Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CR-22-90000616-0000, CR-22-90000617-0000

Date: 2025-09-18

Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between:

His Majesty the King

and

Leonida Pilliatis

Counsel:

Sarah Virani, for the Crown

Karen Symes and Dean Embry, for Leonida Pilliatis

Heard: January 13, April 7, May 21 and July 2, 2025

Before: Himel J.

Reasons for Sentence

Introduction

[1] Leonida Pilliatis entered pleas of guilty to the following charges: possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19, as amended (the "CDSA") and possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the CDSA. He had elected to be tried by a judge sitting alone.

[2] Counsel advised the court that Mr. Pilliatis was facing charges in Durham, and it was agreed that those charges would be waived into Toronto for Mr. Pilliatis to enter a plea and have a global sentencing hearing. The indictment was transferred to Toronto with the consent of the Crown and defence. Mr. Pilliatis entered a plea of guilty to a charge of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the CDSA, which charge arose from the Durham region.

[3] The plea inquiry pursuant to s. 606(1) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 (the "Code"), was satisfied with respect to both sets of charges. Mr. Pilliatis confirmed that he was entering the plea voluntarily, that he understood that the plea was an admission of the essential elements of the offence, 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. Mr. Pilliatis is a Canadian citizen and has no immigration consequences.

[4] On the basis of the facts submitted by the Crown and the admission of the defence, I found Mr. Pilliatis guilty of the offences outlined above. I ordered that a pre-sentence report be prepared. That report has been completed and is marked as an exhibit. Defence counsel also requested a Gladue Report on February 10, 2025. On May 16, 2025, Lucas Laporta from Aboriginal Legal Services wrote to the court and counsel explaining that he researched Mr. Pilliatis' family based on information received from him but could not verify his Indigenous background and would not be able to comment on how his background as an Indigenous person has affected his life circumstances. Accordingly, no Gladue Report was prepared.

[5] Counsel have made their submissions on sentence. The following are my reasons for sentence.

Factual Background

The Toronto Charges

[6] The facts were admitted pursuant to s. 655 of the Code. On September 9, 2021, Leonida Pilliatis and Nicole Fife were in a grey BMW parked in the parking lot at the south-east corner of Dundas Street East and Bond Street in Toronto. The vehicle belonged to a friend of Nicole Fife. Around 4:00 p.m., members of the 51 Division Major Crime Unit observed a backpack in the vehicle containing drugs in the front pocket. They searched the backpack and located a Ziploc bag containing 41.04 grams of fentanyl, a bag with 759.96 grams of methamphetamine, $245 in Canadian currency, a shirt and Axe deodorant. They also located a digital scale under the front passenger seat of the vehicle.

[7] Police arrested Leonida Pilliatis and Nicole Fife for possession of fentanyl and crystal meth for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Durham Charges

[8] On May 7, 2024, police were conducting surveillance in an area in the downtown core of Oshawa that was known to be a hotspot for drug trafficking and drug use. During their surveillance, P.C. Hadad observed a black male, later identified as Leonida Pilliatis, wearing an Adidas jacket with three white lines down the sleeve, along with a white male and a black male, walking to the west side of the Kwik Stop convenience store on Simcoe Street South. P.C. Hadad alerted the team that he had observed a drug transaction. Officers attempted to approach the group to arrest them, but they fled on foot. After a brief chase, P.C. Grainger and P.C. Jenkins caught up to Mr. Pilliatis in a backyard in the area of 11 Hall Street. Mr. Pilliatis complied with their direction to get on the ground. He was placed under arrest for possession for the purpose of trafficking at 11 Hall Street.

[9] Police officers retraced the path of the foot chase and located a key fob for the vehicle that Mr. Pilliatis and Jahziah Thompson had driven to the plaza prior to the suspected transaction. The vehicle was searched incident to arrest and a satchel was found in the front passenger seat area. It contained 35 grams of fentanyl and several documents in the name of Leonida Pilliatis including his Ontario photo identification card, a birth certificate, a health card, medical documents in the name of Leonida Pilliatis and correspondence from Service Canada. At the time of his arrest, Mr. Pilliatis was on a release order subject to a house arrest condition. The amount of fentanyl found in the car weighed 35 grams.

Evidence on the Sentencing Hearing

[10] Crown counsel filed an Agreed Statement of Facts pursuant to s. 655 of the Criminal Code which has been marked as an exhibit. Crown counsel also submitted the criminal record of Mr. Pilliatis. On March 1, 2023, Mr. Pilliatis was found guilty of possession of a Schedule I substance and received a conditional discharge and probation for 12 months. At the time of these offences, he had no criminal record. The pre-sentence report was marked as an exhibit and will be referenced below.

[11] Counsel for the defence submitted a brief of the lockdown records and conditions of incarceration of Mr. Pilliatis since his arrest on these charges. The records from Toronto South Detention Centre, Central East Correctional Centre and Toronto East Detention Centre were marked as exhibits. An affidavit from Mr. Pilliatis outlined the impact of the conditions on him and is discussed below. Further submitted, were letters discussing Mr. Pilliatis' character. Mike Davis is a sponsor and active member of Narcotics Anonymous which meets virtually. He said that Mr. Pilliatis has been a committed member of their group since November 2022. He described that following surgery in February 2024, Mr. Pilliatis was prescribed opioid medication, and this triggered a relapse. Mr. Davis has stayed in contact with Mr. Pilliatis and is of the view that he is making efforts to overcome his struggles with addiction.

[12] Kenan wrote of Mr. Pilliatis' time in Ethiopia as they attended the same international school there. He said that he was gifted academically and could explain complex subjects to others. He spoke of Mr. Pilliatis' hardships, losing his mother at a young age, and moving between different houses during his childhood.

[13] Tiffany Finn, who served as a surety for Mr. Pilliatis, wrote that despite all the hardships he has faced, he is "a kind, compassionate and determined man." She wrote that he spoke of the violence and unrest he experienced in Ethiopia and the poverty-stricken neighbourhoods when he returned to Canada. She said that he turned to opiates when his child was stillborn. While on release, he has helped in her household doing cooking, cleaning and helping her son with homework. She wrote that following shoulder surgery, he suffered a relapse with his addiction when prescribed pain medication. Her 10-year-old son also wrote about how much Mr. Pilliatis helped him.

[14] Rebecca Endalkachew met Mr. Pilliatis in Ethiopia when they were children, and they stayed in touch including when she moved to Ottawa. He has been like a big brother, protecting, mentoring and supporting her. She described him as intelligent and thoughtful.

[15] Ethethel Dereje has known Mr. Pilliatis since 2015. He is a friend and member of his church. He works at the TD Bank and volunteers at the church. He described how he met Mr. Pilliatis and how, despite his struggles, he has a "heart full of love and a real desire to help others." He offers to provide support to Mr. Pilliatis when he can, to help him get back on track.

[16] Melissa Finn wrote a letter of support for Mr. Pilliatis and said how helpful he was around the house when he lived with her cousin Tiffany. Tesfaye Yadela wrote that Mr. Pilliatis was part of his family and that he lived with them after his mother died. He described how he has matured significantly. Abekl Dotti is a close friend of Mr. Pilliatis and met him in Ethiopia and described him as someone who can learn and grow from his experience and still has much to contribute to society.

[17] The defence further filed a letter from Jeff Carmichael of Bridge to Employment who wrote on January 22, 2025, that Mr. Pilliatis participated in the Community Health and Wellness program which is eight weeks long. Maya Sanmila, Addiction Counsellor at the Toronto East Detention Centre, wrote that she has met monthly with Mr. Pilliatis, and he has been referred to programs with the Canadian Mental Health Association, Therapy and Addictions Services Program for counselling while in custody and upon his release. Megan MacDonald, Director of the Educational program at Amadeusz, wrote that Mr. Pilliatis expressed interest in registering for the Business Management Marketing Certificate Program through Centennial College. An Addiction Treatment Release Plan was prepared for Mr. Pilliatis, and they have recommended CMHA Toronto Therapy and Addiction Services and outlined a treatment plan for him.

[18] Finally, counsel filed copies of certificates of completion for a number of life skills courses completed by Mr. Pilliatis, some addressing substance use.

[19] Mr. Pilliatis read aloud a letter that he wrote to the Court, and it was marked as an exhibit. He outlined his background and that he was 24 years old at the time of the offences. He came from an unstable family where his mother committed suicide when he was six years old, he never had a father, moved in with an uncle and lived in Ethiopia where he experienced violence and trauma. When he returned to Canada, he lived in poverty and became addicted to drugs. He says he has learned a great deal and takes full responsibility for his actions.

Positions of the Parties

Position of the Crown

[20] Crown counsel, Ms. Virani, submits that an appropriate sentence in this case, in light of the totality principle, is a sentence of eight years of imprisonment representing five years for the Toronto charges and three years for the Oshawa charges. This sentence would be less credit for pre-sentence custody and credit for harsh conditions in the jails.

[21] Mr. Pilliatis has been in custody off and on since September 9, 2021. Those times in custody are as follows: from September 10, 2021, until November 9, 2021, he was detained at the Toronto South Detention Centre. From January 14, 2022, until March 1, 2022, and from August 23, 2022, until October 12, 2022, he was also at the Toronto South Detention Centre. From May 7, 2024, until January 12, 2025, he was detained at the Central East Detention Centre following his arrest in Durham. He was transferred to Toronto East Detention Centre on January 12, 2025, and remains there until today.

[22] Ms. Virani submits that Mr. Pilliatis should receive credit in the amount of one year for the harsh conditions of imprisonment in accordance with R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754, and R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344, which would reduce the eight-year sentence to seven years. This is because of the 150 days of triple bunking and 490 days of lockdowns in the jails. Further, as of the date of the sentencing submissions, on a 1.5:1 basis, he would receive credit of 873 days (two years and five months) for pre-sentence custody. Counsel also asks the court to impose an order for a sample of his DNA to be taken pursuant to s. 487.051(3) of the Code, a weapons prohibition order under s. 109 for a period of 10 years, and a forfeiture order regarding the cash and paraphernalia.

[23] For the time spent on house arrest which was lengthy (751 days or 25 months) but given that he breached the condition of house arrest, he should receive no more than five months of credit in accordance with R. v. Downes.

[24] In arriving at the global sentence of eight years, Ms. Virani points to the significant quantity of fentanyl that would justify a five-to-seven-year sentence if the charges were prosecuted separately. In R. v. Parranto, Justice Moldaver highlighted the dangers of fentanyl, that there is a national crisis, and sentencing ranges are developing to serve as deterrence for such trafficking. In Parranto, the court spoke of a range of eight to fifteen years for wholesale commercial trafficking in large amounts (512 grams in that case). In the case at bar, the total amount involved was 76 grams of fentanyl for two occasions.

[25] In support of her position, Crown counsel submitted a number of sentencing cases where the range of sentence for possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking has been held to be in the five-to-eight-year range. Ms. Virani cites the decision of R. v. Lynch, 2020 ONCA 109, where the offender sold fentanyl to an undercover officer on six occasions and pleaded guilty to possession of 965 grams of cocaine, 150 grams of MDMA and 41 grams of fentanyl. The trial judge imposed a four-year sentence. The Court of Appeal substituted a six-year sentence. In R. v. St. Rose, 2024 ONCA 893, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a six-year sentence for possession of 44.26 grams of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking. The trial judge had held that the offender was a mid-level dealer given the quantity of fentanyl and quantities of other controlled substances found in his apartment and the court agreed that this inference was available.

[26] Ms. Virani submits that Mr. Pilliatis is a mid-level trafficker and while he may have been trafficking to support his addictions, that is not typical of addict traffickers. In R. v. Sivashothy, 2024 ONSC 6564, the offender was found guilty following a jury trial of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking of 55.78 grams of fentanyl. The court reviewed the appropriate sentencing range from the jurisprudence and noted that it was five to eight years or even nine years and imposed a five-year sentence as the offender was youthful, this was his first offence, and he had positive rehabilitative prospects. The nature of the substance involved was aggravating.

[27] In the case of R. v. Dymkowski, 2022 ONSC 6821, Goodman J. found the offender guilty after a trial of possession of 70.65 grams of fentanyl, just over 50 grams of methamphetamine and 115.4 grams of cocaine and he pleaded guilty to possession of a further 23.8 grams of fentanyl. He was sentenced to a global sentence of nine years reduced by 20 months in accordance with R. v. Duncan. The court held that he showed some remorse, had family support and made efforts to complete courses but the aggravating factors were the nature and amount of the drugs, that there were two distinct events, and the flagrant breaches of bail. He had a criminal record for non-violent offences and not for any drug offences. In the case of R. v. Thompson, January 19, 2023, the offender was found guilty following a jury trial of possession of 69 grams of cocaine, 35.19 grams of fentanyl and cash totaling $14,245.10 and was sentenced to seven years of imprisonment. The court noted the aggravating factors of the nature of the drugs and the quantities involved and that he had a prior related record. The mitigating factor was that he had a positive support network of family.

[28] With reference to other controlled substances, in R. v. Mercier, 2023 ONCA 998, the Court of Appeal held an appropriate range of sentence for possession of 760 grams of methamphetamine would be five to twelve years and would be considered a mid-level trafficker. In R. v. Halk, 2022 ONSC 6855, the court sentenced an offender following a plea of guilty to possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking to five years. He was a repeated drug trafficker. However, he entered a guilty plea and used the time in custody to obtain his GED. He spent 315 days in lockdown and the court held these were harsh conditions which justified this sentence. On appeal, in R. v. Halk, 2024 ONCA 108, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the global sentence of five years was at the very low end of the range but did not interfere with the sentence.

[29] In R. v. Vandonkersgoed, 2024 ONSC 3271, the court imposed a five-year sentence where the offender was in possession of more than one kilogram of methamphetamines in a car. He had no prior criminal record, had strong family support and addiction issues. The aggravating factors were the amount of the drugs and that they were being transported to a rural community. In R. v. Okonta, 2020 ONSC 1412, the offender pleaded guilty to possessing 876 grams of crystal methamphetamine and 129 grams of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. He received a three-year sentence. The court held that the aggravating factors were the amount of the drugs and his objective of financial gain. The mitigating factors were that he had no prior criminal record, had a history of employment, that he had pleaded guilty and had support in the community and family support.

[30] In summary, Ms. Virani submits that the eight-year sentence in the case at bar recognizes the guilty plea, that Mr. Pilliatis is remorseful, that he has saved court resources, that he is still young in that he is only 28 years old, that he is a racialized male and of Indigenous background, and that he had no criminal record at the time of these offences. Further, he has had a difficult childhood and has been transient since he was 18 years old. He has attempted to take programs while in custody and has been productive. He has taken steps to address his addiction issues. However, the aggravating factors are the continued trafficking while on bail for a similar offence, being in possession of a total of 76 grams of fentanyl which is an extremely potent and dangerous drug as well as a large amount of methamphetamine. The eight-year sentence is necessary to deter him and others from committing such offences. Counsel submits that a sentence be imposed of five years for possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, four years concurrent for possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking and three years consecutive for the possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking in Durham for a total of eight years less one year for credit in accordance with R. v. Duncan. Credit of five months should be given for time spent on restrictive bail conditions in accordance with R. v. Downes, and credit of 1.5:1 in accordance with R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26 for time spent in pre-sentence custody.

[31] Finally, Crown counsel seeks the following ancillary orders: a s. 109 order for 10 years, an order that a sample of Mr. Pilliatis' DNA be taken and forfeiture order of property obtained on arrest for the Toronto and Durham charges.

Position of the Defence

[32] Defence counsel, Ms. Symes and Mr. Embry, ask the court to impose a sentence of five to six years less credit for pre-sentence custody in accordance with Summers at 1.5:1 and credit for harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody. Counsel also seek credit for time spent on restrictive bail conditions in accordance with Downes. They argue that the ultimate sentence should be two years less one day followed by probation.

[33] Mr. Pilliatis had no criminal record at the time of these offences, has pleaded guilty to the charges and has saved court resources. The Charter application brought was not successful, but it was also not frivolous. His co-accused was successful in the challenge. Further, there were triable issues with respect to possession. This was Mr. Pilliatis' first conviction. He suffers from an addiction, and he is a relatively young offender. This would be his first significant prison sentence.

[34] An eight-year sentence as sought by the Crown is enormous and the case law does not support it for an addict trafficker who was homeless and trafficking to feed his addiction. Counsel asks that the court consider Morris factors outlined in R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680 given Mr. Pilliatis' difficult childhood where he had no father, his mother passed away, he moved around from household to household and was exposed to violence. He experienced systemic anti-Black racism and saw trafficking as an opportunity. Counsel submit that there are both Morris and Gladue factors although his status was not confirmed. Counsel also distinguishes the cases cited by Crown counsel and argue they are not relevant because of either the presence of a criminal record, or the sentences followed a trial or other circumstances different from the case at bar.

[35] Counsel concede that there are aggravating factors given the nature of the drugs and the damage they can cause. While Mr. Pilliatis may be seen as a mid-level trafficker, there are other aspects of commercialism that are not present in this case. The two sets of offences take place far apart and given a large gap, they may be seen as really first offences. While a mid-level trafficker may receive a sentence of five to eight years, Mr. Pilliatis' case is not like those.

[36] Counsel cited a number of cases but distinguish them from the case at bar. For example, in R. v. Solano-Santana, [2018] O.J. No. 3180, the offender was in possession of a large quantity of fentanyl (5,000 pills) for the purpose of trafficking, had previous convictions for drug offences and was in breach of his recognizance at the time of the offence. He was not an addict and was motivated by commercial gain. There, the court sentenced the offender to eight years imprisonment. In R. v. Prestula, [2018] O.J. No. 3935, M.G.J. Quigley J. sentenced the offender who pleaded guilty to three counts of drug related offences including two for possession for the purpose of trafficking on two separate indictments involving fentanyl, crack cocaine and cocaine to five years and three months. The offender had a prior criminal record.

[37] In R. v. Quast, [2020] O.J. No. 5056, the court sentenced the offender who pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking 2.5 kilograms of cocaine and one count of trafficking 517 grams of fentanyl as well as was in possession of 143 grams of heroin and 103 grams of crystal methamphetamine. He was 24 years old, lived with his parents, had no criminal record and was abusing drugs. He received a sentence of four years of imprisonment. In R. v. Schramek, [2021] O.J. No. 192, C. Bondy J. sentenced the offender to a global sentence of seven and a half years for possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking (156.7 grams), possession of methamphetamine (3.4 grams) possession of cocaine (1.2 grams), possession of property obtained by crime and possession of prohibited weapons. The offender was not youthful and was involved in a more sophisticated operation involving two scales and multiple drugs as well as a money counter and had a weapon in his home near children. In R. v. Jama, 2021 ONSC 4871, Schreck J. sentenced Mr. Farah who was 22 years old, had no prior record and was an addict to three years for possession of heroin and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

[38] In R. v. Truong, [2023] O.J. No. 5974, the offender was in possession of 94 grams of fentanyl and had a related criminal record. He was selling fentanyl for commercial reasons and received a six-year sentence. In R. v. Wrightsell, [2024] O.J. No. 3425, the offender pleaded guilty to three counts of possession of a controlled substance for the purpose trafficking (182 grams of fentanyl, 321.7 grams of cocaine, 353 grams of methamphetamine and 28 grams of MDMA) and received a 5.5-year sentence for trafficking in fentanyl and 4 years concurrent for the other offences. The fentanyl was tested, and the estimated street value was $345,000.

[39] In R. v. Ansah, [2021] O.J. No. 6246, the offender was sentenced to possession of a loaded firearm and 85 grams of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking. He was a youthful first offender and was not a drug user. He was sentenced to five years for the possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, but the global sentence was reduced to reflect the totality principle.

[40] In R. v. Peric, [2021] O.J. No. 4527, the offender was 28 years old, was in possession of 82.63 grams of fentanyl, pleaded guilty to possession for the purpose of trafficking, was serving a sentence for drug offences committed prior to the present offences and had a difficult childhood. He had breached numerous court orders, and his criminal record dated back to 2013. He was sentenced to four years of imprisonment.

[41] Counsel has provided the court with the records from the three jails and seeks credit for harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody which she says are evident from the records which show "a staggering amount of lockdowns". Further, Mr. Pilliatis has taken advantage of the programs offered while he has been in custody and has demonstrated rehabilitative potential. Counsel has further filed letters from persons in the community to demonstrate family, friends and community support.

[42] In the affidavit of Mr. Pilliatis, he outlines the circumstances of his incarceration in the various facilities. He was arrested on September 9, 2021, on the Toronto charges and on May 7, 2024, on the Durham charges. Between September 9, 2021, until November 9, 2021, he was at the Toronto South Detention Centre. He was also there from January 14, 2022, until March 1, 2022, and August 23, 2022, until October 12, 2022. From May 7, 2024, until January 12, 2025, he was at the Central East Correctional Centre. From January 12, 2025, until the present he is at the Toronto East Detention Centre. At the time of the sentencing hearing, this was a total 582 days.

[43] Defence counsel seeks an overall sentence that allows Mr. Pilliatis to stay within the provincial system and be placed on probation when he is released from custody.

[44] Ms. Symes argues that the cases would place Mr. Pilliatis at the mid-level of trafficking given the quantity of drugs involved. She also submits that for the Toronto charges, he was jointly charged with Nicole Fife whose Charter application was successful. The car in which they were driving belonged to Ms. Fife's friend and he was selling drugs to support his addiction. Counsel argues that he was jointly in possession of 750 grams of methamphetamine and 41 grams of fentanyl, and that the quantity of the drug involved cannot be relied upon as a major factor. Rather, what is relevant is that Mr. Pilliatis had no criminal record, he had completed one year of probation on a conditional discharge for simple possession, he comes from a Black and Indigenous background, he had an unstable childhood filled with trauma and loss, his father abandoned him, he lived in subsidized housing with his mother who died by suicide when he was six years old. He lived with an uncle then moved to Ethiopia for some years during his adolescence. He says he witnessed trauma, violence, poverty and gun fire. His background is confirmed by the letters written in support by friends who knew him in Ethiopia and in Canada through childhood and adulthood and through school and church.

[45] Counsel submits that Mr. Pilliatis began a path of drug use when he learned that his mother had committed suicide years ago and again when his partner had a still birth. This led to anguish and devastation, and he began to use opiates to mask feelings of depression. She takes the position that this all led to his first arrest in 2021 where he was selling opiates to be able to afford drugs. He was arrested, held in custody for two months (November 9, 2021, until January 14, 2022) and released through the Bail Program. He was arrested in January 2022 and placed back in custody, but those charges were withdrawn or stayed. He was released on bail with a surety, ankle monitor and house arrest. This was from March 1, 2023, until August 23, 2023. One of his sureties wrote a letter outlining how he had contributed to her household, and she also attended the sentencing hearing to show her support. In May of 2023, the bail terms were varied to remove the ankle monitor condition only. Following the surgery on his shoulder in February 2024, he relapsed when he was prescribed opiates for pain, and this led to his re-arrest in May 2024.

[46] Counsel points out that Mr. Pilliatis has taken every program available while in custody although the COVID 19 pandemic restricted a great deal. He has followed programs for substance use and has stayed in contact with his sponsor from Narcotics Anonymous. There is a proposed treatment plan that has been completed and he is accepted to the CMHA program to address his addiction and mental health. For all of these reasons, counsel is seeking a sentence that permits Mr. Pilliatis to be placed on a period of probation with conditions that require him to pursue counselling and treatment. He has had a positive record of community supervisions although he breached house arrest. Counsel argues he is a strong candidate for community supervision.

[47] In support of this argument, counsel refers to R. v. Jama where Schreck J. reduced a three-year sentence for possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking to 22.5 months in order to have a net sentence of two years less a day to address rehabilitation. Counsel also cites R. v. Donnison where, at paragraphs 42 and 43, Schreck J. highlighted that a sentence that is focused on rehabilitation potential is in the interests of everyone and does more to protect society. There, the court awarded credit for restrictive bail conditions and credit for harsh conditions in accordance with R. v. Duncan.

[48] In the case at bar, the defence asks the court to reduce the sentence in light of the harsh conditions of custody in accordance with R. v. Duncan and R. v. Marshall. Mr. Pilliatis wrote in his affidavit that there were 499 lockdowns at the Toronto South Detention Centre, at the Central East Detention Centre there were a total of 356-366 full or partial lockdowns (60%) of the time in custody mainly due to staff shortages and due to several weeks of COVID-19 droplet protocol. There was triple bunking for 26% of the time (45 days at Toronto East Detention Centre and on 105 days at Central East Correctional Centre he slept on the floor). At Central East Detention Centre, there were 105 days of triple bunking; he was also in lockdown at the time. For two periods over three weeks each, he was locked down every day except for two days.

[49] Defence counsel seeks an overall sentence that allows Mr. Pilliatis to stay within the provincial system and be placed on probation when he is released from custody. Finally, counsel points out that Mr. Pilliatis was denied medical treatment for his shoulder, his toe and for dental work. Counsel argues that credit should be given for such harsh conditions. Counsel points to R. v. Hassan, where the offender was credited 0.5 for every day in lockdown where he was in lockdown 38% of the time. Mr. Pilliatis was in lockdown over 68% of the time. In R. v. Baldwin, 2021 ONSC 7025, Maxwell J. granted one year for harsh conditions (24% of the time) in lockdown particularly during the pandemic, in R. v. Lee, 2021 ONSC 7672, Justice Kelly awarded one to one and a half years of mitigation for lockdowns 23% of the time during the COVID-19 pandemic, and in R. v. Shiakh, [2024] O.J. No. 1434, Molloy J. sentenced the offender for offences involving trafficking in cocaine and possession of firearms and reduced the sentence by one year in mitigation for lockdowns (42% of the time). Counsel asks that this court award 15 to 18 months of credit to represent one day for each day of lockdown.

[50] In summary, defence counsel submits that an appropriate sentence is one of four years for possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking in 2021, two years concurrent for possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking and three years for possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking consecutive for the Durham charge in 2024. The global sentence would be seven years. In keeping with the principle of totality, the sentence should be reduced to five to six years. In that Mr. Pilliatis experienced harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody, he should receive credit in accordance with Duncan and with credit in accordance with Summers and Downes, the sentence should be reduced to two years less a day followed by probation. Counsel argue that this would be in the best interests of Mr. Pilliatis and would serve society's interests.

Analysis and the Law

[51] 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 which include 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.

[52] 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 take into account 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. This is known as the principle of parity reflected in s. 718.2(b). Where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentences should not be unduly long or harsh otherwise known as the principle of totality reflected in s. 718.2(c). 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. These are known as the principles of restraint reflected in ss. 718.2(d) and (e).

[53] I now turn to the relevant jurisprudence on sentencing applicable to the offences in this case. In cases 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. Whether there is a significant element of commercialism, the role of the offender and the circumstances of the offender are all 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.

[54] With respect to the offence of trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking in fentanyl, the dangers of fentanyl are discussed throughout the jurisprudence: see R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46, and R. v. Loor, 2017 ONCA 696, and as indicated by the fact that s. 5(2) of the CDSA carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Cases involving possession for the purpose of trafficking where the drug is fentanyl and the quantities are significant often attract sentences that can be in the range between 6 and 9.5 years with some exceptions: see R. v. Sidhu, 2019 ONCA 880; R. v. Disher, 2020 ONCA 710; R. v. Boose, 2023 ONCA 493; R. v. Loor, 2017 ONCA 696, and R. v. Smith, 2023 ONCA 500.

[55] In the decision of R. v. Parranto, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld that the Alberta Court of Appeal correctly intervened where it found that the sentences imposed at first instance were demonstrably unfit for cases of largescale fentanyl trafficking and that severe penalties involving double-digit penitentiary terms were appropriate.

[56] While the case at bar does not involve largescale commercial trafficking in fentanyl, the comments of Justice Moldaver are relevant regarding the dangers posed by trafficking in hard drugs including direct and indirect harms to society and the specific dangers posed by largescale fentanyl trafficking given the potency of the drug and the risk of overdose and death. While he wrote that heavy penitentiary sentences are appropriate for offenders who have trafficked in large quantities of fentanyl, he did say at paragraph 99, "my comments that follow do not apply to sentences for street level trafficking or where traffickers are motivated by a need to support their own addiction." Thus, while the range of sentence discussed by the Supreme Court in Parranto is not applicable to the case at bar, the comments regarding the consequences of fentanyl trafficking and the dangers of this drug are pertinent.

[57] In the case of R. v. Loor, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a conviction and a sentence of six years for three counts of using a forged document (the prescription) and three counts of trafficking in fentanyl (45 patches). Justice Laskin wrote at paragraph 33: "Unless used for therapeutic purposes, under proper medical supervision, fentanyl is a highly dangerous drug. Its widespread abuse, though recent, has quickly become entrenched in our country. Every day in our communities, fentanyl abuse claims the lives of Canadians."

[58] Justice Laskin went on to discuss how potent and therefore dangerous fentanyl is. He considered the aggravating and mitigating factors in the case. He also noted that few fentanyl trafficking cases had reached the court at that time but said, at paragraph 50, "Offenders – even first offenders – who traffic significant amounts of fentanyl should expect to receive significant penitentiary sentences."

[59] Although the sentences for trafficking or possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking are generally penitentiary sentences, where the trafficking is low level and the offender is a user, the sentence may be less. In some exceptional cases, sentences of two years less a day served as a conditional sentence have been imposed particularly where the offender has rehabilitative potential: see R. v. Shearer, 2022 ONCJ 288, R. v. Grant, 2021 ONCJ 507, R. v. Gordon, 2023 ONCJ 157 and R. v. Stewart, 2024 ONSC 281. Of course, the amount of fentanyl involved in these cases was less than in the case at bar. Some of the sentences involving mid-level traffickers are more in the five-to-eight-year range. However, where the trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking is done because the offender is an addict, the jurisprudence is less relevant even for a mid-level trafficker.

Decision

[60] 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: R. v. Wust, 2000 SCC 18, at paragraph 44. The sentencing process is an individualized one, but the court must remain mindful of the jurisprudence regarding similar offences committed by similar offenders in similar circumstances. As the courts have said, sentencing ranges are not "straightjackets": R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, at paragraph 57.

[61] 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. Pilliatis.

[62] Mr. Pilliatis is 28 years of age and was born in Ontario on April 15, 1997. His mother was from Ethiopia and his father was Black and partially Indigenous. His parents never married. He was initially raised by his mother but, tragically, she committed suicide when he was six years old. He was estranged from his father and placed in foster care until he moved in to live with a maternal uncle where he stayed until he was 10 years old. Then he was sent to Ethiopia to live with a maternal aunt. He lived in Ethiopia for six years. During that time, he says that he witnessed trauma and poverty. He said he saw dead bodies in the street and people ran from gunfire. When he was 16 years old, he returned to Toronto to live with his uncle. He has no siblings but was raised with cousins. Mr. Pilliatis left the family home at the age of 18 and became transient for a while. Eventually, he found his own place. He advised the probation officer that when he learned for the first time that his mother's death was by suicide, he experienced a period of depression.

[63] Mr. Pilliatis is single. He had a girlfriend from 2020 to 2022. His girlfriend experienced a still birth baby which caused much grief and sadness and led to the relationship ending.

[64] As for his education, he completed grade 12. He says that he did not require any special education. He volunteered at a food bank and acquired his security guard licence. His previous work was part-time at a local club, where he says he worked as a security guard and a customer service representative. Prior to his arrest, he was involved in classes and workshops.

[65] While in custody, he has enrolled in a number of programs. Mr. Pilliatis reported to the probation officer that he did not have a problem with alcohol. He became addicted to marijuana and when he learned about his mother's passing and reflected on his father's abandonment, he started to take drugs such as crack cocaine, powder cocaine, Percocet and fentanyl. He says he experienced depression when his partner experienced a stillbirth, and he began to use fentanyl. He stopped taking drugs for a while but following shoulder surgery, he began to take opiates prescribed for pain management. A copy of the prescription for oxycodone was filed as an exhibit. When his prescription ended, he used fentanyl for relief.

[66] Mr. Pilliatis has a friend, Tiffany Finn, who acted as his surety for a while. She had dated Mr. Pilliatis' cousin many years ago and was prepared to assist Mr. Pilliatis when he faced these charges. She found him to be compliant while living with her and he was a positive role model for her 10-year-old son. She says Mr. Pilliatis was sober at the time he lived with her and attended Cocaine/Narcotics Anonymous sessions virtually. He also completed some counselling and Narcotics Anonymous sessions in the past. He has a sponsor, Jack Walton, who facilitates sessions at the Toronto East Detention Centre and has been working with Mr. Pilliatis every two weeks throughout the year. He says that Mr. Pilliatis has a real interest in abstaining from substances and Mr. Walton is prepared to assist him in connecting to other programs when released from custody.

[67] Mr. Pilliatis also has a friend, Melissa Finn, who described him as, "caring, religious, down to earth and committed towards his recovery." She believes he is making better choices.

[68] The probation officer found Mr. Pilliatis to be cooperative during the interview. He accepts responsibility for his actions. She said that he wants to continue to access programming, counselling and treatment and that he wishes to pursue his education and start a business in cybersecurity. Mr. Pilliatis has participated in the Black Employment Support Program which he enrolled in on March 3, 2025 and the coordinator advised that the program is offered to person in custody who identify as black. They have met twice each week for an hour and that continues for 16 weeks. Mr. Pilliatis was described by the program coordinator as an active participant and that he has practiced prosocial behaviour and has been a role model to others.

[69] Mr. Pilliatis has also participated in a program, "Brighter Dayz Community Reintegration Organization" since January 2025. The program is designed to provide counselling during four sessions. Mr. Pilliatis was described as having shown a "very eager attitude toward learning new material, asked questions, and read when called upon. He was very respectful with all participants." She also said he is very kind to others. He completed a workshop: "How to Break Bad Habits and Change Behaviour and Communication Skills Workshops."

[70] Mr. Pilliatis was charged with these offences in 2021. He was found guilty of possession of a Schedule I substance in March 2023 and received a conditional discharge and probation and completed community supervision on February 29, 2024. He has completed a number of programs addressing grief and addiction.

[71] The probation officer described that Mr. Pilliatis experienced grief, abandonment and trauma which led to the use of substances and conflict with the law. Continued counselling, further education and programs are needed to allow him to pursue an "offence-free life". If the court considers a period of community supervision, the probation officer recommended certain conditions which included participating in counselling and treatment as directed.

[72] I now turn to the circumstances of the offences. Mr. Pilliatis was in possession of 41.4 grams of fentanyl and 759 grams of crystal meth during the 2021 offences in Toronto and 35 grams of fentanyl on the 2024 offence in Durham. Neither circumstance seemed to demonstrate aspects of high levels of commercialism and seemed more like the street trafficker or mid-level trafficker given how the drugs were stored in a backpack or satchel in a borrowed vehicle. Cases regarding the appropriate range of sentence for possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking emphasize denunciation and deterrence. The effect of fentanyl on drug users is a relevant consideration and the courts view the incredibly negative impact of this drug on users and on society as relevant. While the Supreme Court in Parranto dealt with sentencing for commercial high-level drug trafficking in fentanyl, the court's comments regarding the harm caused by this drug are especially relevant. The jurisprudence cited by the Crown supporting a substantial penitentiary term for possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking highlight the ills caused by this drug.

[73] In the case at bar, there are many factors in mitigation including that Mr. Pilliatis did not have a criminal record at the time of the offences. He pleaded guilty to the charges and has expressed remorse. He is taking responsibility for his actions. He has saved valuable court resources at a time when resources are scarce in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. Mr. Pilliatis has had a very troubled background. Nonetheless, he has availed himself of programs in order to address his rehabilitation and his substance abuse.

[74] The aggravating factors include the nature of the offences, the type of drug and quantities of the drugs involved, and the effect of this type of drug on the public. Fentanyl, in particular, is one of the deadliest illicit substances. The prevalence of fentanyl in the community is of grave concern. Mr. Pilliatis was in possession of fentanyl for the purpose of feeding his own addictions as well as to earn a profit.

[75] A sentence for this offence must emphasize denunciation and deterrence. There are cases where the courts have imposed a significant penitentiary term for possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking in similar quantities. However, in a number of those cases, the offender had a prior criminal record or showed less rehabilitative potential. I am mindful that there are cases that call for a sentence outside a particular range as ranges are only guidelines. The determination of a just sentence is a highly individualized exercise: Lacasse, at paragraphs 57 and 58. In R. v. Priest, the court held that in the case of a youthful first offender, all other dispositions before imposing a custodial sentence should be explored and if a custodial sentence is appropriate, a first sentence of imprisonment should be as short as possible and tailored to the individual circumstance of the accused rather than solely for the purpose of general deterrence.

The Factor of Systemic Racism

[76] In Morris, the court considered the factor where an accused has experienced anti-Black racism but said at paragraph 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.

[77] 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 paragraphs 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.

[78] The issues raised by the case of R. v. Morris, concerning anti-Black racism, did not really arise in the case. Specifically, no connection was made between anti-Black racism and the "circumstances or events that are said to explain or mitigate" the possession for the purpose of trafficking offences: Morris, at paragraph 97. While no Enhanced Report was obtained, the evidence filed before me did raise certain aspects of anti-Black racism which are relevant in sentencing this offender. However, there must be some connection to the circumstances said to mitigate the offence: Morris, at paragraph 97. I find there is some connection here to Mr. Pilliatis' traumatic background and the exposure he faced to violence both in Ethiopia and in Canada. In Morris, the Ontario Court of Appeal highlighted the principles of denunciation, deterrence, protection of society, 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 highlighted the considerable discretion given to sentencing judges to decide how best to blend the various legitimate objectives of sentencing.

[79] I consider Mr. Pilliatis' background of personal hardship involved in being homeless and selling drugs to afford the drugs to feed his addiction. He lived in racialized communities where he was surrounded by criminal activity. He says he was racially profiled and injured by police physically. I consider this factor in the sentencing process.

The Issue of Credit for Harsh Pre-Sentence Conditions in the Jail

[80] 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, at paragraph 6. In R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344, at paragraphs 50-53, Justice Doherty wrote at paragraph 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.

[81] In the case before me, the information concerning the harsh conditions is referenced from the lockdown records of the jail and the affidavit of Mr. Pilliatis which included the impact of conditions on him. Mr. Pilliatis described the nature of his detention at the Toronto South Detention Centre which included the many lockdowns due to staffing issues and as a result of quarantine procedures connected to COVID-19. Sometimes, the lockdowns would take place for many days in a row. During lockdowns there would be limited time for a shower or phone call (30 minutes) and clean laundry and cleaning of the cells did not take place for some days. The inmates became frustrated and angry, and it was a tense and less safe environment.

[82] At the Central East Correctional Centre, there was triple bunking for 105 days which involved one person sleeping on a mattress next to the toilet. Mr. Pilliatis says that he slept on the floor for half of the days he was triple bunked and twice he was triple bunked for more than three weeks straight. He was also locked down on almost every day that he was triple bunked. As for lockdowns, they were mainly due to staff shortages. Showers were permitted every third or fourth day and during these times there was no clean laundry. Programs were cancelled and access to the phone was during the 30-minute shower time. He said that inmates were generally more aggressive and there were frequent physical altercations.

[83] As for the Toronto East Detention Centre, there was triple bunking for 45 days while he was there which involved sleeping on a mattress and there were 53-63 lockdown days while he was at that facility. The programs were cancelled during lockdowns.

[84] 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 at paragraphs 59-68; R. v. Jama, 2021 ONSC 4871 at paragraphs 51, 53, and 55. These cases recognize that harsh pre-sentence incarceration conditions can provide mitigation, and enhanced credit is appropriate in certain cases. While the Court of Appeal has cautioned against quantifying the amount of credit and suggests instead to consider them in mitigation of the overall sentence, in certain circumstances it may still be appropriate to attribute a number for those harsh conditions in part to demonstrate the court's condemnation of these conditions.

[85] In addition, Mr. Pilliatis dislocated his shoulder prior to entering the Toronto South Detention Centre and requested medical attention. He was taken to hospital three days later after being in pain. He dislocated it again and had to have it reset in September of 2022. He had surgery in February 2024 and was put on oxycodone for pain. This led to a relapse and he began to use drugs including fentanyl again. When he was arrested in May 2024, he was not given physiotherapy for his shoulder either at the CECC or the TEDC. He has limited range motion and chronic pain. He also developed a toe infection and received antibiotics which did not work. He has requested to see a dentist about a jaw alignment problem.

[86] In light of Mr. Pilliatis' role in the offences which involved being in possession of very harmful drugs for mid-level trafficking, that he was a user of drugs and involved in the drug trade to satisfy his own habit as well as for commercial reasons, that he had no criminal record at the time of the offences, and in light of Morris factors and what I consider to be strong rehabilitative potential and community support, I am of the view that an appropriate sentence is a global sentence of six years. However, I view the very significant time he spent in lockdown and in harsh conditions over the period of time to be a mitigating factor and I reduce the global sentence to five years accordingly.

[87] I agree that credit for pre-sentence custody should be given at 1.5:1 in accordance with R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26. For having spent 658 days in custody, this would equal 987 days.

The Issue of Credit for Time Spent on Strict Bail Terms

[88] Mr. Pilliatis was on judicial interim release for a significant period of time: from March 1, 2022, until August 23, 2022, (176 days) and from October 12, 2022, until May 7, 2024 (575 days) which is a total of 751 days. The terms of his release imposed on October 12, 2022 were that he was released on a surety bail requiring him to reside with one of his sureties and be subject to house arrest, wear an ankle monitor and not to possess any weapons. The requirement to wear an ankle monitor was removed on May 10, 2023.

[89] In R. v. Downes, Justice Rosenberg of the Ontario Court of Appeal wrote that time spent while on stringent bail conditions is a relevant mitigating factor that a sentencing judge must consider, at paragraph 37. The court is to look at the factors of the length of time on bail subject to the conditions, the stringency of the conditions, the impact on the offender's liberty and the offender's ability to carry on normal relationships, employment and activity. The onus is on the offender to establish the facts supporting the impact of the conditions on a balance of probabilities in accordance with s. 724(3) of the Criminal Code: see R. v. Place, 2020 ONCA 546, at paragraph 20. The judge has discretion to determine the impact of such mitigation. There is no set formula for credit.

[90] The conditions of Mr. Pilliatis' release over a significant period of time were stringent and included house arrest. In his affidavit, he outlined how he was placed on an ankle monitor and required to live with his surety and be under house arrest. The terms were varied on May 10, 2023, to remove the condition regarding the ankle monitor. The house arrest condition continued until he was arrested on May 7, 2024. However, he breached these conditions by committing the offence in Durham. Although he was in breach of these conditions when he committed the Durham offence, I still am of the view that he should receive some credit albeit a reduced amount for not complying with those terms. The amount of credit is 110 days.

Result

[91] Mr. Pilliatis shall be sentenced as follows: for the offence of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking on the Toronto charges, he shall be sentenced to three years of imprisonment. For the possession of methamphetamines for the purpose of trafficking, he shall be sentenced to two years concurrent. For possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking in Durham, he shall be sentenced to three years consecutive to the possession for the purpose of trafficking offence in Toronto. In light of the principle of totality the total sentence is six years. However, in light of harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody particularly during the aftermath of COVID-19, he shall be credited with one year or 365 days. He shall be credited with time spent in pre-sentence custody in accordance with R. v. Summers. This would be a total of 660 days in custody credited at 1.5:1 which equals 990 days. He shall receive further credit of 110 days in accordance with R. v. Downes. The balance of the sentence to be served as a period of imprisonment is 725 days of imprisonment.

[92] Following this period of imprisonment, Mr. Pilliatis is placed on probation for two years. In addition to the statutory conditions, he shall reside at an address approved by his probation officer; he shall attend and participate in any counselling and/or treatment as directed by his probation officer and sign any necessary releases; he shall abstain from owning or possessing any weapons; he shall report to his probation officer forthwith following the conclusion of the sentence and as often as the probation officer deems necessary.

[93] In summary, with the years that Mr. Pilliatis has been on bail, the years of pre-sentence custody and the sentence of approximately two years less one day imprisonment remaining followed by the two years of probation, he will be under the court's supervision for eight years.

[94] I further make an order under s. 109(1) prohibiting Mr. Pilliatis from possessing any weapon as defined by the Criminal Code for 10 years. I also order that Mr. Pilliatis provide a sample of his DNA pursuant to s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code. Finally, there will be an order of forfeiture of the items seized on arrest. The Victim Fine Surcharge is waived.

Himel J.

Released: September 18, 2025