Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Court File No.: CR-24-16748-00
Date: 2025-07-24

BETWEEN:
His Majesty the King
and
Travendous Beals

Joshua Frost, for the Respondent/Federal Crown
Elliot Willschick, for the Defendant

Heard: July 4, 2025

DECISION ON SENTENCE
Justice P.W. Sutherland
Delivered orally

Introduction

[1] Mr. Beals was charged with five offences in the indictment. Mr. Beals has plead guilty on three of those offences, namely counts 1, 4 and 5. The Crown has withdrawn the other offences. The guilty plea on the three counts was accepted and entered. Mr. Beals is accordingly being sentenced on:

a. Count 1: Possession of a Schedule 1 substance, namely fentanyl.
b. Count 4: Unlawful possession of a firearm, namely a 9mm Glock, while prohibited for doing so under s. 109(2) of the Criminal Code.
c. Count 5: Unlawful possession of a loaded firearm, namely a 9mm Glock, without being the holder of an authorization or licence permitting possession.

[2] Mr. Beals has been in pretrial custody since March 8, 2024. The Crown and defence agree that the pretrial custody with a 1.5 Summers credit amounts to 24.2 months, as at the time of the hearing.

Circumstances of the Offence

[3] On March 8, 2024, Durham Regional Police Service Guns and Gangs Unit (the Police), concluded a drug and firearm investigation of Mr. Beals. The Police conducted several weeks of investigation prior to seeking warrants for Mr. Beals’ residence in Ajax, Ontario, as well as his vehicle, a silver Nissan.

[4] From the search of the residence, the Police found a backpack in the basement. In the backpack was: 315.6 grams of fentanyl, 22 grams of cocaine, 9mm Glock style semi-automatic firearm with a loaded magazine inserted, and documents in Mr. Beals’ name.

[5] Police used a key found on Mr. Beals’ key ring to open a lock that was located on the backpack where the Police found the firearm and drugs.

[6] A police check confirmed that Mr. Beals does not possess a firearms licence. Also, as of December 11, 2016, Mr. Beals has been bound by a prohibition under s. 109(2) of the Criminal Code imposed by the court in New Brunswick, which prohibits him from possessing any firearm for 10 years or restricted firearm for life.

Circumstances of the Defendant

[7] The defendant is now 38 years of age. He has no children and is not married.

[8] He was born in North Preston Downey. The oldest and largest Black community in Nova Scotia. North Preston has a long history of systemic racism, which includes in the school system and access to land title. It is a community that has had to endure and survive a long torrid history of racism.

[9] Mr. Beals’ mother had him when she was 16 years of age.

[10] He was primarily raised by his grandparents and aunts. His father was verbally and emotionally abusive. He would denigrate Mr. Beals and call him stupid. His father would tell him that he wouldn’t amount to anything.

[11] Mr. Beals’ parents moved to Toronto when he was young, but his grandparents did not allow him to go with his parents. His grandparents were concerned that his parents would not adequately care for him.

[12] Like many people of colour living in Nova Scotia, he was subject to racism. Racial slurs were not unusual.

[13] As he was living in Nova Scotia, he observed that educational opportunities were not the same for nonwhite students as they were for white students. More resources and assistance were clearly given to white students.

[14] At the age of 12 years, he was united with his brother and sister in Toronto. Upon being reunited with his father, the verbal and emotional abuse resumed.

[15] Mr. Beals dropped out of high school in grade 11. He felt that school was not pertinent as he saw his family struggle. He became involved with a crowd that taught him and gave him access to sell drugs to earn an income. This gave him a feeling of usefulness which aided in supporting his family. His family rarely asked where the money came from which, he believed, implicitly endorsed his behavior.

[16] The drug trade is dangerous, and Mr. Beals has been shot at numerous times. He recalls being involved in a drive-by shooting where he was in a vehicle with a friend and a car drove by “shooting up the place.”

[17] He also recollects a time when his cousin told him to take off. He did. His cousin was later shot but survived.

[18] He admits that he became a user of fentanyl and he and his past girlfriend became addicted. His drug trafficking, he says, was also used to support his addiction.

[19] At 31, he went to community college, received a two-year diploma in metal fabrication and became a welder. He graduated from an apprenticeship at the age of 33.

[20] He was performing guardrail jobs and was working full time until 2022-2023, when COVID hit. He then continued to traffic drugs on the side for money.

[21] Mr. Beals has a son that lives in Calgary. He is an avid basketball player and attends school on a basketball scholarship.

[22] Mr. Beals professes that he is excited to avail himself to the various rehabilitation programs in the penitentiary and hopes to serve his sentence in Nova Scotia to be closer to his family. He plans to return at the end of his sentence. He wants to start his own welding company. He also indicates that he has a common law spouse who lives in Nova Scotia and has a successful business.

[23] Mr. Beals does have a criminal record from 2016. He has criminal convictions from Fredericton, New Brunswick for material benefit from sexual services, keeping a common bawdy house and transporting persons to a bawdy house. He was sentenced overall to 4 months and 14 days incarceration, 18 months probation, and an order prohibiting him from driving for 10 years and 47 days.

[24] He did not seek a presentence report nor a Morris report, though he wishes to rely on the Morris factors [1] which I will discuss below.

Letter and In Court Statement

[25] Mr. Beals provided the Court with a handwritten letter dated July 3, 2025.

[26] In that letter, Mr. Beals emphasised that he wrote the letter not for sympathy but to clearly explain the facts for his wrongs and bad choices.

[27] He accepted full responsibility for his actions. His common law spouse has stuck by him and continues to support him. She always tries to motivate him to stay on the right and positive path. Mr. Beals apologized to the Court for his past behaviour.

[28] He expressed that while being incarcerated, he was able to “quit everything” and focus on himself.

[29] In the end, Mr. Beals stated, and I quote: “I am asking Your Honour to forgive and accept my apology for my wrongs. So Your Honour whatever your decision you hand out to me, please find favour in me.”

Sentencing Principles

[30] Section 718 of the Criminal Code describes the principles that underpin the objectives for sentencing: denunciation, deterrence, and the separation of the offender from society.

[31] The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to foster, along with crime prevention initiatives, respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful, and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the objectives.

[32] In sentencing, the court can consider, in addition, rehabilitation and reparations to the victim along with a sense of responsibility for the offender’s wrongdoing, into consideration. There are also the principles of proportionality and parity that guide the determination of a fit sentence. First, a sentence needs to be proportional to the gravity of the offence along with the degree of responsibility or moral blameworthiness of the offender, and second, the sentence needs to be in parity and individualized to the defendant. [2] Section 718.2(b) of the Criminal Code addresses the necessity for parity in sentencing, specifically that a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances. The court can also take into consideration collateral consequences, which can include the personal circumstances of the defendant such as employment and family hardship. [3]

[33] Section 718.2 of the Criminal Code indicates that a sentence shall be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances related to the offence or the offender. This provision sets out a non-exhaustive list of examples of possible aggravating factors to consider.

[34] Mitigating factors may include whether the offender has family support and responsibilities, or whether he enjoys a connection to the community. Employment is also a consideration. Any expression of remorse or acceptance of responsibility by an offender for the harm done is a mitigating factor.

[35] The restraint principle is reflected in both ss. 718.2(d) and (e) of the Criminal Code. As the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed in R. v. Hamilton, the principle of restraint means that the sentencing court should seek to impose the least intrusive sentence and the least quantum that will achieve the overall purpose of being an appropriate and just sanction.

[36] With conviction of multiple offences, these principles require imposing a fit and proportionate sentence for each separate offence, while keeping in mind overall proportionality. [5]

[37] There are also factors known as Duncan mitigating factors [6] and the Morris factors that the Court may consider when formulating an appropriate sentence.

Position of the Crown and Defence

The Crown

[38] The Crown argues that an appropriate sentence is 12-14 years on count 1, 3-5 years on count 4, and 3-5 years concurrent on count 5, for a total of 12-14 years, less time for pretrial custody. The Crown emphasized deterrence and denunciation, especially involving crimes of drugs and a loaded firearm. The Crown provided cases to support the argument of deterrence, denunciation, and parity. Though the Crown acknowledged that Mr. Beals’ guilty plea is a mitigating factor, the factual situation of the quantity of drugs seized along with a loaded gun mandates a lengthy incarceration sentence.

Mr. Beals

[39] Mr. Beals concedes that a lengthy incarceration sentence is likely but that the Court must take into consideration his personal circumstances along with the Duncan and Morris factors. The defence suggests with the Duncan and Morris factors, the sentence should be 10 years less pretrial custody for 7.58 years. The defence submits that the sentence should be broken down as 8 years for count 1, 3 years for count 4 and 1 year concurrent for count 5 and reduced to 10 years per the Morris factors.

[40] On the Morris factors, the defence directs the Court to Mr. Beals’ statement. Though a report was not obtained, counsel argues that the Court can consider the personal circumstances of Mr. Beals, including his experiences of being a Black man living in North Preston Downey, Nova Scotia, and the long history of racial discrimination, systemic and individual, in that province. The court can also consider his family situation of living with his grandparents and aunts in Preston Downey, his mother being 16 years old when he was born, being subject to an abusive father, and the lack of opportunities availed him because of the colour of his skin in Nova Scotia and Toronto. One of the reasons he started selling drugs was to make money not only for himself but for his family.

[41] Considering Duncan, Mr. Beals provided a letter from Central East Correctional Center dated June 9, 2025. The letter indicates that:

a. Mr. Beals has been in the facility since March 8, 2024.
b. He has been subject to 1703 hours of lockdown up to June 6, 2025.
c. The standard cell is 7” wide x 15” long and contains 2 bunk-style beds.
d. When a unit is in lockdown there is no dayroom or yard availability.
e. There may be limited access to visits, phones, and showers.

Conclusion and Sentence

Mitigating Factors

[42] The defendant did plead guilty which avoided the cost to society of a trial and the calling of witnesses, not to mention that judicial resources for a trial on this matter can be utilized elsewhere. He accepted responsibility and has admitted to his wrong doings and poor life choices. He is also addicted to the same product that he was selling and used the monies made from dealing to pay for his own habit. He has the intention to use the programs that the correctional system offers to better himself. He has a college diploma and is a welder. He was incarcerated at Central East Correctional Centre since March 8, 2024 with 1703 hours of lockdown up to June 6, 2025.

Aggravating Factors

[43] There are many aggravating factors. These include:

a. The criminal record from 2016;
b. The violation of the Court prohibition of having guns;
c. The quantity and type of drugs that were found in his possession;
d. A loaded Glock 9mm firearm was also in his possession, locked in his backpack.

Proportionality and Parity

[44] Looking at proportionality and secondarily, parity, the cases provided by the Crown provides the Court with some guidance on the appropriate sentence.

[45] I will first briefly review the cases of the Crown. These cases are:

(a) In R. v. Parranto both accused plead guilty. Mr. Parranto plead guilty and was sentenced to a global sentence of 14 years for possession for trafficking, two counts with 27.8 g and then 485.12 g of fentanyl, illegal possession of a loaded handgun, possession of a handgun prohibited by a court order, and breach of recognizance. Mr. Parranto’s mitigating circumstances include his guilty pleas, his long-term addiction (for which he was receiving treatment), that he is an Aboriginal offender. Mr. Parranto’s aggravating circumstances include his criminal record and the fact that he reoffended while on release. [8] Mr. Felix was guilty of trafficking fentanyl: 1298 tablets and then 987 tablets. Mr. Felix was sentenced to 10 years for trafficking. His aggravating circumstances include the seriousness of the offence and his offence as a “wholesale commercial” trafficker where he received a significant financial return. [9] The mitigating factors include that he plead guilty (albeit later in the trial), had no criminal record, a positive background including schooling, work, and support, as well as favourable prospects for rehabilitation. [10]

(b) In R. v. Olvedi the appellant was convicted of importing and possessing 499.5 grams of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking after a trial. The accused received the fentanyl in a package, which the police intercepted, and an undercover officer delivered a decoy to the appellant. Shortly after accepting delivery, the appellant and his girlfriend left the residence in a car. They were stopped by the RCMP and arrested. He was sentenced to 15 years on the importing charge and 12 years, concurrent, on the charge of possession for the purpose of trafficking. The aggravating factors included the nature of the offence, quantity of the substance, and that Mr. Olvedi was motivated by financial gain. The mitigating factors were that he had no criminal record except for a youth record, he was threatened to receive the shipment, he had family support and excellent rehabilitative potential. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s 15-year global sentence.

(c) In R. v. Owusu the defendant was found guilty of a 10-count indictment with one count of possession of 127.75 grams of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and nine counts of firearm offences. The global sentence was 15 years with 9 years for the fentanyl and 9 years for the firearms. The sentence was reduced on the totality principle and that he was a mid level trafficker in fentanyl with the appropriate range being somewhat greater than the 5-8 years. Aggravating factors were the quantity, the type of drug, and motive by profit. He also left the fentanyl in a family backyard within the potential reach of children. There was a serious youth record and dangerous driving prior to arrest. Mitigating factors were his age of 23 years, support from the family, and difficult childhood where he was exposed to criminal activity at a young age.

(d) In R. v. Musa, the accused was found guilty after a trial. Mr. Musa had 130 grams of fentanyl, 36 grams of crack, 59 grams of cocaine, and 39 grams of methamphetamine. He was also in possession of a loaded firearm. The global sentence was 11.5 years reduced to three-quarters of the number of years for totality. Specifically, the Court reduced the 8 years for possession of fentanyl for the purposes of trafficking to 7 years and reduced 3.5 years for the s. 95 offence for possession of a loaded firearm to 2 years and 9 months. The Court gave 4 years each on the other drug offences. The aggravating factors were the quantity and type of drugs, that Mr. Musa was on bail at the time of the offence, that the transaction was near a public park, and he did not have a criminal record at the time of the arrest but did have one before the guilty verdict. The mitigating factors were his age of 20 years and harsh pre-trial conditions.

Morris Factors

[46] The Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Morris states in the first sentence of the decision:

[1] It is beyond doubt that anti-Black racism, including both overt and systemic anti-Black racism, has been, and continues to be, a reality in Canadian society, and in particular in the Greater Toronto Area. That reality is reflected in many social institutions, most notably the criminal justice system. It is equally clear that anti-Black racism can have a profound and insidious impact on those who must endure it on a daily basis. (citations omitted) [14]

[47] The Court of Appeal indicated that a court could take judicial notice of the insidious nature and consequences of anti-Black racism in Canada, not only in the judicial system but overall in Canadian life.

[48] The Court of Appeal further stated at para. 56:

[56] A sentencing judge has a specific and focused task. A sentencing judge must impose a sentence tailored to the individual offender and the specific offence. While evidence relating to the impact of anti-Black racism on an offender will sometimes be an important consideration on sentencing, the trial judge’s task is not primarily aimed at holding the criminal justice system accountable for systemic failures. Rather, the sentencing judge must determine a fit sentence governed by the fundamental tenets of criminal responsibility, including free will, and the purposes, principles and objectives of sentencing laid down in Part XXIII of the Criminal Code: (citations omitted) [15]

[49] In doing this balancing, the sentencing judge can consider the social context and the personal effects on Mr. Beals, to give less weight to individual deterrence and greater weight to the rehabilitation that addresses the societal disadvantages caused by factors such as systemic racism. [16]

[50] I am persuaded that by blending the different objectives of sentencing in Mr. Beals’ circumstances, I must take as a factor the systemic and individual racism along with the lack of opportunities he has experienced in arriving at an appropriate sentence.

[51] I therefore can consider the fact that Mr. Beals was raised in an area of Canada with a long history of anti-Black racism where he had a lessened opportunity as a young Black man from Nova Scotia. His family situation of a single mother, in my view, can be linked to the insidious and pervasive anti-Black racism in Canada for decades upon decades. I can take judicial notice of this historic fact without the need for detailed and expert evidence. [17]

[52] As such, I can put less emphasis on individual deterrence and a greater focus on rehabilitation.

[53] Hence, I conclude that the Morris factors have a direct and persuasive effect in determining an appropriate sentence for Mr. Beals.

Duncan Factors

[54] The Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Duncan clearly found that a court can take into consideration whether a sentence should be lessened due the conditions of the pre-sentence incarceration. In doing so, an evidentiary foundation is necessary to ascertain the “impact of those conditions on the accused.” [18] In R. v. Marshall the Court of Appeal determined that the Duncan “credit” is not a deduction from the otherwise appropriate sentence but is one of the factors to be considered in determining the appropriate sentence.

[55] Mr. Beals has not provided any evidence to indicate how the conditions of pre-sentence incarceration impacted him. However, there is much judicial expression on the conditions in correctional institutions in Ontario [20].

[56] I will highlight a few:

a. In R. v. Nguyen, Justice Goldstein provided a reduction in the drug sentence for Mr. Nguyen at Central East Correctional Centre due to the “horrific conditions” at the correctional facility. The conditions were described at para. 32:

Mr. Nguyen described some fairly horrific conditions at Central East:

• Full lockdowns meant that inmates are in their cells most of the days. Inmates may be let out for a shower, but not everyone is able to have one. He says in his affidavit that he has gone as long as 10 days without a shower.
• The ranges were frequently overcrowded, resulting in competition for space, phone calls, and even seats.
• Triple bunking means that at least one inmate sleeps on the floor, with his head near the toilet. According to Mr. Nguyen, the cells at Central East are smaller than the cells at Toronto East or the Toronto South Detention Centre. That makes triple bunking highly challenging, especially during a lockdown when inmates have gone long periods without a shower.
• Lockdowns mean a lack of yard time and fresh air, lack of programming, and lack of defence counsel access and family access.
• Mr. Nguyen described the Central East as highly unsanitary. His cell was frequently infested with vermin. Mold grew in the showers, cells, and toilets. Urine and feces stained the walls.
• Inmates, including Mr. Nguyen, frequently went without blankets.
• The inmates appear to have had access to drugs and alcohol, with frequent overdoses and inmates sometimes dying as a result. Mr. Nguyen, who is no stranger to custodial institutions, stated that he has never experienced that at any other institution.

b. In R. v. Gorgievski, Mr. Gorgievski plead guilty to possession of a prohibited firearm with readily accessible ammunition, possession of a firearm knowing that the serial number was defaced, and two counts of possession of a firearm while prohibited. He spent 220 days in presentence custody and 101 of those days in the Central East Correctional Centre where he was subject to full or partial lockdowns on 86 days (the remainder was spent in Toronto East). At para. 31, Justice Shreck listed numerous cases that supported and found that the conditions at the Central East Correctional Centre were horrific with long excessive period of lockdowns along with poor treatment and care:

[31] While at the CECC, Mr. Gorgievski was subject to lockdowns on 85% of the days he was there and triple-bunked for 58% of the time. The treatment he experienced at the CECC was by no means an anomaly: R. v. Hamilton, 2024 ONSC 2167, at para. 59; R. v. Rooplal, 2024 ONSC 3729, at para. 26; R. v. Samuels, 2023 ONCJ 597, at paras. 30-32; R. v. McPherson, 2023 ONCJ 160, at paras. 89-95; R. v. Lovell, 2023 ONSC 5776, at paras. 38-42; R. v. Valley, 2023 ONSC 166, at para. 43; R. v. Brown, 2022 ONCJ 679, at paras. 34-39; R. v. Smith, 2022 ONSC 3800, at paras. 39-44; R. v. Derby, 2022 ONSC 2266, at paras. 35-40; R. v. Lewis, 2022 ONSC 1260, at para. 38; R. v. Williams, 2022 ONCJ 57, at paras. 67-68; R. v. Hillier, 2021 ONCJ 634, at paras. 16-17; [R. v. Doan, 2021 ONCJ 8590], at paras. 15-16; R. v. Charles, 2021 ONSC 5907, at para. 49; R. v. Ashton, 2021 ONSC 3994, at paras. 27, 66-67; R. v. Perry, 2020 ONSC 8173, at paras. 43-46; R. v. Salmon, 2019 ONSC 1574, at paras. 40-41; R. v. Johnson, 2017 ONSC 3512, at paras. 69-79; R. v. Cooper-Flaherty, 2017 NUCJ 11, at para. 48.

[57] Lastly, I echo and repeat the sentiments of Justice Green in R. v. McPherson, 2023 ONSC 160:

[89] The treatment of a convicted gun toting, drug dealer who recently experienced the conditions in pretrial detention, yet he went on to commit more serious offences, may not inspire any public concern. However, the Canadian criminal justice system must uphold and respect the human rights and dignities of all offenders. More importantly, it must be emphasized that these institutions house presumptively innocent people before they are found guilty and before they are sentenced, yet the detainees are subjected to punitive and cruel conditions. Among these detainees are individuals who may have been wrongfully accused of a crime. Guy Paul Morin was detained in this jurisdiction, and he was proven to be innocent.

[90] The inmates in CECC are powerless to prevent these injustices. The conditions in this provincial facility reflect very poorly on the administration of justice in this province. As Nelson Mandela famously said “no one truly knows a nation until one has been inside its jails. A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens, but its lowest ones.”

[58] Though there was no specific evidence presented by Mr. Beals on the conditions at Central East Correctional Centre, I am of the view that I can take judicial notice of the horrific and cruel conditions at Central East Correctional Centre and other correctional centres in the province because of these, and other, judicial pronouncements. Mr. Beals, along with thousands of others, are placed in these correctional facilities before they have been found guilty of any criminal offence. The state of these facilities as described by judiciary are horrific and reflect poorly not only on this province but on the people of this province. To treat people with such disdain who are vulnerable in such an institution must be taken into consideration when a Court is tasked with formulating a suitable sentence.

[59] I do accept that Mr. Beals is entitled to significant mitigation due to the conditions and treatment during his incarceration at Central East Correctional Centre.

Sentence

[60] The sentencing of Mr. Beals has many factors to consider.

[61] There are the Morris factors that are clearly relevant to determining the appropriate sentence. In considering the Morris factors, I wish to make it clear, as enunciated by the Court of Appeal, the existence of decades on decades of systemic anti-Black racism in Nova Scotia and in Canada, does not diminish the seriousness of the offences for which Mr. Beals has plead guilty. The trafficking of fentanyl and the possession of a loaded semi automatic handgun are behaviours that are a plague in this country and demand denunciation. Individual deterrence, however, is minimized by the factors outlined above, and that Mr. Beals is a good candidate for rehabilitation and has professed his willingness to leave the life he was living.

[62] I am also cognizant of the guilty plea, the acceptance of responsibility of Mr. Beals, and his remorsefulness. He is a good candidate for rehabilitation.

[63] There is denunciation on the drugs in his possession, the quantity of the drugs, and the loaded semi automatic Glock 9mm in his possession. There is also the fact that he was in possession of the handgun which clearly violated his ordered prohibition.

[64] The Duncan factors are also significant mitigating factor in this case. The conditions and treatment in the Central East Correctional Centre demand denunciation and is a factor this Court is compelled to mitigate against the length of time for incarceration.

[65] I conclude that an appropriate sentence is as follows and sentence Mr. Beals:

• On count 1: 10 years of incarceration.
• On count 4: 3 years of incarceration.
• On count 5: 2 years of incarceration, concurrent.

[66] Taking into consideration the principles of proportionality and parity and the Morris and Duncan factors, I determine that an appropriate global sentence for Mr. Beals is 10 years.

[67] The presentence incarceration of 2 years and 3 months, as at the date of this sentence, is deducted.

[68] This leaves a sentence of 7 years and 9 months.

Ancillary Orders

[69] The Crown has requested numerous ancillary orders, which were not opposed by Mr. Beals, and I order the following:

• a DNA order.
• a s. 490 order.
• a s. 109 order for life.

Justice P.W. Sutherland
Released: July 24, 2025

NOTE: As noted in court, on the record, this written Ruling is to be considered the official version and takes precedence over the oral reasons read into the record. If any discrepancies between the oral and written versions, it is the official written Ruling that is to be relied upon.

Endnotes

[1] R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680
[2] R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5 and R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46, at paras. 9-12.
[3] R. v. Pham, 2013 SCC 15; R. v. Habib, 2024 ONCA 830.
[4] R. v. Hamilton, at para. 96.
[5] Habib, at para. 52.
[6] R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754.
[7] R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46, at paras. 9-12.
[8] R. v. Parranto, 2018 ABQB 863, at paras. 70–84.
[9] R. v. Felix, 2019 ABCA 458, at para. 27.
[10] R. v. Felix, 2019 ABCA 458, at para. 28.
[11] R. v. Olvedi, 2021 ONCA 518.
[12] R. v. Owusu, 2024 ONSC 671.
[13] R. v. Musa, 2022 ONSC 3734.
[14] R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, at para. 1.
[15] R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, at para. 56.
[16] R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, at paras. 79 and 106.
[17] Not only can I take my own personal experiences: see R. v. S. (R.D.), at para. 44 but also the studies reviewed and utilized in R. v. Morris support such a statement.
[18] R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754, at para. 6.
[19] R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344, at paras. 52-53.
[20] R. v. Shaikh and Tanoli, 2024 ONSC 774; R. v. Inniss, 2017 ONSC 2779, at para. 38; R. v. Jama, 2018 ONSC 1252, at para. 20; R. v. Persad, 2020 ONSC 188, at para. 31; R. v. Ahmed, 2021 ONSC 8157, at para. 40; R. v. Cormier, 2023 ONSC 4640, at para. 40.
[21] R. v. Nguyen, 2025 ONSC 2255.
[22] R. v. Gorgievski, 2024 ONSC 5899.
[23] The citation should be 2023 ONSC 5776.
[24] R. v. McPherson, 2023 ONSC 160.