Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CR-24-185

Date: 2025-09-16

Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between:

His Majesty the King

E. Taggart and L. Summer, for the Crown

- and -

Ashraf Abd Alazim Suliman

H. Saini, for the Defence

Heard: June 6, 2025

Sentencing Reasons

Mirza J.

Overview

[1] This is the sentencing of Ashraf Abd Alazim Suliman for the offences committed on July 4, 2022 of:

a) Possession of fentanyl for the purposes of trafficking contrary to section 5(2) of the CDSA.

b) Possession of Cocaine for the purposes of trafficking contrary to section 5(2) of the CDSA.

c) Possession of Methamphetamine for the purposes of trafficking

[2] The Joint Position is for a sentence of 7.5 years, less credit for time in pre-trial custody and Duncan mitigation.

[3] The net sentence jointly submitted is of 7 years for count 1, with ancillary orders of DNA, s. 109 for life and forfeiture of items of property, with some items to be returned.

[4] In addition, the joint submission involves 2.5 years concurrent for count 2; and 6 months concurrent for count 1.

[5] I note that the joint position is after a contested trial and not as part of a plea process, which in some cases may raise other areas to canvass.

[6] I have raised with counsel areas that I would have benefitted from more information, and they have addressed these in their responses and submissions.

[7] Their reaching of an agreement inherently demonstrates that counsel have acted professionally in the interests of their respective positions. Mr. Saini came into the case post-trial and has worked diligently with the Crown to bring a timely and fair conclusion to these proceedings.

[8] Because this is a joint position that I ultimately find would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, nor is otherwise contrary to the public interest, and after considering the record, submissions, and law, I will try to be more brief. R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43 at para. 32.

[9] However, the reasons for this sentence are still important to Mr. Suliman and his family, even when the lawyers agree.

Summary of the Facts

[10] On July 4, 2022, members of the Toronto Police Service executed a warrant at unit 504, 1759 Bloor Street West, in Mississauga.

[11] The police found 124.03g of fentanyl, 140.78g of cocaine, and 7.38g of methamphetamine.

[12] On April 11, 2025, in written reasons, I found that the prosecution had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Abd Alazim Suliman was guilty of possessing these substances for the purpose of trafficking.

[13] I also found a section 7 Charter breach for lost video disclosure and left open whether that breach had an impact on the accused for additional submissions at sentencing.

[14] As part of the negotiated joint position which factors the total circumstances, the Defence does not seek mitigation or a sentence reduction for the Charter breach.

[15] Mr. Abd Alazim Suliman has been in custody continuously between July 4, 2022, and today.

[16] On November 3, 2023, he pled guilty to other charges. His pre-trial custody from July 12, 2022 and November 3, 2023, was deducted from that sentence.

[17] Mr. Abd Alazim Suliman finished serving that sentence on March 5, 2025.

[18] By today, he will have been in continuous custody at Maplehurst for almost three years.

Fundamental Sentencing Principles

[19] Proportionality is the organizing principle in achieving the goal of a fair, fit and principled sentence: R v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46, 463 D.L.R. (4th) 389, at para. 10. Proportionality is the fundamental principle of sentencing that a sentence must reflect the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender: s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code; Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, [2020] 1 S.C.R. 424, at para. 30; and Parranto, at para. 10.

Gravity of the Offences

[20] The objective gravity of the drug offences involved in this case are high.

[21] Although all possession for the purposes of drug trafficking of schedule 1 substances are serious and warrant an emphasis on the principles of deterrence and denunciation, possession for this purpose of large amounts of fentanyl are particularly dangerous in numerous ways to everyone and deserving of significant jail sentences. See R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46, at paras. 87 to 101.

[22] Denunciation requires that the sentence express society's condemnation of the committed offences: R. v. Bissonnette, 2022 SCC 23, 469 D.L.R. (4th) 387, at para 46.

[23] Deterrence takes two forms: specific deterrence to discourage the offender from reoffending, and general deterrence to discourage members of the public who might be tempted to engage in the same criminal activity. When general deterrence is applied, the offender is punished more harshly to serve as an example that is communicated to the public.

[24] General deterrence is an objective that this court must impose, but the Supreme Court has questioned its effectiveness more than once. The certainty of punishment, together with the entire range of criminal sanctions, does produce a certain deterrent effect, albeit one that is difficult to evaluate on possible offenders. Bissonnette, at para. 47. See also R. v. Nur, 2015 SCC 15, 385 D.L.R. (4th) 1, at para. 113.

[25] However, even in cases where the primary sentencing principles are deterrence and denunciation, "the door to rehabilitation must remain open": R. v. Marchand, 2023 SCC 26, 487 D.L.R. (4th) 201, at para. 123. The objective of rehabilitation is to reform offenders with a view to their reintegration into society to become law abiding citizens. This penological objective presupposes that offenders can gain control over their lives and improve themselves, which ultimately leads to a better protection of society. Bissonnette, at para. 48. In R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 1089, at para. 4, the Supreme Court stated, "Rehabilitation is one of the fundamental moral values that distinguish Canadian society from the societies of many other nations in the world, and it helps the Courts impose sentences that are just and appropriate."

[26] Totality and restraint are also important sentencing principles that can coincide.

[27] The Court of Appeal stated in R. v. England, 2024 ONCA 360 at para. 92, that when imposing long jail sentences, courts must respect that:

[92] The totality principle "requires a sentencing judge who orders an offender to serve consecutive sentences for multiple offences to ensure that the cumulative sentence rendered does not exceed the overall culpability of the offender": R. v. M. (C.A.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500, at para. 42. A "combined sentence must not be unduly long or harsh in the sense that its impact simply exceeds the gravity of the offences in question or the overall culpability of the offender": R. v. Johnson, 2012 ONCA 339, 285 C.C.C. (3d) 120, at para. 18.

Turning to the Range of Sentences

[28] At the outset I accept that the range for Mr. Suliman's offences are likely 6 years and up.

[29] Overall, I recognize that in this case Mr. Suliman was not just trafficking fentanyl. He was also trafficking large quantities of cocaine and some methamphetamine.

[30] In R. v. England the Court of Appeal provides a useful summary at paras. 99 and following of the range for these offences:

[99] They note In R. v. Lynch, 2022 ONCA 109, 160 O.R. (3d) 241, at paras. 14-15 and 24-26, the court of Appeal held that the appropriate range for "mid-level traffickers" in cocaine is "five to eight years", that fentanyl is "a more dangerous drug than is cocaine", and that "long or longer" sentences should be imposed in fentanyl cases.

[100] In R. v. Mercier, 2023 ONCA 98, 166 O.R. (3d) 171, at para. 23, this court held that the appropriate sentencing range for "commercial or mid-level trafficking cases involving methamphetamine [crystal meth] is between approximately 5 and 12 years".

[101] In R. v. Owusu, 2024 ONSC 671, at paras. 37-38, an accused in possession of 127 grams of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking was described as a "mid-level trafficker" to whom a range of up to 10 years, for that offence alone, was appropriate.

[31] Recently, In R. v Morias, 2025 ONSC 2978, Justice Fowler Byrne, at para. 65 held that trafficking cases, where the convicted person is found to be a "mid-level trafficker, result in a sentence of 5 to 10 years.

[32] Ranges are informed over time by the distinct types of cases that the court must decide. They are not a perfect science or hard or fast rules. They are guidelines only.

[33] Having identified the range as broad, subject to a number of variables, I find that overall, the other cases are helpful but this court must be cautious not to over rely on ranges as they are not a substitute for proportionality. Proportionality is not achieved by ranking categories of offences or assuming presumptive sentences. It is achieved through individualized sentencing that takes into account the specific circumstances of both the offender and the offence. In Parranto, at para. 12, the Supreme Court made this point crystal clear:

Individualization is central to the proportionality assessment. Whereas the gravity of a particular offence may be relatively constant, each offence is "committed in unique circumstances by an offender with a unique profile" (para. 58). This is why proportionality sometimes demands a sentence that has never been imposed in the past for a similar offence. The question is always whether the sentence reflects the gravity of the offence, the offender's degree of responsibility and the unique circumstances of each case (citing Lacasse at para. 58).

Individual Circumstances and Blameworthiness

[34] The individual circumstances assist to inform the application of the range to a particular person's sentence.

[35] Mr. Suliman is 31 years old, single, with no dependents.

[36] He is a Black Muslim man. He grew up in the Greater Toronto Area upon his arrival in Canada. He was living with his mother and three brothers. Unfortunately, his father passed away in 2010. This had a significant adverse impact on him, his siblings and mother. His criminal record proximate to that time period shows a correlation.

[37] In high school Mr. Suliman had good grades but did not finish due to his involvement with the criminal justice system and because he was bullied. He later went to an adult school.

[38] The pre-sentence report indicates that as identified in a prior PSR completed in November 2023, Mr. Suliman was expelled from three different schools and was able to complete his high school equivalence through a continued education program.

[39] To his credit Mr. Suliman went to Sheridan College in 2019 and Humber College in 2022 to take paralegal courses. Mr. Suliman was on the Dean's List. He discontinued his education in January 2022. His intention was to return to school but he was subsequently arrested.

Immigration Consequences

[40] Mr. Suliman is a permanent resident of Canada but now is subject to a deportation removal order issued. He expects to be deported once he completes his sentence on this matter but is waiting for a 'pre removal risk assessment' (PRRA).

[41] Mr. Suliman is a citizen of Sudan, but has never been there. He came to Canada when he was 14 years old in 2007.

[42] A sentencing judge must factor immigration consequences in sentencing. The failure to consider the specific immigration consequences of a carceral sentence of six months or more is an error in principle. R. v. N. F., 2015 ONCA 51, at paras. 11-12.

[43] Factoring immigration consequences, the sentence imposed must still be fit overall: proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. This factor must not result in imposing inappropriate or artificially low sentences.

[44] Stated differently, immigration consequences are important but cannot justify the imposition of a sentence that is not proportionate to the gravity of the offence, and does not adequately reflect the level of the accused's culpability: R. v. Pham, 2013 SCC 15, at paras. 13-19; R. v. Suter, 2018 SCC 34, at paras. 47, 56.

[45] I have factored the immigration consequence, in considering that the joint position is not contrary to the public interest or would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Criminal Record

[46] Mr. Suliman has a criminal record dating back to 2011. He was found guilty as a youth for possession of a firearm with ammunition.

[47] In 2014, he was found guilty of robbery and other violent offences.

[48] I have considered that normally a youth record is not retained subject to sections 119(2)(h) and (9) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) which applies here since Mr. Suliman committed further offences as an adult while still serving a youth sentence.

[49] His longest term of jail was 28 months.

[50] At the time of the offences, he was on a release order for outstanding drug trafficking charges.

Social Context

[51] An Enhanced Pre-sentence Report (EPSR) was not requested by the Defence. A conventional PSR was obtained that was helpful to a limited extent.

[52] An EPSR likely would have assisted the court to know more about Mr. Suliman's personal history as a young Black man, who immigrated to Canada and endured hardship in his personal life, community, education and policing.

[53] However, I respect that Mr. Suliman instructed his counsel to expedite his sentencing based on the PSR and jail records, factoring he has been in custody in Maplehurst for three years. He wants to move forward.

[54] I have drawn what I am able to in terms of social context to these offences, from the materials and uncontested submissions.

[55] Defence counsel submitted that Mr. Suliman started to get in trouble with the law in earnest after his father passed away. Prior to his passing, the family was financially dependent on Mr. Suliman's father. Mr. Suliman did not have his father as a positive role model but had to contribute financially. He moved with the wrong crowd and turned to illegal endeavours for income. The primary male role models in his life were drug dealers.

[56] Mr. Suliman grew up in a predominantly Black neighbourhood and is himself Black. Police interactions of being stopped and questioned was a normal part of his life. As a young Black man, he felt that he was constantly being treated as a criminal by the police and began to feel that if the authorities wanted to treat him as a criminal, he may as well act like one. This sense of nihilism is acknowledged by the Supreme in Le 2019 SCC 34.

[57] Mr. Suliman has also experienced being a victim of violence personally which has adverse mental health impacts. He was shot in May 2022. This incident led to him being charged with drug related offences that he was convicted for. He was stabbed in 2016. No one was ever arrested.

[58] Overall, parts of his personal history explain the circumstances of a young man marginalized by poverty, loss, and violence at an early age. They shed some light on how this background contributed to his involvement in crime and the commission of drug offences. I am satisfied that there are parts of his background that have some connection to his decision to engage in these offences. I have considered this background in the global assessment of his circumstances and moral blameworthiness.

[59] It is important that Mr. Suliman's limited education and employment challenges impacted by his social circumstances at a young age, should not be viewed improperly as demonstrating reduced rehabilitative potential or justifying a higher sentence: R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, at para. 104. They are part of his personal history of personal disadvantage and experiences with systemic racism.

[60] I will revisit this further later.

Family Impact and Remorse

[61] I have factored that the incarceration of the accused will have a harsh impact on his family. It will mean a loss of financial support.

[62] Despite his offences, Mr. Suliman is still a valued sibling, son that will be separated from his family for an extended period of time.

[63] It is an unfortunate reality that sentencing Defendants to prison often unintentionally harms their innocent families. Family members are deprived of the Defendant's love and care and suffer the emotional pain of separation. They must often assume the added burdens of the breadwinning and caregiving responsibilities that the Defendant formerly performed. See R. v. Habib 2024 ONCA 830 at para. 42.

[64] I have factored that Mr. Suliman's sentence will be hard for his family.

[65] The PSR indicates that his mother has mental health issues. I have not gone into detail about them out of respect for her privacy but appreciate that the absence of her son has been difficult.

[66] In terms of remorse, Mr. Suliman has expressed remorse and regret for causing his mother so much stress and for contributing to her struggles.

[67] I accept that he is sorry for the consequences of his conduct on his family and recognizes that he must find a pro-social positive path forward.

Aggravating Factors

[68] In sentencing Mr. Suliman, I have considered both the aggravating and mitigating factors.

[69] The relevant aggravating factors include:

a) The dangerous and illicit nature of the drugs and their quantity;

b) The commercial motivation;

c) The criminal record, although some of which is dated and unrelated;

d) The fact that these offences were committed while Mr. Suliman was on bail for similar offences from May 2021, which he has since resolved and apportioned a considerable part of his pre-trial custody time and conditions towards.

Mitigating Factors

[70] I have considered that Mr. Suliman has experienced harsh jail conditions deserving of mitigation. In R v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754, the Ontario Court of Appeal agreed that the appropriate circumstances, particularly harsh presentence incarceration conditions, can provide mitigation apart from and beyond the one point five credit referred to in section 719(3.1) of the Code. In considering whether any enhanced credit should be given, the court will consider both the conditions of the pre-sentence incarceration and the impact of those conditions on the accused.

[71] I can reasonably infer how hard it has been to be in Maplehurst for him over the almost three years. Every judge and justice of the peace in this Court routinely hears about the hardships from frequent lockdowns, triple bunking, violence and health concerns at Maplehurst.

[72] There is no doubt that it is an institution that is punishing, at times cruel, and it is not a suitable setting for any person long-term.

[73] I have factored that Mr. Suliman has a supportive family. His mother attended today. I thank her for being here.

[74] I recognize that he has rehabilitative potential. He is still a relatively young man. He has goals to improve himself. I hope that he will be able to do so.

[75] I have considered that he conducted the trial efficiently and sentencing hearing as well, assisted by able lawyers.

[76] I am also mindful from a contextual perspective that Black people are over-incarcerated and often mistreated in jail because of their identity. I have considered that reality as well.

[77] Finally, it is not lost on me that I am sentencing Mr. Suliman today, a self-identified Muslim person on a holy day of Eid in the Islamic calendar. This must be especially painful to learn of your sentence on this day while in jail. However, I hope that your faith brings you the strength and focus that you need to improve your life long-term and return to your family as soon as possible.

Disposition

[78] I am satisfied that the joint submission is a fit sentence.

1. Mr. Suliman you are sentenced to 7.5 years;

2. That sentence is reduced by 140 days for time spent in pre-trial custody (93 days at 1.5:1 credit);

3. It is further reduced by 40 days for mitigation due to jail conditions;

4. That is a total of 180 days of reduction, which is 6 months;

5. The net sentence is 7 years for count 1;

6. 2.5 years concurrent for count 2;

7. 6 months concurrent for count 3;

8. There will be ancillary orders, also jointly submitted;

9. I impose a s. 109 Weapons prohibition order for life.

10. He will provide a DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code.

11. A forfeiture order is granted; and in the circumstances, the victim surcharge is waived.

Mirza J.

Released: September 16, 2025