His Majesty the King v. Kevin Pacheco, 2026 ONSC 1021

CITATION: R. v. Pacheco, 2026 ONSC 1021

COURT FILE NO.: CR-23-90000619-0000

DATE: 20260317

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

KEVIN PACHECO

Ildiko Erdei, for the Crown

Adele Monaco and Rob Chartier, for Mr. Pacheco

HEARD: October 3, 2025, December 9, 2025, January 19, 2026

1Mr. Pacheco pleaded guilty to offences that he committed in Toronto, in September 2022, and Coburg, in April 2025.

2The Toronto offences that he pleaded guilty to took place on September 23, 2022, and are set out on two indictments. The offences on indictment 24-9000467-0000 are:

Count 1: Possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to s. 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs And Substances Act;
Count 4: Occupying a motor vehicle in which he knew there was a firearm, contrary to s. 94(1) of the Criminal Code; and,
Count 5: Possession of a loaded firearm contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code.

3Mr. Pacheco also pleaded guilty to one Toronto offence on indictment 24-90000468-0000:

Count 1: Possession of a firearm in violation of a prohibition order contrary to s. 117.01 of the Criminal Code.

4The Coburg offences that Mr. Pacheco pleaded guilty to took place on April 22, 2025, while he was on bail for the 2022 offences. They are set out on indictment 25-90000524-0000:

Count 1: Possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to s. 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs And Substances Act;
Count 6: Possession of a loaded firearm contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code;
Count 15: Breach of a bail order, contrary to s. 145(5)(a) of the Criminal Code; and,
Count 16: Possession of a firearm in violation of a prohibition order contrary to s. 117.01 of the Criminal Code.

5He now comes before the court for sentencing.

The Toronto Charges

6On September 22, 2022, Mr. Pacheco was driving on Highway 401. The OPP stopped him for speeding. The vehicle was rented through an online platform. Mr. Pacheco had a driver’s licence, but he could not produce insurance for the vehicle. As a result, the police arranged to tow the rental car. Mr. Pacheco called a friend to pick him up. When the friend arrived in a vehicle, the police determined that he was arrestable for an unrelated offence. They then arrested the friend. The police arranged for the second vehicle to be towed as well. Tow trucks took the two vehicles to a gas station. At the gas station, the police gave Mr. Pacheco a speeding ticket and permitted him to leave. Mr. Pacheco was carrying an orange reusable bag. One of the tow-truck drivers, however, advised the police that he saw Mr. Pacheco with a gun and that the gun was in the orange bag. The police told Mr. Pacheco to stop. Instead, he ran across Kingston Road. Eventually the officers caught up to him, but Mr. Pacheco would not comply with their demands to stop. He was eventually taken to the ground. The police found a .40 Glock 27 handgun with 9 rounds as well as a 1.1 kilogram brick of cocaine in the orange bag. At the time, Mr. Pacheco was subject to a s. 109 weapons prohibition.

7Mr. Pacheco was released on bail on October 4, 2022. He was on bail at the time of the Coburg charges, which I turn to next.

The Coburg Charges

8In March and April 2025, police in Coburg and Port Hope were conducting a project. The observed Mr. Pacheco travelling in the areas of Coburg, Brighton, Trenton, and Belleville. They observed Mr. Pacheco engage in what they interpreted to be drug transactions. As a result, the police obtained a search warrant for 56 Parkway Crescent in Coburg. Mr. Pacheco was living there with his girlfriend, Madison Tait.

9On April 22, 2025, the police went to execute the warrant at 56 Parkway Crescent. They arrested Mr. Pacheco as he was leaving the residence. He with him two cell phones, about $3600 in cash, 29.79 grams of powder cocaine (just over an ounce), 69 Percocet pills, and drug packaging.

10The police arrested Ms. Tait inside the residence and searched it. They found the following items:

203.3 grams of cocaine in the bedroom;
A Ruger 9mm handgun with a loaded magazine in a backpack;
9mm ammunition;
A shotgun barrel with a Bushnell scope;
Over $77,000 in cash in a safe;
Three cell phones;
A bag with 607.33 grams of cannabis and another bag with 72.55 grams of hashish;
Packaging consistent with a brick of cocaine under the kitchen sink; and,
9 suspected Percocet pills in the bedroom.

11At the time, Mr. Pacheco was obviously on bail. Under the terms of the bail, he was permitted only one cell phone. He obviously had five, including the three found in the residence. The bail also prohibited him from having non-medically prescribed drugs and weapons. He was still subject to a s. 109 order at the time.

12Mr. Pacheco has been in custody since his arrest on April 22, 2025. Ms. Tait obtained bail and has been on bail. As part of this resolution the Crown will withdraw all charges against her.

Impact on the Community

13Much has been said about the violence and despair associated with handguns in our community. Handguns are an instrument of destruction of lives, families, and hopes, especially when combined with the large-scale trafficking of hard drugs. They have no purpose except to kill and intimidate. In the context of the drug trade – itself a pernicious destroyer of lives – they are not only dangerous to people in the so-called game. They often cause collateral damage to people who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Overwhelmingly, guns and drugs cause a harvest of destruction to people who live in high-crime areas. These people are often hard-working people of modest means just trying to get by or very marginalized people. Either way, those who traffic drugs and use guns as a tool of the drug trade are engaged in a form of urban terrorism – because they terrorize those around them. Toronto has had a serious problem with guns and drugs for many years. That the combination has snuffed out the lives of many young men involved in the drug trade and many innocents. Anyone being sentenced for crimes that combine guns and large-scale drug trafficking must understand that a significant part of that sentence consists of the denunciation of this most destructive behaviour.

Circumstances of Mr. Pacheco

14Mr. Pacheco is currently 26 years old. He was 22 when he committed the Toronto offences, and 25 when he committed the Coburg offences. He has worked from time to time in construction, and at a No Frills when in high school. Mr. Pacheco’s brother has a property maintenance company and has confirmed that Mr. Pacheco can work for him when he is eventually released from custody. While in custody during his current stint Mr. Pacheco completed several Ministry booklets, such as anger management, supportive relationships, problem solving, substance use, and changing habits.

15Mr. Pacheco does have family support – primarily his mother, his friend, and his brother, who were virtually present during the sentencing hearing. His brother Joe’s letter of support (in addition to the letter of employment) did not minimize the seriousness of the offences, but did indicate that he feels that Mr. Pacheco has potential but needs proper guidance and support – which he has pledged to provide. His brother Nuno also wrote a letter of support. He also believes that Mr. Pacheco has potential but just needs guidance and help. Finally, his mother also provided a letter of support.

16Mr. Pacheco has a criminal record, and it is a serious one. On March 20, 2019, he was sentenced in relation to three counts:

Possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm. He was sentenced to 2 years and 6 months (with credit for 165 days of pre-sentence custody) and probation for 12 months as well as a s. 109 weapons prohibition order.
Possession of a firearm knowing the serial number had been tampered with. He was sentenced to 6 months concurrent and probation for 12 months.
Carrying a concealed weapon. He was sentenced to 3 months concurrent and probation for 12 months.

17Although there was some dispute about it, it seems clear to me that Mr. Pacheco was not on probation at the time of the offences. Frankly, a breach of probation conviction considering the seriousness of all the other charges would be relatively insignificant.

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

18There are some obvious aggravating factors in this case. Mr. Pacheco’s criminal record is aggravating, but it is incredibly aggravating that he has now been convicted of his second and third possession offences for gun possession.

19The fact that he was on bail for serious gun and drug offences when he committed further serious gun and drug offences is also highly aggravating. I find that in 2025 Mr. Pacheco, despite being on bail, was an active drug dealer. His possession of about an ounce of cocaine when arrested in 2025 (as well as the cocaine found in his residence) and the large amount of cash make it crystal clear that Mr. Pacheco was a commercial drug dealer at least at the multi-ounce level when he was arrested. He was also clearly dealing in significant amounts in 2022 when he was first arrested, having a brick of cocaine of more than 1kg in his possession. Given all the circumstances, I find that he was not a mere courier, certainly in 2025, but an active participant in the drug trade. That is more aggravating than it would be if he were situated lower in the hierarchy or was a mere courier.

20I hasten to add that when I come to calculate the proper sentence, I will not treat the possession of the gun as aggravating on the drug charges, and vice versa. Something can be either an aggravating factor or the subject of a sentence, but not both.

21I note that Mr. Pacheco requested a bail variation so that he could move to Coburg to be with his girlfriend. I am obviously not drawing the inference that he moved for the purpose of establishing a new market and obtaining new customers, but that is plainly what he did when he got there.

22The most important mitigating factor is that Mr. Pacheco pleaded guilty and took responsibility for these offences. In doing so he also saved the Court considerable time and resources – although it must be noted that the cases against him were overwhelming.

23I also consider that Mr. Pacheco insisted that his girlfriend, Ms. Tait, should not be prosecuted for his criminal activity. He had been adamant that he takes responsibility, and she should bear none. While perhaps a slightly generous interpretation of Ms. Tait’s involvement – she must have been at least wilfully blind to the presence of drugs and a gun in the home – I accept Mr. Pacheco’s assertions that he alone was responsible and willing to bear all the consequences. While not the most important factor, I am aware of it and take it into account.

24Mr. Pacheco also described the conditions at the Central East Detention Centre and the Toronto East Detention centre while he has been in custody. The are consistent with conditions described by other inmates in other cases. Both facilities are dirty, with black mould growing in showers and cells and infestations. No cleaning supplies were provided to clean cells. No razors or other personal hygiene products were supplied according to Mr. Pacheco’s affidavit. Mr. Pacheco did not receive adequate bedding. He was triple-bunked, with his head near the toilet. Mr. Pacheco believes that he suffers from PTSD thanks to interactions with the correctional officers and from the conditions generally. He has never, however, been formally diagnosed.

25Mr. Pacheco was housed at the Toronto East Detention Centre from July 17, 2025, until his sentencing on February 18, 2025. I have records from July 17, 2025, until January 14, 2026. During that time Mr. Pacheco experienced 25 nights of triple bunking. According to the records, he was also in the Supportive Care Unit “since August 19, 2025, due to his own behaviour and his choice”. There is one misconduct on file. It is not clear what the misconduct relates to, or what “his own behaviour and his own choice” means. I have some concerns about the records. An earlier version of the records, covering the period July 17, 2025, to September 4, 2025, indicates that he was in the supportive care unit “for his safety”. As well, the earlier version of the records indicates 15 lockdowns from 1800 to 2100 due to staffing levels, 1 lockdown from 1300-1600 due to staffing levels, and 1 lockdown from 1300 to 1600 due to staffing issues. The version of the records covering the period until January 14, 2026, indicates virtually the identical number and distribution of lockdowns, except that the lockdowns from 1800 to 2100 are listed as 16 instead of 15.

26The lockdown records are obviously problematic. This is unusual. Whatever the other problems the TEDC may have, that institution usually produces reasonably accurate records on a reasonably timely basis, as the defence concedes. Under the circumstances, I cannot make a finding that Mr. Pacheco was in the Supportive Care Unit due to his own behaviour. The records are too ambiguous. For the same reason, I cannot take into account the misconduct noted on one set of records. It is not noted on the other records. I have no information about the nature and substance of the supposed misconduct. In any event, a judge must be cautious about relying on misconducts generally: R. v. Gordon, 2023 ONSC 1036 at para. 36 (new trial ordered on unrelated grounds). The landscape for institutional misconducts has changed since John Howard Society v. Saskatchewan (Attorney General), 2025 SCC 6. I do not know whether this particular alleged misconduct (if there was a misconduct) was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

27As well, I am very suspicious that for the 182 days of detention captured in the later records, Mr. Pacheco was only subject to 18 lockdowns. That is at odds with other records for the same period that I have received in other cases, and at odds with people’s experiences in custody generally. It may be because the supportive care unit is locked down less frequently, but I simply have no evidence one way or the other.

28I am prepared to agree with the defence submission that I should find that Mr. Pacheco was likely subjected to the same conditions of custody as others who have come before the court during the same time. What this means is that Mr. Pacheco probably experienced lockdowns on a fairly frequent basis, with all of the issues that entails – loss of programming, loss of yard time, loss of shower access.

29Mr. Pacheco was also housed at the Central East Detention Centre from April 23, 2025, to July 17, 2025, when he was transferred to Toronto East. Lockdown records indicate that Mr. Pacheco was locked down 64 of 85 days at Central East (or 75% of the time) of which 81 of those lockdowns was for 6 hours, and 11 lockdowns for more than six hours. He was triple bunked for 81.5% of his time at Central East.

30I treat these conditions as a mitigating factor: R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754; R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344 at paras. 50-53. I will discuss how the conditions of custody figure into the overall sentence later in these reasons.

31I was not referred to any collateral consequences that would act as mitigating factors.

Positions of Crown And Defence And Cases In Support

32Ms. Erdei, for the Crown, argues that I should impose a global sentence of 12 years. She argues that for firearms recidivists the range of sentence usually commences at 6 years: R. v. Graham, 2018 ONSC 6817 at paras. 39-40. In that case, my now-retired colleague Code J. also noted at para. 40 that the “upper end of the range supports an eight-to-ten-year total sentence for s.95 recidivists who breach s.109 orders.” At para. 38 Code J. also pointed to the range for a first gun offender who is also involved with the drug trade:

More recently, the Court of Appeal has held that three years to five years is the appropriate range for a first s.95 offence where the use and possession of the gun is associated with criminal activity, such as drug trafficking. In R. v. Marshall, (2015) 2015 ONCA 692, 340 O.A.C. 201 (C.A.) and R. v. Gobire, March 7, 2016, Ontario Court of Appeal, the court upheld a three and a half-year sentence for Marshall and imposed a three year sentence for Gobire, both of whom where young first offenders. Marshall was 23 and Gobire was 21 and Gobire was held to have excellent rehabilitative prospects. Both accused were involved in the drug trade and were carrying the guns in association with drug crime.

33Graham had been arrested for the possession of a handgun, ammunition, about three ounces of cocaine, two digital scales, and $14,880 in cash. He was on probation and was subject to two separate s. 109 weapons prohibitions. H head a significant criminal record, including previous convictions for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, attempted murder, and possession of a prohibited or restricted weapon (a sawed-off shotgun he fired during the attempted murder). Code J. would have sentenced Graham to a global sentence of12 years in custody but reduced that to ten years to account for totality and the harsh conditions of custody. Notably, he allocated 8 years for the possession of the gun and two years for the possession of the cocaine. The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence: R. v. Graham, 2020 ONCA 692.

34See also: R. v. Slack, 2015 ONCA 94, where the Court of Appeal upheld a 10-year sentence for a second s. 95(1) offence and two consecutive sentences of one year each for breaches of s. 109 weapons prohibitions; and R. v. Prince, 2020 ONSC 6121, where Cavanagh J. sentenced the offender to 9 years (after reducing the sentence by one year for totality), including 8 years for a second s. 95(1) gun offence and 1 year (reduced from 2 years based on totality) for possession of 32.15 grams of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

35Ms. Erdei also points to the range of 5 to 8 years set out by the Court of Appeal for the possession of a kilogram of cocaine: R. v. Lynch, 2022 ONCA 109.

36The defence argues that Mr. Pacheco should receive a sentence in the range of 6-7 years, including credit for one year of credit for house arrest. Mr. Chartier points to several cases that suggest a lower range of sentence than the range pointed to by the Crown:

37R. v. Charley, 2025 ONSC 2490. Charley was convicted after trial of multiple offences including counselling to obtain a firearm, conspiracy to commit robbery, possession of a firearm, trafficking cocaine, conspiracy to traffic cocaine, and committing various offences for the benefit of a criminal organization. He was a leader of a criminal street gang. The Crown’s evidence largely came from intercepted communications and surveillance. He was 32 and had a lengthy criminal record, including for some very serious offences. When looked at individually, the offences could have attracted a total sentence of 26 years. Based on the principle of totality, however, Schreck J. reduced his sentence to a global sentence of 16 years.

R. v. Morris, 2023 ONCA 816. The offender was stopped while driving. He then tried to escape. A handgun was found near the traffic stop. He was found guilty of driving offences some failure to comply counts, and the gun offence. He had a criminal record, including an earlier conviction for possession of a loaded firearm, for which he had been sentenced to 2.5 years. Based on difficult conditions of his upbring, brought out in a “Morris” Report, the Court of Appeal reduced his sentence from 6 years 9 months to 5 years 9 months: R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680 (not the same Morris case).
R. v. George, 2025 ONSC 6016. There were two sets of charges. On one set, the offender did not contest the Crown’s case after losing a motion to exclude evidence. The police entered his apartment after a 911 call and immediately found 202.39 grams of cocaine, 41.46 grams of methamphetamine, 85.8 grams of fentanyl, and just under $15,000. George escaped as the police entered. The police obtained an arrest warrant for him. In the meantime, the police executed a warrant and found a further 247.04 grams of methamphetamine, a handgun, and ammunition in George’s residence. While at large he was arrested with another firearm, 92.23 grams of fentanyl, 232.62 grams of methamphetamine, 101.81 grams of cocaine, 13.16 grams of crack cocaine, just under $7000 in cash, and drug paraphernalia. The offender grew up in difficult circumstances with an abusive parent. He experienced poverty, crime, and violence growing up in both St. Vincent and Canada. His father introduced him to drug trafficking as a boy. Penman J. agreed that there had been Charter violations and treated them as a mitigating factor. She found that before accounting for totality, George could be liable to a sentence of 19 years. Applying the totality principle, however, Penman J. sentenced him to 14 years.
R. v. Jones, 2024 ONSC 3181. This was my case. Jones was in a hotel room with a handgun, 37.03 grams of crack cocaine, 15.9 grams of powder cocaine, and 17.58 grams of mixed heroin and fentanyl. He was on a weapons prohibition at the time. He had an uncontested trial after losing a Charter motion. He had a terrible criminal record, including convictions for robbery with a firearm and possession of a handgun. He was subject to several weapons prohibitions. An enhanced pre-sentence report detailed an upbringing by a single mother with little money in a neighbourhood plagued by crime and violence. I imposed a sentence of 6 years, in light of the Crown’s position that I should impose a sentence of 7 years.

Principles of Sentencing And Sentence Imposed

38The 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. There is no doubt that These are grave offences. Mr. Pacheco’s level of blameworthiness is high.

39I have little trouble in finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Pacheco’s possession of the two handguns on two occasions with large amounts of cocaine puts him in the category of what Doherty J.A. described in R. v. Nur as an outlaw carrying a gun as a tool of the trade: R. v. Nur, 2013 ONCA 677 at para. 51. What do I mean when I say that Mr. Pacheco used a gun as a tool of the trade? Illegal handguns can be used by drug dealers for at least four business reasons. First, to permanently eliminate competitors, drug debtors who fail to pay (perhaps as a message to other debtors), or to eliminate others that drug dealers decide need to be killed for business purposes. Second, if not to kill competitors or drug debtors, then to intimidate them to enforce territory or debt. Third, as a defensive measure to protect stashes of drugs. And fourth, to let it be known to others that the drug dealer is armed and is not to be trifled with. No doubt there are other reasons. And, no doubt, drug dealers have illegal handguns for a combination of all these purposes.

40I find that Mr. Pacheco had a gun in both 2022 and 2025 for business reasons, although I do not mean to imply that he actually used a gun to shoot anyone. The obvious inference is that he used guns for the business reasons. I find beyond a reasonable doubt that he did. After all, it is hard to see what other reasons there could be for an active drug dealer to have an illegal handgun. There is no evidence that Mr. Pacheco enjoyed target shooting, for example. I cannot be certain which of the four categories Mr. Pacheco fell into, although, as I said, there is no evidence he actually killed or threatened anyone. I find that he likely had a gun as a means of protecting his stash, and possibly to communicate to others that he was armed. Whatever the reason, I find that it does not change his moral blameworthiness surrounding his possession of illegal handguns.

41Where guns and drugs are concerned, general deterrence and denunciation are the primary sentencing factors. This is not a case like R. v. Fabbro, 2021 ONCA 494, where the primary principles of sentencing are somewhat attenuated due to unusual circumstances. This is a case of a commercial drug trafficker using a firearm as a tool of the trade. In those circumstances, denunciation and deterrence take precedence, tempered by the principle of restraint in the proper circumstances: R. v. Francis, 2022 ONCA 729 at paras. 77-79. The use of illegal handguns requires a court to address principles of denunciation and deterrence as well as rehabilitation and collateral consequences: R. v. Habib, 2024 ONCA 830 at para. 6.

42Regrettably, I find that Mr. Pacheco’s prospects for rehabilitation are limited. I am hard pressed to understand how he has supported himself. There is no evidence that he did anything to advance his education, learn a trade, or have a job while he was on bail for three years. I appreciate that he did have conditions that would have made it difficult, but I see no effort to find a job and have the bail varied to accommodate it, as many accused persons do. I accept that he is young, that he has made some efforts at self-improvement while in custody, that he has a supportive family who will help him when he gets out of custody, and that everyone has some rehabilitative prospects. That said that family support did not seem to encourage him to get back on the straight and narrow while he was on bail. While I find that he has some rehabilitative prospects, I give those prospects much less weight than I do to the obvious need for specific deterrence in this case. I adopt Code J.’s comment at para. 31 of R. v. Graham:

In my view, it is a common sense proposition that Graham’s most recent criminal conduct, including while on bail for the present offences, is probative of his actual rehabilitative potential at the present time, that is, at the time when he is being sentenced.

43Having said all that, I accept that Mr. Pacheco is still a relatively young man and has time to change his ways.

44Although I am applying the principle of totality, I decline to grant any credit for strict bail conditions: R. v. Downes (2006), 2006 3957 (ON CA), 79 O.R. (3d) 321, [2006] O.J. No. 555 (Ont. C.A.). Mr. Pacheco was on bail for serious gun and drug offences when he committed more serious gun and drug offences. It appears that when he was supposed to be at home in Coburg he was busy trafficking drugs. I appreciate that Mr. Pacheco was on bail for some three years before he was arrested again. I obviously cannot draw the inference that he was trafficking drugs while in possession of a gun the whole time he was on bail. But he was trafficking drugs and in possession of a gun at least part of the time. The principle in Downes does not require that there never be a breach; every case must turn on its own facts. Mr. Pacheco’s breach was not technical, such as missing a curfew because he was working late. It was also not relatively minor, such as breaching without associated criminality. The breach here involved very serious criminality, in fact a repetition of the criminality that he was on bail for. Under those circumstances I find it would send entirely the wrong message about bail compliance – both to people on bail and to Mr. Pacheco himself – were I to grant Downes credit.

45Mr. Pacheco spent two periods of time in custody. He was arrested on September 22, 2022, and released on bail on October 4, 2022. He therefore spent 13 days in custody during his first stint. He was arrested on the Coburg charges on April 22, 2025, and has been in custody ever since. As of February 18, 2026, the day of sentencing, that is another 303 days, for a total of 316 real days in custody. Mr. Pacheco is therefore credited with 474 days (or just under 16 months) in custody: Criminal Code, s. 719(3.1).

46I turn now to the question of the proper length of sentence. I agree with Code J. that as a general rule the cocaine sentences should be consecutive to the gun sentences: R. v. Graham, at para. 25. The breaches of a s. 109 order should be served consecutively: R. v. Claros, 2019 ONCA 626 at para. 51, where Pacaccio J.A. stated that the purpose of a consecutive sentence is “intended to ensure that disregard of firearms prohibition orders, imposed in the interest of public safety, does not go unpunished.”

47Regarding the Toronto offences, the range of sentence for the possession of the handgun is 5-6 years, given that it is Mr. Pacheco’s second gun conviction. The possession of a kilogram of cocaine on its own attracts a consecutive sentence of five to eight years: R. v. Lynch. The breach of the weapons prohibition order would attract a further consecutive sentence in the range of six months to one year. Thus, the sentence on the Toronto offences prior to considering totality is 10 ½ years at the low end to 15 years at the high end. The lower sentence would take account of mitigating factors, such as a guilty plea and harsh conditions of custody.

48Regarding the Coburg offences, the possession for the purposes count would attract less time as less cocaine is involved, just over 230 grams in total. On its own that amount could attract a penitentiary sentence of two years, although under exceptionally mitigating circumstances (which do not exist here) a high reformatory sentence might be possible. For the purposes of this exercise, I find that the appropriate sentence is 1 ½ to 2 years. The possession of the firearm, of course, would attract another 5–6 year sentence on its own. Again, the breach of the weapons prohibition would attract a sentence of six months to one year. The breach of the bail order in its own could attract a sentence in the range of one to three months. Thus, the sentence on the Coburg offences prior to considering totality is 7 years 3 months at the low end, and 9 years three months at the high end. Again, the low end would reflect mitigating factors such as a guilty plea and harsh conditions of custody.

49The Coburg offences should ordinarily be consecutive to the Toronto offences. That would yield a global sentence in the range of 17 years and 9 months at the low end, and 24 years and three months at the high end. Obviously, the principles of totality and restraint would not countenance such a lengthy and crushing sentence for a young man who is only 26.

50The totality principle “ensures that the focus is on the offender's actions, role in the offences and overall culpability, irrespective of the number of offences charged… the sentence must reflect and not exceed the offender's overall moral culpability”: R. v. Ahmed, 2017 ONCA 76 at para. 93. As my colleague Schreck J. in Charley stated at para. 71, there are two different approaches to totality: “The court can determine a fit sentence for each offence and then consider whether the overall sentence is excessive and, if it is, adjust it by reducing some of the sentences or making them concurrent: R. v. Hutchings, 2012 NLCA 2, 316 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 211, at para. 84. Alternatively, the court can first determine the overall fit sentence, and then impose individual consecutive or concurrent sentences that add up to that total: R. v. Ahmed, 2017 ONCA 76, 136 O.R. (3d) 76, at paras. 84-85.”

51At the end of the day, when I consider all of the circumstances, I find that the 12-year sentence sought by the Crown is well within the range and is at the lower end of the combined range for the Coburg and Toronto offences even taking into account of the principle of totality. I find, however, that a 12-year sentence is simply too crushing for a young man. The principles of totality and restraint, the mitigating factor of guilty pleas, and the possibility of rehabilitation – even if low – and the mitigating factor of the harsh conditions of custody demand a more moderate sentence. In my view, a global sentence of 10 years and 6 months would meet the principles of general and specific deterrence, totality, restraint and rehabilitation. The 10 ½ year sentence (3,832.5 days, which I will round down to 3832 days) also takes account of harsh conditions of custody.

52The 474 days of Summers credit will be reduced from the 10 ½ year sentence. The time remaining to serve globally will therefore be 3,358 days, or 9 years and 73 days.

53Realistically, the only way to achieve a sentence that respects the principle of totality, and also has each individual sentence reflect the seriousness of the offence, is to make the Toronto and Coburg sentences concurrent to each other.

54The warrant of committal will read as follows:

INDICTMENT 24-9000467-0000:

Count 1: Possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to s. 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs And Substances Act: Four years (1460 days) less 474 days, leaving 986 days (or about 2.7 years) left to serve.
Count 4: Occupying a motor vehicle in which he knew there was a firearm, contrary to s. 94(1) of the Criminal Code: 3 years (or 1095 days) consecutive to Count 1.
Count 5: Possession of a loaded firearm contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code: 5 ½ years (2007 days) consecutive to Count 1 and concurrent to Count 4.

55The reason I am giving Mr. Pacheco a four-year rather than a five-year sentence on the cocaine (less pre-sentence custody) is simply because of the principle of totality. A five-year sentence is otherwise merited. That is also why I am giving him a 5 ½ year sentence on the possession of a loaded firearm count, although a six year sentence is merited.

INDICTMENT 24-90000468-0000:

Count 1: Possession of a firearm in violation of a prohibition order contrary to s. 117.01 of the Criminal Code: 1 year (365 days) consecutive to Count 5 on Indictment 24-9000467-0000.

56Thus, the combined sentences in relation to the indictments ending in 467 and 468 equal 3358 days, or 9 years and 73 days.

INDICTMENT 25-90000524-0000:

Count 1: Possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to s. 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs And Substances Act: 2 years (730 days) but concurrent to all counts on Indictments 24-9000467-0000 and 24-90000468-0000.
Count 6: Possession of a loaded firearm contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code: 5 ½ years (2007 days), consecutive to Count 1 but concurrent to all counts on Indictments 24-9000467-0000 and 24-90000468-0000.
Count 15: Breach of a bail order, contrary to s. 145(5)(a) of the Criminal Code: 30 days, consecutive to Count 6 but concurrent to all counts on Indictments 24-9000467-0000 and 24-90000468-0000.
Count 16: Possession of a firearm in violation of a prohibition order contrary to s. 117.01 of the Criminal Code: 1 year (365 days) consecutive to Count 15 but concurrent to all counts on Indictments 24-9000467-0000 and 24-90000468-0000.

57Thus, the total amount to be served on the indictment ending 524 is 3132 days, or 8 years and 212 days. My intention is that all counts on indictment ending 524 be concurrent to the indictments ending in 467 and 468. As I said, my intention is that to respect the principle of totality the Coburg offences will be served concurrent to the Toronto offences.

58There will also be a DNA order in relation to the two possession of cocaine counts as it is a secondary designated offence. There will also be a s.109 order for life.

R.F. Goldstein J.

Released: March 17, 2026