Reasons on Sentence

Court File No.: CR-23-0003-00
Date: 2025-02-04
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Between:
His Majesty the King
J. McConnell, for the Federal Crown
-and-
Jeremy Johnson
R. Garrett, for the Accused
Heard by Jury: April 8, 9, 10 and 11, 2024 at Fort Frances, Ontario
Justice: J.S. Fregeau

Introduction

[1] On April 11, 2024, a jury found Jeremy Johnson (the “accused”) guilty of the following offences, all occurring on November 18, 2020:

1. Possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act;
2. Possession of cocaine for the purposes of trafficking, contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act; and
3. Possession of cocaine, contrary to s. 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

[2] Due to the quantity of fentanyl and cocaine found in the accused’s possession – 448.6 grams of fentanyl and 89.7 grams of cocaine – the Crown submits that a global sentence within the range of 10–12 years’ incarceration is required to properly address the sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence.

[3] The accused submits that, when credits for pre-sentence custody and three and one-half years of house arrest are applied, a sentence of two years less a day, to be served in the community pursuant to a conditional sentence order, together with a three-year period of probation, would be consistent with the principles of sentencing set out in ss. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46.

The Facts

Circumstances of the Offence

[4] On November 18, 2020, the accused was operating a 2016 Dodge Ram truck in an unorganized area within the District of Rainy River, in the province of Ontario. At approximately 10:30 p.m., the truck left the roadway and rolled several times before coming to rest on the driver’s side. The accused called for an ambulance and was taken to the hospital.

[5] Police officers attended the scene of the accident and found drug paraphernalia and suspected illicit drugs scattered within the debris field of the accident. Upon further investigation, police discovered a cloth shopping bag inside a work jacket located under the truck. Inside the cloth shopping bag, police located what was later found to be 448.6 grams of fentanyl in brick form and 89.7 grams of cocaine. Police also located a “dime bag” with 0.5 grams of cocaine in the pocket of the work jacket.

Circumstances of the Offender

[6] A Pre-Sentence Report (the “PSR”) was filed at the sentencing hearing. I find the PSR to be generally positive.

[7] The accused is 50 years old and married with one adult child. He is a lifelong resident of Fort Frances, Ontario, and has a large extended and supportive family living in the area. He has a supportive network of close friends.

[8] The accused enjoyed a positive, comfortable upbringing in a middle-class family. The accused remains close to and supportive of his mother, who is experiencing serious health issues. The accused’s father passed away two years ago.

[9] The accused and his spouse have been married for 23 years and have a strong relationship. Tragically, approximately 12 years ago, the accused’s wife suffered complications while undergoing routine surgery. She is now disabled, confined to a wheelchair, and dependent on the accused for her day-to-day needs.

[10] The accused and his spouse have a 21-year-old son who resides in a basement apartment in the family residence. It is reported that this young man suffers from mental health issues which appear to be escalating as he grows older.

[11] The accused was diagnosed with dyslexia as a young person. This compromised the accused academically. However, he did graduate high school and attended post-secondary courses for welding in Thunder Bay.

[12] The accused is described as a hard-working individual, both as a young man and an adult. Unfortunately, approximately 20 years ago, he was in a serious workplace accident while operating heavy machinery and suffered extensive and permanent physical injuries. The accused was unable to work for five years and received WSIB benefits. He re-trained as a small engine repair mechanic and made serious efforts to work in that field. However, he was physically unable to maintain that employment.

[13] The accused’s brother suspected that the accused developed an opiate addiction following this workplace accident. The accused confirmed to the author of the PSR that he did take prescribed oxycontin and fentanyl-based pain medication but maintained that he only took the medication as prescribed.

[14] Following his efforts to work in the field of small engine repair, the accused obtained employment as a tractor driver at a peat moss harvesting facility, eventually becoming the manager of the plant. The accused was employed there for 15 years prior to the date of the offences before the court. However, the accused was operating a work truck at the time of the accident which led to the present charges, and he was therefore terminated from that employment.

[15] The accused has recently started working for a local contractor but is in constant pain from both the injuries suffered 20 years ago, and the injuries suffered during the rollover accident in November 2020. He does not enjoy his present employment and hopes to purchase equipment to start his own roadwork and landscaping business in the future.

[16] The accused has used marijuana consistently since age 12 and suspects it may have affected his brain development during adolescence. His cannabis use was heavy in the past but has slowed down significantly in recent years, now limited to “a couple of puffs after dinner”. The accused used LSD extensively as a young man, but not recently. The accused also occasionally uses psilocybin “magic” mushrooms. At the time of the offences, the accused was using cocaine once or twice a week, “to get through the day”. Collateral sources suggest that the accused’s cocaine use was primarily a means of self-medication.

[17] The accused was viewed in positive terms by all sources interviewed for the PSR. The accused’s brother described him as a generous, reliable, and caring individual. Other sources described the accused as a good person who cares about his family and friends and who is generous with his time when helping friends and neighbours.

[18] Police sources agree that the accused came from a positive, hard-working family and that the accused has, in the past, interacted with police on friendly terms. However, police also suspect that the accused has been involved in the local drug trade for years and has managed to avoid detection. As the investigating officer put it – “common sense says you don’t wake up some random Thursday and order up a brick of fentanyl to start your drug business”.

[19] The accused has a dated but related criminal record. In 1991, as a young person, he was convicted of trafficking and received a sentence of one year probation. In 1999, he was convicted of producing a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance, careless storage of a firearm and unauthorized possession of a firearm. He received monetary penalties for all the 1999 offences. In 2015, the accused was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and fined $750.

[20] The accused was in pre-sentence custody for ten days between April 2–12, 2021. On April 12, 2021, he was granted judicial interim release with his spouse as surety, and on terms that included “house arrest”, subject to the usual exceptions, including that he could only be outside his residence with his surety for limited purposes. On July 29, 2021, the terms of his release order were varied to allow the accused to be outside his home without his surety, but within the perimeter of his property. The release order was further varied later to allow the accused to attend employment.

[21] The accused described being on house arrest as very difficult, preventing him from pursuing leisure activities such as hunting, fishing, and attending sporting events. He further testified that being on house arrest has negatively impacted his relationship with his spouse and son.

[22] The PSR makes no mention of the accused being remorseful or acknowledging the very serious criminality of his actions. When addressing the court at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, the accused stated that he was “sorry”.

Legal Parameters

[23] A person found guilty of possessing fentanyl or cocaine, both Schedule I substances, for the purpose of trafficking is liable to imprisonment for life. A person found guilty of “simple” possession of cocaine is, when the offence is prosecuted by indictment, liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years.

Positions of the Crown and Defence

The Crown

[24] The Crown submits that the quantity of fentanyl and cocaine found in the accused’s possession is a serious aggravating factor on sentencing. The Crown contends that the “street value” of the 448.6 grams of fentanyl in the accused’s possession is between $360,000 and $538,000 if sold by the “point” (0.1 gram), between $202,000 and $224,000 if sold by the gram, and between $16,000 and $48,000 if sold by the ounce. The Crown suggests that the 89.7 grams of cocaine found in the accused’s possession have a “street value” of between $7,200 and $9,000 if sold by the gram, and between $4,800 and $8,000 if sold by the ounce.

[25] The Crown submits that the lethality of fentanyl – 50 to 100 times more potent than morphine – combined with the horrific impact of this drug on the vulnerable populations in Northwestern Ontario, are also aggravating factors. The Crown notes that the 2023 Opioid Toxicity Mortality Rate for Thunder Bay was, by far, the highest in Ontario, and that fentanyl was the number one substance involved in opioid toxicity deaths in Ontario between 2018 and 2023. Finally, the Crown notes that the 2023 opioid toxicity mortality rate in the catchment area of the Northwestern Health Unit, which includes Fort Frances, is the fifth highest in Ontario, behind Thunder Bay, Algoma, Sudbury, and North Bay/Parry Sound.

[26] The Crown submits that it is clearly established, due to the extremely lucrative nature of the opioid drug trade and the notorious lethality of fentanyl and other opioids, that the primary sentencing objectives in this case are denunciation and deterrence. The Crown contends that the quantities present in this case place the accused as a “mid-level” trafficker in the drug trade hierarchy, and that the sentencing range for a mid-level trafficker of fentanyl is 8–15 years’ imprisonment.

[27] The Crown submits that the accused’s record is also an aggravating factor on sentencing but acknowledges that it is minor and dated. The Crown suggests that there are no mitigating factors in this case, but for the health issues of the accused and his dependents. The Crown contends that the PSR does not establish that the accused was addicted to opioids nor that he was engaged in trafficking to fuel an addiction. The Crown submits that there is no evidence to support the submission that the accused was merely a drug “runner”, and therefore lower in the drug hierarchy than the quantities of drugs suggest. The Crown submits that the accused is not entitled to the mitigating effect of a guilty plea.

[28] The Crown submits that, when the aggravating and mitigating factors are taken into account, a global sentence of between 10–12 years imprisonment is necessary to address the sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence fully and adequately. The Crown further requests a 10-year weapons prohibition, a DNA and forfeiture order, and application of the Victim Fine Surcharge.

The Accused

[29] The accused submits that he is required to act as a primary caregiver for both his spouse and adult son due to their respective issues, and that he is also required to assist his mother, who is recovering from cancer, on a regular basis.

[30] The accused submits that he has struggled with various drug issues in the past but has refrained from the use of illicit substances since the date of these offences. The accused submits that his criminal record for drug offences is dated and relatively minor. The accused submits that he has been taking prescription pain medication, on an escalating basis, since he was 24 years old.

[31] The accused contends that he was a drug “runner” and not actively engaged in the actual trafficking of the drugs found in his possession. The accused submits that he should be categorized as a “low to mid-level” participant in the drug trade.

[32] The accused submits that he has been on strict “house arrest” release conditions for approximately three and one-half years and is therefore entitled to a Downes credit for the time on house arrest, either on a 4:1 or 3:1 basis.

[33] The accused acknowledges that denunciation and deterrence are the primary sentencing objectives in this case. However, the accused submits that a sentence of two years less a day, net of credit for pre-trial custody and net of a Downes credit, to be served in the community pursuant to a conditional sentence order, followed by three years’ probation, can adequately address the primary sentencing objectives, and allow him to care for his dependents.

Case Law

[34] The Crown has referred me to R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46, a sentencing appeal in relation to the trafficking of fentanyl at the wholesale commercial level.

[35] In Parranto, the two appellants were operating unrelated fentanyl trafficking operations on a “wholesale” commercial level in Nunavut. The Supreme Court dismissed the sentencing judge’s conclusion as to the range of sentence for offences of this nature and, at para. 68, stated that the accurate range based on a review of reported case law nationally “would be in the region of 8 to 15 years.” An offender’s position within that range is dependent on the quantity of drugs, the nature of the trafficking, and the aggravating and mitigating circumstances in their particular case.

[36] When providing sentencing judges with the above direction as to range of sentence, the Supreme Court in Parranto found it appropriate to comment extensively on fentanyl trafficking generally. In turn, I feel it is appropriate to quote extensively from these portions of the judgment to determine a fit and just sentence in the case before me.

[37] At para. 70 of Parranto, the Court stated the following with respect to assessing the gravity of the offence of trafficking in fentanyl:

[I]t is open to both the sentencing judge and the Court of Appeal to take into account the offender’s willingness to exploit at-risk populations and communities. In this regard, choices which demonstrate a reckless disregard for human life increase not only the gravity of the offence but the moral culpability of the offender and may amount to an aggravating factor in sentencing.

[38] At para. 71, the Court added that sentencing judges may, as they consider appropriate, “give special consideration to the disproportionate harm caused to particularly vulnerable groups and/or vulnerable and remote locations, where escaping traffickers is more difficult and resources for combatting addiction are more sparse.” The Court further observed the following, at para. 71:

[I]n Ontario, trafficking fentanyl to vulnerable northern communities has been found to be an aggravating factor. Accordingly, the objective harm caused by outsiders who engage in wholesale fentanyl trafficking to vulnerable communities may amount to an aggravating circumstance that carries with it the expectation that a sentence will be aimed at holding the offender accountable and communicating the wrongfulness of the behaviour. [Citation omitted].

[39] Justice Moldaver, in concurring reasons, also felt it appropriate to comment extensively on the direct and indirect harm that trafficking in hard drugs causes to society. At para. 88, Moldaver J. observed that trafficking in such substances directly leads to addiction, debilitating adverse health effects, and all too frequently, death by overdose. At para. 91, Moldaver J. noted that the indirect effects of trafficking in hard drugs include significant societal costs in terms of health care, lost productivity, and law enforcement expenses.

[40] At para. 93, Moldaver J. stated the following:

As grave a threat as drugs such as heroin and cocaine pose, that threat pales in comparison to the one posed by fentanyl and its analogues. Indeed, over the past decade, fentanyl has altered the landscape of the substance abuse crisis in Canada, revealing itself as public enemy number one.

[41] After noting both that the extremely high risk of overdose and death from fentanyl and the real and deadly impact that fentanyl has had – and continues to have – on the lives of Canadians, Moldaver J., at para. 98, directed as follows:

The time has thus come for our perception of the gravity of largescale trafficking in fentanyl to accord with the gravity of the crisis it has caused. Largescale trafficking in fentanyl is not a crime marked merely by the distribution and sale of an illicit substance; rather, it is a crime marked by greed and the pursuit of profit at the expense of violence, death, and the perpetuation of a public health crisis previously unseen in Canadian society …. [Trafficking in fentanyl] is a crime that can be expected to not only destroy lives, but to undermine the very foundation of our society. [Citations omitted].

[42] I have also considered the following cases:

1. R. v. Loor, 2017 ONCA 696 – The accused, 39 years old at the time of the offences and described by the Court of Appeal as a low-level but necessary member of a small drug trafficking ring dealing in fentanyl, appealed a sentence of six years for three counts of trafficking in fentanyl. The accused was found to have forged prescriptions to obtain 45 fentanyl patches with a street value in North Bay of between $18,000 - $20,000.

   The Court of Appeal noted that fentanyl is a highly dangerous drug, the abuse of which claims the lives of Canadians on a daily basis. The decision in Loor was released four years prior to Parranto. At para. 50 of Loor, the Court of Appeal stated that it was “too early in our jurisprudence to establish a range” of sentence for trafficking in fentanyl. The Court went on to state, however, “that generally, offenders – even first offenders – who traffic significant amounts of fentanyl should expect to receive significant penitentiary sentences.” The six-year sentence was upheld on appeal.

2. R. v. Lynch, 2022 ONCA 109 – This was a Crown appeal of a four-year sentence imposed for various drug offences, including trafficking in cocaine, trafficking in fentanyl, possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime. The accused had sold fentanyl or cocaine to an undercover officer on six occasions. He pleaded guilty, accepting responsibility for 965 grams of cocaine, 149 grams of MDMA, and 41.37 grams of fentanyl.

   At para. 17, the Court of Appeal reiterated the direct and indirect impact of dangerous drugs on vulnerable individuals and on society at large, stating that, “[s]imply put, the greater those risks are when a particular drug is being trafficked, the greater the offender’s culpability or moral blameworthiness for choosing to traffic in that drug.”

   The Court of Appeal agreed with the sentencing judge’s characterization of the accused as a “mid-level” trafficker in fentanyl, but due to various errors, allowed the appeal, set aside the four-year sentence, and substituted a sentence of six years.

3. R. v. Owusu, 2024 ONSC 671 – The 27-year-old accused was found guilty of nine firearm offences and one count of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking. While fleeing from police, the accused stashed two fully loaded handguns, together with a 127.5-gram bag of fentanyl, underneath a storage container in the backyard of a family residence. The accused had a very serious Youth Court record.

   Justice Code found the quantity of fentanyl, with a street value of between $13,000 and $27,000, to be “significant” and an aggravating factor. He further found that the quantity, value, and manner of packaging the drugs situated the accused somewhere in the “mid-level” of the drug trafficking hierarchy. Justice Code, at para. 33, held that the “relatively large quantity of fentanyl in this case carried a significant risk of death to many vulnerable addicts and drug users who were being exploited for the sole purpose of financial profit.”

   Following a very thorough review of the relevant case law, including Parranto, Loor, and Lynch, Code J. held, at para. 39, that there was “considerable authority for sentences over eight years in cases like the present one, when focusing on the quantity of fentanyl as a measure of harm”.

   Justice Code sentenced the accused to nine years imprisonment on the charge of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, which he then reduced to seven years in light of the totality principle.

4. R. v. Gordon-Brown, 2024 ONSC 1300 – The accused, 26 years old at the time of the offences and with no prior criminal record, pleaded guilty to trafficking in cocaine (10.5 grams), trafficking in fentanyl (one ounce), two firearm offences, and possession of proceeds of crime. At para. 39 of the decision, Code J. provides a list of aggravating factors, including the fact that fentanyl and cocaine are both hard addictive drugs “that are well-known to cause extraordinary suffering and death. Fentanyl is arguably the most dangerous drug and its introduction into the supply of street drugs has led to an epidemic of overdoses”.

   Justice Code further noted that the accused was a purely commercial trafficker, and not an addict trafficker. Justice Code concluded that, for the purposes of sentencing, the accused, found to be selling cocaine and fentanyl at the ounce and multiple ounce levels, was a “mid-level” distributor of these drugs.

   Justice Code also found several strong mitigating factors relating to the accused, including that he was a relatively young first offender who pleaded guilty at an early stage in the proceedings, and therefore placed the case before him “slightly below the mid-range” of appropriate sentences for these offences. At para. 46, Code J. concluded that five to eight years was the appropriate range for “mid-level” cocaine traffickers and further stated that “a higher range is appropriate for ‘mid-level’ fentanyl traffickers. The authorities analyzed in Owusu make it clear that ounce and multi-ounce traffickers in fentanyl have received deterrent and denunciatory sentences in the eight-to-11-year range”.

   The court sentenced the accused to nine years imprisonment for trafficking in fentanyl and six years concurrent for trafficking in cocaine; the sentence was then reduced to five years on the fentanyl offence to account for the totality principle.

[43] The quantity of fentanyl in the subject case, which has been recognized as a very significant factor on sentencing, far exceeds the quantities in the cases reviewed above. I conclude that the Crown’s suggestion of a global sentence between 10–12 years for this accused, found in possession of 448.6 grams – or 15.8 ounces – of fentanyl and 89.7 grams – or 3.16 ounces – of cocaine, is well within the applicable range.

Mitigating and Aggravating Factors

[44] In my view, the mitigating factors in this case are:

1. The accused has the strong support of immediate and extended family and friends;
2. The accused’s spouse and adult son are dependent on him due to health issues; and
3. The accused suffered serious and life altering physical injuries in a workplace accident which has resulted in long-term self-medication with recreational drugs.

[45] I will discuss the issue of a Downes credit in mitigation later in these reasons.

[46] There are serious aggravating factors present in this case. The accused was found in possession of just shy of one pound of fentanyl, a significant quantity of a very dangerous drug. He was also in possession of a little over three ounces of cocaine.

[47] The submission that the accused was merely a drug “runner”, and therefore somehow less culpable, is not supported by any evidence and I reject it. In any event, drug runners are an important and necessary component of the drug trafficking hierarchy.

[48] I also reject any suggestion that the accused’s trafficking in significant amounts of fentanyl and cocaine resulted from the accused suffering from an opioid addiction. The accused himself denied this in the PSR. The accused was not an addict trafficker.

[49] The quantity of fentanyl and cocaine found in the accused’s possession clearly places him at the “mid-level” in the fentanyl trafficking hierarchy. This is a serious aggravating factor.

[50] The nature of the drugs is also an aggravating factor. The dangers of cocaine and cocaine addiction pale in comparison to the notoriously well-known dangers of fentanyl. The extreme danger of fentanyl cannot be overstated. This drug kills vulnerable individuals across Canada daily. Fentanyl destroys lives and is a significant contributor to the obvious decline of communities in Northern Ontario.

[51] In Parranto, the Supreme Court stated that it is open to sentencing judges to consider an offender’s willingness to exploit at-risk populations and communities. Choices demonstrating a reckless disregard for human life increase not only the gravity of the offence but also the moral culpability of the offender and may amount to an aggravating factor in sentencing.

[52] I accept that this is an aggravating factor in this case. It is reasonable to infer that the fentanyl and cocaine in the accused’s possession were destined for resale throughout the small and remote communities in Northwestern Ontario. Fentanyl was the number one substance involved in opioid toxicity deaths in Ontario between 2018 and 2023. In 2023, the opioid toxicity mortality rate for Thunder Bay was the highest in Ontario; the opioid toxicity mortality rate within the catchment area of the Northwestern Health Unit, which includes Fort Frances and other small communities in the Northwest Region, was the fifth highest in Ontario.

[53] The accused chose to traffic fentanyl and cocaine in vulnerable communities, to vulnerable members of the population, for financial gain. I find this to be a significant aggravating factor.

Principles of Sentencing

[54] The fundamental principle of sentencing is that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

[55] The fundamental purposes of sentencing are to protect society, to contribute to respect for the rule of law, and to maintain a just, peaceful, and safe society by imposing fair sanctions with enumerated objectives. It is well established in law that the primary sentencing objectives in cases involving large-scale trafficking in cocaine and fentanyl are denunciation and specific and general deterrence.

[56] The sentences imposed in cases such as these must reflect society’s strong condemnation of drug traffickers who prey on vulnerable members of our population for financial gain. Sentences for these offences should strive to deter others who are tempted by the very significant profits to be realized from this illegal activity.

The Downes Credit

[57] The accused submits that he is entitled to a Downes credit of either 3:1 or 4:1 for the time he has spent subject to strict judicial interim release conditions (a period of 1338 days as of December 9, 2024). The Crown takes no position on this issue.

[58] At para. 7 of R. v. Thornton, 2015 ONSC 5280, Maranger J. summarizes the approach to be taken by a sentencing judge asked to grant a Downes credit:

In summary, credit for pre-trial bail conditions should be approached in the following manner:

– Time spent on stringent bail conditions, especially house arrest, is a relevant mitigating factor.

– As such, the trial judge must consider the time spent on bail under house arrest in determining the length of sentence.

– The failure of the trial judge to explain why time spent on bail under house arrest has not been taken into account is an error in principle.

– The amount of credit to be given for time spent on bail under house arrest is within the discretion of the trial judge and there is no formula that the judge is required to apply.

– The amount of credit will depend on a number of factors including, the length of time spent on bail under house arrest; the stringency of the conditions; the impact on the offender’s liberty; the ability of the offender to carry on normal relationships, employment and activity.

– Where the offender asks the trial judge to take pre-sentence bail conditions into account, the offender should supply the judge with information as to the impact of the conditions. If there is a dispute as to the impact of the conditions, the onus is on the offender to establish those facts on a balance of probabilities in accordance with s. 724(3) of the Criminal Code.

[59] At the sentencing hearing, the accused gave evidence as to the impact of being on house arrest since April 12, 2021. Unfortunately, the relevant release orders were not placed before the court at the sentencing hearing.

[60] For the first 90 days of judicial interim release, the accused was required to remain within his home unless directly accompanied by his spouse/surety, and then only for specific reasons. Thereafter, he was allowed out of his home without his surety but confined to the perimeter of his property. This has allowed the accused to attend to all necessary household chores over the last 44 months. His release order was later amended to allow him to attend employment, which he apparently has recently done while on judicial interim release.

[61] The accused testified that the harshest effects of his house arrest have been the deterioration of his relationship with his adult son, and his inability to engage in activities such as hunting, fishing, and attending sporting events.

[62] I accept that the accused has been on stringent bail conditions, including house arrest, for over three and one-half years, and that these have negatively impacted the accused’s relationship with his adult son and the accused’s overall mental well-being. However, I firmly reject the accused’s submission that he is entitled to a Downes credit due to his inability to engage in his usual leisure activities. In my view, the accused is entitled to a modest Downes credit in mitigation.

The Just and Fit Sentence

[63] I strongly reject the accused’s submission that a sentence, net of credit for pre-trial custody and net of a Downes credit, of two years less a day, to be served in the community pursuant to a conditional sentence order, would achieve the sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence. Such a sentence would be grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offences and the degree of responsibility of the accused.

Mr. Johnson, please stand.

[64] I have reviewed the aggravating factors in this case. You have chosen to engage in the trafficking of a large quantity of an extremely dangerous drug out of greed and for financial gain. I need not repeat the disastrous impact that opioid addiction has had, and continues to have, on vulnerable populations across the country and, to an even greater extent, within the Northwest Region of Ontario.

[65] You are a lifelong resident of Fort Frances and are fortunate to have a large extended family and a network of good friends living in this community. However, attracted by the immense profits that opioid trafficking generates, you have chosen to participate in the distribution of a dangerous drug that is poisoning members of this community and of surrounding communities.

[66] I also note that your possession of such a large quantity of fentanyl in the circumstances of this case put the police officers who responded to your accident in a position of substantial risk due to their direct exposure to the fentanyl at the accident scene.

[67] Your choice to contribute to the distribution of a lethal drug across this region demonstrates a reckless disregard for human life and increases the seriousness of both your offending behaviour and your moral culpability. For that, you must be held accountable.

[68] On count 1 of the indictment, possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, I sentence you to a period of imprisonment of ten years.

[69] On count 2 of the indictment, possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, I sentence you to a period of imprisonment of 18 months consecutive to the sentence on count 1.

[70] On count 3 of the indictment, unlawfully possess cocaine, I sentence you to a period of imprisonment of 30 days concurrent to the sentences imposed on counts 1 and 2.

[71] This results in a global sentence of 11 years and six months. I grant you a credit for the ten days of pre-sentence custody you have served at a rate of 1.5:1, resulting in a credit of 15 days. I further grant you a Downes credit of five and one-half months for the 1338 days that you have been subject to house arrest while on judicial interim release, up to the originally scheduled sentencing date of December 9, 2024. The adjournment from December 9, 2024, to February 3, 2025, was at the request of and for the benefit of the accused. In my view, an accused should not accrue additional Downes credit in these circumstances.

[72] This results in a net custodial sentence of 11 years’ incarceration in a federal institution.

Ancillary Orders

[73] Pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code, you shall be subject to a mandatory weapons prohibition for 10 years. You are ordered to provide a sample of your DNA for forensic analysis.

[74] All illicit drugs and paraphernalia seized during this investigation are ordered forfeited to the Crown.

“Original signed by”
J.S. Fregeau

Released: February 4, 2025