his actions. He has experienced very harsh conditions while in custody, particularly at the Toronto East Detention Centre where he has been triple bunked for the majority of the time. This is a mitigating factor that is taken into account in reaching the overall sentence: see R. v. Marshall. While in custody, in the past, Mr. Williams completed high school and has taken a welding course. He hopes to pursue welding and cooking when he is incarcerated at the penitentiary.
[41] The aggravating factors are that the offences involved possession of a gun that was a fully loaded weapon which posed a significant danger, and this type of offence is what the Supreme Court of Canada considered to be at the more significant spectrum of firearm related offences. Mr. Williams did not have a firearm licence. His possession of the gun was in connection with other criminal activity, that is, possession of a substantial amount of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. Clearly, he was in possession of the drugs for commercial reasons given the guns, money and paraphernalia located as well in his residence. These are serious crimes. He was already on a prohibition order for life when he was in possession of a gun. He has a criminal record dating back several years and including gun and drug offences.
[42] Sentences for trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking in dangerous substances must emphasize that general deterrence and denunciation are of paramount concern. The effect of the drug is a relevant consideration, and the courts view the negative impact of illicit drugs on users and on society. Each case must be considered in light of its circumstances and the aggravating and mitigating factors. The accused’s prospects for rehabilitation as well as the other sentencing objectives must also be considered.
[43] In the case at bar, there are many factors in mitigation including that Mr. Williams pleaded guilty to the charges and has demonstrated remorse. He is taking responsibility for his actions. He has saved valuable court resources at a time when resources are scarce because of the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. Mr. Williams became involved in possessing drugs for the purpose of trafficking clearly for commercial reasons as demonstrated by the amounts, the cutting agents, the paraphernalia and the amount of currency found in his apartment. He has a related criminal record. The circumstances of his disadvantaged background related to anti-Black racism are a mitigating factor that must be considered.
[44] I have considered the impact of systemic racism on his behaviour and the connection to the criminal activity with which he was involved. That is a relevant factor in my view in terms of the violence to which he was exposed involving his step-brother and his father.
[45] As the Court of Appeal has said in Morris, sentencing involves a blending of the objectives set out in s. 718 of the Code and the circumstances of the offender and the offences. In considering all the mitigating and aggravating circumstances including the impact of systemic racism on Mr. Williams, I have determined that a global sentence of 7.25 years is appropriate. It is in keeping with the jurisprudence and recognizes that a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances: see s. 718.2(b) of the Code.
[46] In determining the appropriate sentence, I consider sentencing principles outlined in s. 718 of the Code and the circumstances of the offender and the offences. I also consider the joint submission of experienced counsel. I am very mindful of the words of Justice Moldaver in R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, para 41, where he explained that there is good reason for acceding to the joint submissions of counsel as both the accused and Crown counsel rely on joint submissions for certainty in the resolution of a case. Joint submissions play a vital role in contributing to the administration of justice and “Without them, our justice system would be brought to its knees, and eventually collapse under its own weight”: at para. 41. In my view, this joint submission is made by experienced counsel who have arrived at a resolution which is fair and consistent with the public interest, and I endorse it.
[47] Accordingly, I impose a global sentence of 7.25 years with the following breakdown: for the s. 95 offence, the sentence is 6 years; for the s. 5(2) offence under the CDSA, the sentence is 4 years served concurrently and for the breach of a prohibition order, the sentence is 1.25 years for this offence to be served consecutively. This is a global sentence of 7.25 years. Mr. Williams has been in custody since his arrest on October 26, 2023, that is, approximately, 18 months. In accordance with R. v. Summers, at 1.5:1, this would equal 27 months. The sentence of 7.25 years equals 87 months in total. This leaves a balance to serve of 60 months or 5 years remaining. I further make an order under s. 109 prohibiting Mr. Williams from possessing any weapon as defined by the Criminal Code for life. There will be an order that a sample of his DNA shall be taken in accordance with s. 487.051. Finally, there will be an order of forfeiture of the gun, ammunition, drugs, and paraphernalia.
Catherine Himel
Released: May 01, 2025