Reasons for Sentence

Court File No.: CR-24-90000023-0000
Date: 2025-07-08
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Between:
His Majesty the King
-and-
Michael Alexander Llanos

Appearances:
I. Erdei, for the Crown
S. Rinas, for Mr. Llanos
Heard: June 23, 2025
Judge: J. M. Barrett

Introduction

[1] Following a six-day judge-alone trial, on April 11, 2025, Mr. Llanos was found guilty of three drug offences, all contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (“CDSA”), S.C. 1996, c. 19: possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking (Count 1); possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking (Count 2); and possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking (Count 3). In addition, Mr. Llanos was found guilty of possession of brass knuckles—a prohibited weapon—contrary to s. 91(2) of the Criminal Code (Count 4).

[2] A Pre-Sentence Report was ordered. Mr. Llanos is now before me for sentencing.

[3] Crown counsel submits that the appropriate sentence is a global one of seven years’ imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody. Counsel for Mr. Llanos submits that the appropriate sentence is a global sentence of four years, less credit for pre-sentence custody, in addition to a one-year “Duncan” credit to account for the harsh conditions experienced by Mr. Llanos during his pre-sentence custody: R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754, at para. 6.

[4] To date, Mr. Llanos has been in custody for 655 days. The parties agree that pursuant to s. 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code, and the principles set out in R. v. Summers, 2013 ONCA 147, aff’d 2014 SCC 26, Mr. Llanos is entitled to the standard 1.5 credit for each of these days. I calculate this to be the equivalent of 984 days or 2 years and 8.5 months.[^1] Later in these reasons, I will provide a further breakdown of the pre-sentence custody and address the issue of credit for harsh conditions experienced during some periods of Mr. Llanos’ pre-sentence custody.

[5] The ancillary orders sought by counsel for the Crown are not opposed and therefore will be granted, namely: a lifetime weapons prohibition order; a DNA order; and an order of forfeiture.

[6] After considering the facts of the case, Mr. Llanos’ personal background, and the relevant legal principles, I find that the appropriate sentence is 5.5 years’ imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

[7] What follows are my reasons.

The Offences

[8] The details of the offences are set out in my Reasons for Judgment, R. v. Llanos, 2025 ONSC 2131.

[9] All charges stemmed from the seizure of drugs and brass knuckles found in Mr. Llanos’ apartment during a warranted search by the police on December 26, 2022. Specifically, the police seized: 26.51 grams of fentanyl; 5.13 grams of cocaine; 7.57 grams of crystal methamphetamine; and two sets of brass knuckles.

[10] In my Reasons for Judgment, Mr. Llanos was found not guilty of possessing one set of brass knuckles, and 0.07 grams of cocaine found in a prescription bottle in the name of Kyla Joyner—Mr. Llanos’ partner who was also charged, but has since died of a drug overdose. At trial, there was expert evidence that the drugs seized were worth between $3,970.10 to $7,582.80, depending on how they were sold.

The Sentencing Hearing

Victim Impact Statement – Challenge to its Admissibility

[11] At the sentencing hearing, the Crown sought to tender a victim impact statement written by Kyla Joyner’s mother, Barbara Stock. The defence opposed the filing of this statement on grounds that: (i) Ms. Stock did not fall within the term “victim” as defined in s. 2 of the Criminal Code; and (ii) the contents of the statement went beyond what is permitted under s. 722(1) of the Criminal Code. After reviewing Ms. Stock’s statement and hearing submissions, I found that Ms. Stock’s statement was inadmissible.

[12] First, I agree that Ms. Stock does not fall within the term “victim” as that term is defined in s. 2 of the Criminal Code. I recognize the immense loss to Ms. Stock and Alana Joyner due to Kyla Joyner’s death. The loss of a daughter and sister at such a young age and under such tragic circumstances is not something that any family should experience. Mr. Llanos, however, is not charged with any offence related to the death of Kyla Joyner. The sentencing hearing is restricted to issues relevant to determining the appropriate sentence for Mr. Llanos being in possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking on December 26, 2022; offences for which Kyla Joyner was a co-accused. In fact, it was Kyla Joyner’s threatening text messages to her sister—with photographs of Kyla pointing a handgun—that provided the grounds for the warranted search of the residence Kyla shared with Mr. Llanos. The obvious harm to Kyla’s family from her subsequent overdose death is not “as a result of” the offences for which Mr. Llanos is being sentenced as is required by s. 722(1) of the Criminal Code.

[13] Even if I am wrong, s. 722(8) of the Criminal Code states that the Court shall take into account the portions of a victim impact statement it considers relevant but disregard any other portion. Much of Ms. Stock’s statement is inadmissible. Ms. Stock blames Mr. Llanos for her daughter’s death. Because of the lifetime of loss flowing from her daughter’s death, Ms. Stock asks that the sentence imposed deprive Mr. Llanos of his freedom. The governing jurisprudence is clear that comments concerning the length of sentence are inappropriate and must be either excised or ignored: R. v. Berner, 2013 BCCA 188; R. v. Bremner, 2000 BCCA 345.

Pre-Sentence Report – Challenge to its Objectivity

[14] At the sentencing hearing, the author of the Pre-Sentence Report, Ms. Yiksum Chan, testified. Ms. Chan was subpoenaed by the Crown. The Crown sought to demonstrate that Ms. Chan failed in her professional duty to prepare a report that was thorough, fair, and objective: R. v. Junkert, 2010 ONCA 549, paras 59-60; R. v. Groves-Bennett, 2021 ONSC 3178. Having considered Ms. Chan’s testimony, I am satisfied that while Ms. Chan believed her report to be fair and objective, it is not. Much of its content is a one-sided account based on Mr. Llanos’ perspective as told by him and his supporters. This lack of objectivity, however, was not intentional. Rather, Ms. Chan sought the input of the police but was unsuccessful in her efforts. With 18 years of experience writing Pre-Sentence Reports, Ms. Chan is an experienced professional who understands her duty to the court. During her testimony, Ms. Chan recognized the shortcomings of her report.

[15] Ms. Chan testified that her report was based solely on information she sourced in probation records and from speaking with Mr. Llanos, Mr. Llanos’ mother, his sister, and Mr. Llanos’ former co-worker who is also his friend. Ms. Chan attempted to speak with the officers involved in the case but neither responded to her emails. Nor did Ms. Chan speak with any of Mr. Llanos’ children, the mother of his children, or the family of his former partner, Ms. Kyla Joyner.

[16] Ms. Chan was challenged on several aspects of the “Assessment” section of her Report found at pages 6 and 7 of the Pre-Sentence Report. Ms. Chan’s testimony on the challenged excerpts may be summarized as follows:

• Ms. Chan wrote, “As a child, [Mr. Llanos] witnessed domestic violence and took on the role of protector for his mother at a young age.” During cross-examination, Ms. Chan agreed that this was based on Mr. Llanos’ mother who reported that Mr. Llanos defended her once when he was twelve years old. However, Mr. Llanos himself denied any history of domestic violence and his mother reported that other than the one incident, the abuse never occurred in front of the children.

• Ms. Chan wrote, “Academically, he struggled and suspected he had a learning disability.” During cross-examination, Ms. Chan agreed that probation records showed that Mr. Llanos was expelled several times during grade 9 due to fighting. These expulsions are referenced at page 5 of the Pre-Sentence Report, but Ms. Chan agreed her Assessment did not mention the expulsions as a possible alternative explanation for why Mr. Llanos ended his schooling when he was fourteen.

• Ms. Chan wrote that Mr. Llanos had a “strong work ethic” and had “years of strenuous labour”. During cross-examination, Ms. Chan testified that this aspect of her assessment relied on information provided by Zal Presswalla whom she knew to be a friend and former co-worker of Mr. Llanos. At page 5 of her report, Ms. Chan noted that Mr. Presswalla was both a co-worker and a former employer of Mr. Llanos who was “praising [of] his work ethic, efficiency, and problem-solving skills”. During cross-examination, Ms. Chan testified that she never inquired of Mr. Presswalla’s age. Ms. Chan was unaware that at the time Mr. Llanos worked with Mr. Presswalla, their ages were 30 and 17 years respectively.

• Ms. Chan wrote that Mr. Llanos had “a strong commitment to his family”. Ms. Chan also described Mr. Llanos’ relationship with his “late partner” (i.e., Kyla Joyner) as being “a relationship characterized by mutual substance use, instability, and domestic violence”. Ms. Chan agreed that the details of Mr. Llanos’ relationships with the mother of his children and Kyla Joyner as set out at page 4 of her Report were sourced from Mr. Llanos, his mother, and his sister. Ms. Chan agreed that she did not speak with any of Mr. Llanos’ three children, the mother of his children, nor the family of his late partner, Kyla Joyner. Ms. Chan testified that she was unaware that when Mr. Llanos’ relationship with Kyla began, he was a 34-year-old father of three and Kyla was a 17-year-old runaway. Ms. Chan was also unaware that after Mr. Llanos attended the Partner Abuse Response Program as part of his 2021 sentence for assaulting Kyla, he sent Kyla abusive text messages.

[17] Ms. Chan testified that her primary focus in writing the Report was determining whether Mr. Llanos was suitable for community supervision. In her opinion, he is a suitable candidate as past probation records showed he has responded well and, Mr. Llanos is someone who will benefit from structure and programming.

Evidence Re: Harsh Conditions of Pre-Sentence Custody

[18] Mr. Llanos testified at the sentencing hearing about the conditions of his incarceration in the weeks immediately preceding the hearing which were not covered by the institutional records filed. Mr. Llanos testified that from June 11 to June 23, 2025, he had been in lockdown for 22 hours a day. The lockdown was to ensure his safety given his medical issues and his prior injury by another inmate. Prior to June 11, 2025, Mr. Llanos was in protective custody but had one cell mate and was not locked down. Mr. Llanos testified about the mental and physical impact of his pre-sentence custody, particularly during lockdown days. Mr. Llanos testified that he sees a psychologist at the jail and is taking prescribed medication for anxiety. He has also had two hospitalizations due to medical issues.

[19] Mr. Llanos also spent some time triple bunked when he first went to the Toronto South Detention Centre (“TSDC”). While triple-bunked, he was on the floor.

[20] During cross-examination, Mr. Llanos agreed that he has misconduct findings from October 12, 2024, November 13, 2024, December 7, 2024 and April 25, 2025. The institutional records attribute these incidents to physical altercations. During his testimony, Mr. Llanos explained that they were all related to incidents where he was defending himself. Mr. Llanos testified that if the incidents were actual assaults, the police would have been called and criminal charges laid.

[21] At the sentencing hearing, defence counsel filed records from the TSDC, the Toronto East Detention Centre (“TEDC”), and Maplehurst Correctional Complex (“Maplehurst”). A medical note from Scarborough Health Network, dated January 16, 2025, was also filed. These records may be summarized as follows:

• Mr. Llanos was hospitalized from August 25, 2024, to September 22, 2024, and again from January 17 to 29, 2025 (a total of 41 nights). A medical note dated January 16, 2025, indicates that Mr. Llanos was likely to need “long term antibiotics” but that TEDC was unable to “support IV of any kind, only intramuscular”. The medical note indicates that Mr. Llanos had “septic arthritis” and was admitted for “bacteremia”.

• Most of Mr. Llanos’ pre-sentence custody has been at the TEDC. Of the total 482 nights at the TEDC (based on records ending May 19, 2025), Mr. Llanos was subject to 38 partial lockdowns, three all day lockdowns, and 102 nights of triple bunking.

• Mr. Llanos was incarcerated at Maplehurst from February 6, 2025 to May 3, 2025, during which time there were seven full lockdowns and one partial lockdown. He was also triple bunked for one day. On May 3, 2025, Mr. Llanos was transferred to the TEDC where he has remained much of the time in protective custody or in the medical infirmary.

• While at the TSDC (November 2024 and December 2024), Mr. Llanos was subject to three full lockdowns, 25 partial lockdowns, and no triple bunking.

[22] At the sentencing hearing, counsel agreed that Mr. Llanos was in custody for the following periods:

• December 26 to December 28, 2022 (two days): Mr. Llanos was arrested on the index charges on December 26, 2022, and released on bail on December 28, 2022;
• April 13 to May 10, 2023 (28 days): Mr. Llanos was arrested on charges prosecuted by the provincial Crown and released on bail on May 10, 2023;[^2]
• October 22, 2023 to present (625 days): Mr. Llanos was arrested on charges that he breached the non-communication term of his release. All prior releases were revoked, and Mr. Llanos was ordered detained in custody.

Other Evidence

Circumstances of the Offender

[23] Mr. Llanos was born on December 2, 1982, in Panama City, Panama. At the time of the offence, he was 40 years old. He is now 42 years old. He is a Canadian citizen.

[24] Mr. Llanos has a criminal record. His record consists of the following prior convictions:

• 2019-09-17 Toronto, Ontario
  (1) Break, Enter and Commit Robbery
  (2) Assault CBH
  (1) 135 days and Probation 1 year and Discretionary weapons prohibition sec 110, for 10 years
  (2) 135 days concurrent

• 2019-12-16 Salaberry de Valleyfield, QC
  Possession or Illegal Sale of Tobacco Products
  100 days and 365 days of probation

• 2021-06-10 Toronto, Ontario
  (1) Assault
  (2) Assault
  (1) Suspended sentence and Probation 18 months (30 days Pre-Sentence Custody) and Discretionary weapons prohibition for 5 years
  (2) Suspended sentence and Probation 18 months (30 days Pre-Sentence Custody) and Discretionary weapons prohibition for 5 years

• 2022-03-09 Toronto
  Fail to Comply with Order sec 145(5)(a)
  Conditional Discharge and Probation 18 months

[25] Mr. Llanos’ two convictions for assault in June 2021, relate to assaults on Kyla Joyner.[^3]

[26] While many aspects of the Pre-Sentence Report were challenged, as written, the Report provides the following information about Mr. Llanos:

• Mr. Llanos moved to Canada as a child with his parents and elder sister from Panama. He is fluent in both Spanish and English.
• Mr. Llanos’ parents separated when he was about twelve or thirteen years old. His father was physically abusive.
• Mr. Llanos did not complete high school. Mr. Llanos reported that he completed grade 11. However, his mother told Ms. Chan that Mr. Llanos stopped schooling after completing grade 9, when he left to learn a trade from his father at fourteen years of age. Ministry records show several expulsions due to fighting during Grade 9.
• After leaving school, Mr. Llanos worked for 20 years as a labourer. His longest period of employment was for 10 years with a moving company. A co-worker, Zal Presswalla, described Mr. Llanos as having a strong work ethic whose hard work led to various health issues that have prevented Mr. Llanos from maintaining regular work for the past decade.
• Mr. Llanos has had two back surgeries and was recently hospitalized several times due to a staph infection between January 2025 to March 2025.
• Mr. Llanos has three children: a 22-year-old son and daughter born eight months apart, and a 16-year-old son. He became a father when he was 19 years old. He is now a grandfather to his daughter’s three-year-old child. Mr. Llanos was with the mother of his children for 18 years. This relationship ended in 2018, after Mr. Llanos met Kyla Joyner.
• Mr. Llanos is described as a responsible father, and a loving and dependable son and brother.
• Mr. Llanos reported that his substance abuse began after he met Ms. Joyner. It progressed to the use of fentanyl and eight Percocets on a daily basis.
• Mr. Llanos has abstained from substance use while incarcerated and hopes to maintain his sobriety.
• Mr. Llanos reported past suicide attempts due to grief over Ms. Joyner’s death.
• During past probationary periods, Mr. Llanos engaged positively in support programs.

[27] At the sentencing hearing, Mr. Llanos exercised his statutory right of allocution as set out in s. 726 of the Criminal Code. Mr. Llanos expressed his remorse for Kyla Joyner’s death and apologized to Kyla’s mother and sister who were present at the sentencing hearing. Mr. Llanos expressed regret for the many bad decisions he has made and the impact of his conduct on others.

Governing Legal Principles

[28] The principles of sentencing are set out in ss. 718, 718.1 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code. I am guided by those principles. The most fundamental principle is that of proportionality which requires that all sentences be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender: s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code; R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, para 53.

[29] Section 718.2 of the Criminal Code further directs sentencing courts to consider a number of other statutory principles, including: the need to increase or reduce the sentence to account for any mitigating or aggravating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender; the need for parity; and the need for restraint when imposing imprisonment. A sentencing court must consider all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances.

Case Law – Range of Sentence

[30] Fentanyl, cocaine and crystal methamphetamine are all Schedule I substances. Subsection 5(3) of the CDSA provides for a maximum penalty of life imprisonment for possessing a Schedule I substance for the purpose of trafficking.

[31] Counsel agree that the applicable range of sentence is four to eight years’ imprisonment. However, where on that range this case falls is very much disputed.

[32] The Crown argues that a sentence at the upper end of the range is appropriate given the circumstances of this case, including that Mr. Llanos is a “mid-level” trafficker. In support of this position, the Crown relied on the following cases: R. v. Moore, 2025 ONCA 47; R. v. Spiro Rusha, 2025 ONSC 717; R. v. Pauze, 2024 ONSC 6318; R. v. Buksinski, 2024 ONCJ 147; R. v. Campbell, 2022 ONCA 666, aff’d 2024 SCC 42; R. v. Davison, 2021 ONCJ 492; R. v. Brennan, 2020 ONCJ 128; R. v. Piri, 2020 ONSC 920; R. v. Ribble, 2019 ONCJ 640; R. v. Cinelli, 2018 ONSC 4983; R. v. Shevalier, [2017] O.J. No. 7247 (Ont. C.J.); R. v. Moore, 2017 ONCJ 801; and R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46. The cases cited by the Crown involve the possession of between 14 to 30 grams of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking. The Crown provided a helpful sentencing chart (see Appendix “A”).

[33] Counsel for Mr. Llanos argues that a sentence at the bottom end of the range is appropriate having regard to the circumstances of this case, including that Mr. Llanos falls into the category of an addicted “street-level” trafficker. In arguing for a sentence of four years, Counsel for Mr. Llanos relied on the following cases: R. v. Barham, 2014 ONCA 797; R. v. Campbell, 2024 ONSC 2220; R. v. Shaik and Tanoli, 2024 ONSC 774; R. v. El-Azrak, 2023 ONCA 440, para 151; and R. v. Hillier, 2021 ONCJ 634.

[34] I found the decision of Campbell ONSC particularly helpful for its review of the sentencing range for the offence of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking. In that case, Boswell J. found the range for “mid-level amounts” to be five to eight years’ imprisonment. Boswell J. observed that the sentencing range for trafficking in smaller amounts was not yet settled and found that the appropriate range for “straddle cases” was in the range of four to five years: see paras. 51, 78. In that case, the 22-year-old first-offender was employed, had a life partner, and was the father of an infant child. Boswell J. concluded that the 109 tablets of fentanyl straddled between “low-level” and “mid-level”. In Campbell ONSC, a sentence of three years’ imprisonment was imposed for the offence of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking. Boswell J. found that this sentence fell below the low end of the appropriate range but was appropriate given the many mitigating factors in that case, including the extensive rehabilitative efforts by Mr. Campbell to successfully turn his life around.

Analysis

[35] Determining a fit sentence is a highly individualized exercise driven by the facts of each case. In this case, the gravity of the offence and Mr. Llanos’ degree of responsibility are significant. Most concerning is the 26.51 grams of fentanyl that was seized.

[36] The mitigating factors in this case are:

i. Mr. Llanos has struggled with his own addiction issues. That said, his drug trafficking was not to feed his addiction.
ii. Mr. Llanos has a number of medical issues.
iii. Mr. Llanos has the support of his mother and sister.
iv. Mr. Llanos responded well during past periods of supervision, showing that he has rehabilitative potential. In fact, the institutional records support Mr. Llanos’ account that he has made positive efforts to address his own history of substance use.
v. The conditions of Mr. Llanos’ incarceration have been harsh (e.g., 102 nights of triple bunking and the jail’s inability to address his medical need for IV antibiotics). I am satisfied that a Duncan credit is appropriate in this case.[^4]

[37] While Mr. Llanos is entitled to maintain his innocence and is entitled to have a trial, there is no evidence of any remorse. This is not an aggravating factor. Rather, it is the absence of a potential mitigating factor: R. v. Reeve, 2020 ONCA 381, para 12; R. v. F.A., 2022 ONSC 5696, para 48, citing R. v. Kozy.

[38] The aggravating factors in this case are the nature and quantity of the fentanyl possessed (26.51 grams), the possession of other controlled substances, and Mr. Llanos’ criminal record. Further aggravating is the evidence at trial which showed Mr. Llanos supplied Kyla Joyner with drugs despite knowing of her long history of drug addiction. While I agree with counsel for Mr. Llanos, that trafficking fentanyl is inherently dangerous such that all users are vulnerable, in my view, this does not preclude the court from considering Kyla Joyner’s particular vulnerability. At trial, it was an agreed fact that Kyla Joyner was 17 years old when she and Mr. Llanos started their relationship. In contrast, Mr. Llanos was a 34-year-old father of three. It was further admitted that Mr. Llanos knew of Kyla Joyner’s long history of drug addiction. Mr. Llanos not only supplied Ms. Joyner with drugs but exploited her addiction as one aspect of their abusive relationship.

[39] In the recent decision of R. v. Campbell, 2024 SCC 42, the Supreme Court of Canada highlighted the grave risk that fentanyl poses to public safety. As stated by Jamal J., for a majority of the Court, at para. 132:

Fentanyl is a highly addictive and extremely powerful opioid pain reliever and sedative intended to be administered in medical settings. It is estimated to be up to 100 times more potent than morphine and about 25 to 50 times more potent than heroin. A lethal dose can be less than two milligrams, or about the size of a single grain of salt. Fentanyl is also much cheaper than other drugs, and so drug dealers will often mix small amounts of it with other drugs to create a cheaper product with similar effects, thus significantly increasing their profits. Because fentanyl is visually indistinguishable from other hard drugs, it exposes vulnerable drug users to the risk of serious harm, including brain damage, organ damage, coma, and death.

[40] The risk of fatality with doses of less than two milligrams speaks to the gravity of the over 26 grams in Mr. Llanos’ possession. Minimal amounts of fentanyl can and do cause death. As stated by Fairburn, A.C.J.O., for the Court of Appeal for Ontario, in El-Azrak, at para. 151, “even the smallest amount of fentanyl can kill. And it does, over and over and over again.” The dire risks associated with fentanyl and its prevalence in our society call for denunciatory sentences, even for simple possession. The sentences communicate a strong message of denunciation and general deterrence in an attempt to rid our society of this insidious drug. Indeed, even first offenders can expect a penitentiary sentence: R. v. Loor, 2017 ONCA 696, para 50. Accepting that 0.02 grams of fentanyl is potentially fatal, the 26.51 grams of fentanyl in Mr. Llanos’ possession could kill over thirteen hundred people. That puts into perspective the gravity of Mr. Llanos’ offence.

[41] The need for parity is inherent in the principle of proportionality. Parity requires that similar offenders who commit similar offences in similar circumstances should receive similar sentences: s. 718.2(b), Criminal Code; R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, para 31. In assessing proportionality and parity, I have considered all of the cases filed by counsel for the Crown and defence.

[42] I find that Mr. Llanos was a mid-level trafficker of fentanyl. The possession of over 26 grams of fentanyl is significant when one considers the minimal amounts in which it is sold. The number of dime bags found at Mr. Llanos’ residence containing quantities of fentanyl, cocaine or crystal methamphetamine ranging from 0.08 to 0.44 grams, in addition to the multiple substances found in the various containers; as well as the debt lists and drug paraphernalia, demonstrates an on-going organized trafficking operation. While I have no doubt that Mr. Llanos was also a user, his conduct was profit-driven, not addiction driven. He was not an addicted street-level trafficker. Cases involving similar amounts of fentanyl have been regarded as “mid-level” trafficking: e.g., Cinelli; Hillier; Campbell ONCA; Davison. As found by Boswell J., in Campbell ONSC, the applicable range for mid-level trafficking is five to eight years’ imprisonment.

[43] As this will be Mr. Llanos’ first penitentiary sentence, restraint is required. The principle of restraint requires the imposition of the least intrusive sentence and the shortest duration necessary to achieve a just, fit, and proportionate sentence: see R. v. Hamilton, paras 95-96; R. v. Borde, para 36. In my view, the shortest duration necessary to achieve a just, fit and proportionate sentence is 5.5 years’ imprisonment. This sentence reflects the mitigating impact of the harsh conditions of Mr. Llanos’ pre-sentence custody.

Disposition

[44] The warrant of committal will reflect the following:

• Count 1 (Possession of Cocaine for the Purpose of Trafficking): 5 months’ imprisonment, concurrent to the sentence on count 2.
• Count 2 (Possession of Fentanyl for the Purpose of Trafficking): 5.5 years’ imprisonment less credit for the equivalent of two years and 8.5 months days of pre-sentence custody. This leaves a further 33.5 months remaining on his sentence.
• Count 3 (Possession of Methamphetamine for the Purpose of Trafficking): 5 months’ imprisonment concurrent.
• Count 4 (Possession of a Prohibited Weapon, a Restricted Weapon, or a Prohibited Device, to wit brass knuckles): 3 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.

[45] In addition, the following ancillary orders will be made:

(i) An order of forfeiture;
(ii) Pursuant to s. 487.051(3) of the Criminal Code, Mr. Llanos is ordered to provide samples of bodily substances as reasonably required for purposes of forensic DNA analysis.
(iii) Pursuant to s. 109(3) of the Criminal Code, Mr. Llanos is prohibited from possessing any weapons for life.

J. M. Barrett
Released: July 8, 2025

[^1]: This calculation adopts the approach in R. v. Shaikh, 2019 ONCA 895, at footnote 2 wherein the total number of days was divided by 30.417.

[^2]: At the sentencing hearing, the Crown argued that Mr. Llanos was not entitled to a Summers credit for these 28 days as his detention was not “as a result of the offence” for which he is now being sentenced. In my view, there is a sufficient connection, as the index offences likely factored into the fact that he was detained for 28 days prior to release: R. v. Barnett, 2017 ONCA 897.

[^3]: At the sentencing hearing, the Crown sought to admit a video recording of the assault to rebut what the Crown alleged was an attempt by Mr. Llanos to minimize his prior conviction for assaulting Kyla Joyner. In particular, at page 4 of the Pre-Sentence Report, Ms. Chan wrote that Mr. Llanos “explained that his 2021 guilty plea to domestic offences was intended to strengthen their relationship”. The request to admit the video recording was denied for several reasons, including: (i) it was unknown whether the video was admitted as part of Mr. Llanos’ guilty plea; (ii) Counsel for Mr. Llanos advised that he had not seen the video recording; and (iii) regardless of any issues concerning the authenticity of the recording, the video recording did not negate Mr. Llanos’ stated motive for pleading guilty.

[^4]: Counsel for the Crown accepted that the conditions of some of Mr. Llanos’ pre-sentence custody were harsh. I decline the request to reduce Mr. Llanos’ sentence by one year on account of the harsh conditions as was done in R. v. Shaik and Tanoli, 2024 ONSC 774. Rather than a numerical reduction, I have regarded the harsh conditions as a mitigating factor consistent with the approach set out by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in R. v. Kumi, 2025 ONCA 3, paras 11-14; and, R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344, para 50.