Court File and Parties
CITATION: R. v. Noel, 2026 ONSC 1152
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
His MAJESTY THE KING
– and –
TEVIN NOEL
Counsel: Levi Karademir, for the Crown Salematou Camara, for Mr. Noel
HEARD at Toronto: January 29, 2026
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
DAVIES J.
A. Overview
1Mr. Noel pleaded guilty to one count of possessing a loaded prohibited firearm and one count of possessing fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.
2Mr. Noel admits he was driving a car in downtown Toronto on the night of March 17, 2024. There were two other people in the car. The police stopped Mr. Noel for a traffic violation. During that stop, the police saw evidence that the occupants of the car had been consuming cannabis and started an investigation under the Cannabis Control Act. The police searched the vehicle and found a loaded 9mm handgun under the driver’s seat. The serial number of the gun had been removed. Mr. Noel admits he was in possession of that firearm.1 The police also found 15.04 grams of fentanyl and 2.37 grams of cocaine in a bag in the trunk of the car. Mr. Noel admits he was in possession of the fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.
3It is now my job to determine the appropriate sentence for Mr. Noel.
4The Crown argued the appropriate sentence is 4 years in custody on each count to be served concurrently. The Crown argued that a total sentence of 4 years is at the very bottom of the range and any shorter sentence would be unreasonable.
5Counsel for Mr. Noel argued that a sentence in the range of two to two and a half years in custody would satisfy all the applicable principles of sentencing.
6I find that a sentence of 3 years is the appropriate sentence less the credit Mr. Noel is entitled to for the time he has already spent in custody on these charges.
B. Sentencing Range for firearms and fentanyl offences
7Before considering the gravity of Mr. Noel’s offences and his level of responsibility, it is important to determine the sentencing range for each offence. Of course, sentencing ranges are not determinative. Established sentencing ranges simply distill the sentences imposed in other comparable cases. There will be cases where a sentence outside the established range will be proportionate and appropriate: R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9 at para. 36, R. v. Lacasse, at 2015 SCC 64 para. 58, R. v. Kelly, 2022 ONSC 5500 at para. 35. The question is what sentence will satisfy the applicable sentencing principles considering the unique constellation of mitigating and aggravating factors in this case.
8The three-year mandatory minimum sentence for possession of a loaded prohibited firearm was struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2017: R. v. Nur, 2015 SCC 15. Nonetheless, even after mandatory minimum sentence was struck down, the Court of Appeal for Ontario has held that people who possess a loaded restricted firearm and engage in criminal activity or activity that poses a danger to the public should still receive exemplary sentences in the range of three to five years: R. v. Marshall, 2015 ONCA 692 at para. 47. The three-to-five-year range has been found to been appropriate even when the defendant is a young first-time offender, like Mr. Noel. For defendants with a criminal record involving firearms offences, the range is much higher: R. v. Chambers, 2013 ONCA 680, R. v. Mansingh, 2017 ONCA 68, R. v. Graham, 2018 ONSC 6817 at para. 38
9The sentencing range for possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking is much wider and less settled. The case law reveals that sentences ranging from two years less a day on the low end to seven years on the high end have been imposed in cases involving the possession of approximately 15 grams of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.
10In one of the early fentanyl trafficking cases to reach the Court of Appeal in Ontario, the Court declined to establish a sentencing range but held that people who traffic “significant amounts of fentanyl”, even first offenders, should expect to receive “significant penitentiary sentences”: R. v. Loor, 2017 ONCA 696 at para. 50. This sentiment has been applied in cases of possessing fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking as well.
11The Crown referred me to two cases in which the defendant was sentenced for being in possession of 15 to 20 grams of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking. In R. v. Yogendran, 2021 ONCJ 125, the defendant pleaded guilty to possessing of a loaded firearm, four drug charges and failing to comply with his bail. He admitted he was in possession of 16.48 grams of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, which is comparable to the amount of fentanyl Mr. Noel had in his possession. The Court imposed a 3-year sentence for possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, which was in addition to a 3-year sentence for the firearm offence. Mr. Yogendran was 20 years old and had no criminal record. The sentencing judge also found he had good rehabilitative prospects. In R. v. Cinelli, 2018 ONSC 4983, the defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of possessing heroin for the purpose of trafficking and one count of possessing fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking. The Court imposed a 7-year sentence on the possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking count. Mr. Cinelli admitted he was in possession of 20 grams of fentanyl. Mr. Cinelli had a lengthy criminal record including other drug offences.
12The cases relied on by the defence to support a sentence in the range of two years do not involve findings of guilt for possessing fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and are, therefore, of limited value. Nevertheless, there are cases in which courts have imposed sentences of less than three years for possessing fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking. For example, in R. v. Clayton, 2018 ONSC 4125, the court imposed a sentence of 26 months. Ms. Clayton pleaded guilty to possessing 45 fentanyl patches for the purpose of trafficking. Ms. Clayton admitted that she obtained the patches fraudulently. Ms. Clayton was a 43-year-old first offender. She was a single parent of two children with addiction and mental health issues. Similarly, in R. v. Willis, 2019 ONSC 7324, the court imposed a sentence of two and a half years. Mr. Willis pleaded guilty to possessing 6.2 grams of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking. He was also addicted to narcotics and had a criminal record. Finally, in R. v. Lu, 2016 ONCA 479, the Court of Appeal upheld a two-and-a-half-year sentence. Mr. Lu was found guilty after a trial of possessing 20 illegally obtained fentanyl patches for the purpose of trafficking.
13There are even a few cases in which conditional sentences have been granted to people convicted of possessing relatively small amount of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking. For example, in R. v. Nacinovich, 2020 ONSC 7604, the defendant pleaded guilty to possessing 8.6 grams of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking. Mr. Nacinovich had a lengthy criminal record but also had significant support in the community and had addressed his addiction, which had motivated his involvement in trafficking drugs. The court gave Mr. Nacinovich a conditional sentence of two years less a day. Similarly, in R. v. Han, 2022 ONCJ 343, the court granted a conditional sentence of two years less a day. Ms. Han pleaded guilty to possessing 15.6 grams of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, which is almost the same amount Mr. Noel had in his possession. At the time of her offence, Ms. Han was addicted to fentanyl and was involved in trafficking to support her addiction. The Court described Ms. Han’s case as exceptional because of the work she had done to address her addiction.
14Where Mr. Noel’s case falls within the range for each offence turns on the unique circumstances of this case: R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680 at para. 56, Criminal Code, ss. 718, 718.1 and 718.2; R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64 at para. 58. Sentencing is always a highly individualized exercise. Mr. Noel’s sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of his offences and his level of moral blameworthiness. Of course, Mr. Noel’s sentence must adequately denounce his conduct and, if possible, deter others from committing similar offences. At the same time, his sentence should not be any longer than necessary to achieve the applicable sentencing principles: R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13, at para. 37; R. v. Singh, 2025 ONSC 179 at para. 38.
C. Aggravating factors
15Beyond the inherent seriousness of all firearm and drug offences, there are three important aggravating factors in this case.
16First, the nature and quantity of the drugs involved. Mr. Noel admitted he had more than 15 grams of fentanyl in his possession for the purpose of trafficking. Fentanyl is an extremely addictive and destructive drug. Ingesting even a tiny amount of fentanyl can be lethal so 15 grams is a significant amount. Fentanyl has had a devastating impact across Canada. It has caused countless deaths and devastated many lives. Mr. Noel put the public at very significant risk by possessing 15 grams of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking: R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46 at para. 96. R. v. Campbell, 2024 ONSC 2220 at para. 18.
17Second, Mr. Noel was in possession of a loaded firearm in a public place. Mr. Noel admits he had the loaded gun in his car while driving in downtown Toronto. There were other people in the car with Mr. Noel, one of whom was 16 years old. The unlawful possession of loaded firearms often results in death and devastation. The unlawful possession of loaded firearms in a public place only adds to the risk of harm to innocent people: R. v. St. Clair, 2018 ONSC 7028 at para. 47.
18Third, the only reasonable inference from all the circumstances is that Mr. Noel was in possession of a loaded firearm to protect his criminal enterprise. Mr. Noel had the gun in his car while he was in possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking. The serial number of the gun had been removed, making it difficult to traced. The firearm had an extended magazine capable of carrying 30 bullets. At the time it was seized, there were 21 rounds in the gun. Gun violence is an all too frequent and predictable part of the illicit drug trade: R. v. Hamilton (2004), 2004 5549 (ON CA), 72 OR (3d) 1 (CA) at para. 104. The toxic combination of guns and drugs makes Mr. Noel’s offences much more serious and demands an exemplary sentence.
19Given the nature and seriousness of Mr. Noel’s offences, denunciation and deterrence must be the paramount principles of sentencing.
D. Mitigating factors
20There are also five important mitigating factors in this case.
a. Mr. Noel is a youthful first offender
21Mr. Noel was only 23 years old when he was arrested and he has no criminal record. As a result, the principle of restraint applies. I must impose the shortest sentence that will satisfy the other principles of sentencing, including denunciation and deterrence: R. v. Priest, 1996 1381 (ONCA); R. v. Batisse, 2009 ONCA 114 at para. 32.
b. Mr. Noel’s Guilty Plea
22Mr. Noel’s guilty plea is a very significant mitigating factor for several reasons.
23By pleading guilty, Mr. Noel has taken responsibility for his actions. While the Crown’s case against Mr. Noel appears strong, I cannot say that it was inevitable he would have been convicted at trial. Mr. Noel has chosen to accept responsibility and has given up his right to litigate any possible Charter claims he might have had in relation to the circumstances of his arrest or the search of the car incident to his arrest.
24Mr. Noel has also expressed remorse for his actions. When asked if he had anything to say before I decided his sentence, Mr. Noel said he has learned a hard lesson from being in custody for so long and he regrets the time he has lost with his family.
25Finally, by pleading guilty, Mr. Noel has saved 15 days of court time that had been scheduled for his trial in June 2026. Given the current delays in our system, those savings are significant.
c. Mr. Noel has good rehabilitative prospects
26Because Mr. Noel is a youthful first offender, I must consider his rehabilitative prospects when I decide what sentence is appropriate. Of course, rehabilitation is not the only relevant principle of sentence nor the determinative principle. Denunciation and deterrence remain paramount considerations: Batisse at para. 34. Nonetheless, I am optimistic about Mr. Noel rehabilitative prospects.
27Mr. Noel has already taken some steps towards his own rehabilitation. He completed nine programs while in custody including Life Skills, Money Management, Managing Stress and Anger Management. Mr. Noel has also applied to be part of an intensive case management program designed for young people leaving prison and transitioning back into the community. The goal of the program is to help offenders avoid involvement in crime and violence in future. Mr. Noel is on the waiting list for the program. Nonetheless, his desire to participate in the program is encouraging.
28Mr. Noel is also on the waiting list for an educational program that will help him complete his high school credentials.
29Mr. Noel has support in the community, which will be important for his ongoing rehabilitation. Mr. Noel’s mother, Doreen Noel, wrote a letter in support of her son. Ms. Noel wrote that she will be a “steadfast support” for Mr. Noel when he is released from custody and will encourage him to continue his education and training so he can achieve his goals. Mr. Noel’s brother, Elekiel Tully, also wrote a letter of support. Mr. Tully said he is hopeful Mr. Noel will join the family’s car detailing business after his release to create a better path for his life. Mr. Tully described Mr. Noel as very knowledgeable about cars and a good teacher. Mr. Tully said that he still applies lessons he learned from Mr. Noel in the family business today.
30The letters of support also show there is more to Mr. Noel than his criminal activity. Doreen Noel wrote that Mr. Noel’s offences are not consistent with how he was raised or with the person Mr. Noel is within his family. She described Mr. Noel as quiet, nurturing, helpful and kind. She also wrote that he is also an amazing father. Mr. Noel has five children. His first child was born when he was 19 years old. Before his detention, Mr. Noel had primary responsibility for two of his children and was actively involved in the lives of his other three children. Being away from his children has been very difficult for Mr. Noel. I accept that he is anxious and excited to be reunited with his children. Ms. Noel wrote that Mr. Noel is enthusiastic about his future. He is planning to continue his education and to get a job so he can focus on supporting his children.
31I find that Mr. Noel is motivated to rehabilitate himself so he can stay out of prison and continue to be an important part of his children’s lives. He has done some work towards his own rehabilitation. He has applied for programs that will support his transition. And he has strong support from his family. Together, these factors make me optimistic about Mr. Noel’s rehabilitative prospects.
d. Mr. Noel’s life experiences
32The social context in which Mr. Noel grew up and his own experiences can mitigate his level of responsibility and can inform my decision on how to balance the competing principles of sentencing: R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680 at para. 13, 75-81 and 87-107.
33I did not receive a pre-sentence report or an enhanced pre-sentence report about Mr. Noel. I did, however, receive some information about his background from counsel, which I accept as true. I can also take judicial notice of the existence of anti-Black racism in Canadian society: Morris at para. 13.
34An extensive expert report on anti-Black racism in Canada is appended to the sentencing judge’s decision R. v. Morris are: R. v. Morris, 2018 ONSC 5186, at Appendix A. I am entitled to consider the content of that report when assessing Mr. Noel’s circumstances. From that report, I take the following the historical and social facts to be true:
There is a connection between the long history of overtly racist attitudes and social practices in Canada and present-day discrimination against Black people.
Ongoing discrimination within Canadian institutions marginalizes Black people, particularly those who live in communities marked by poverty, diminished economic opportunities and over-policing.
Schools and other social institutions have failed to give Black youth the support and education they need to succeed. And there is a connection between educational failure and criminalization. Poor academic performance, absence from school, and failure to graduate all increase the likelihood of offending.
Black children are much more likely to grow up in poverty. They are also more likely to live in neighbourhoods afflicted by poverty and other forms of disadvantage, such as a lack of community centres, libraries, good schools, community health hubs and hospitals.
Serious violence is concentrated in Toronto’s Black communities. Black youth in Toronto report higher levels of violent victimization and violent offending than youth from other racial grounds. Higher levels of criminal conduct combined with the over-policing of racialized neighbourhoods have contributed to the gross over-representation of Black Canadians in our legal system and correctional institutions.
The marginalization of Black men, and the criminalization that results from it, can influence how they see themselves and how they navigate the world. Masculinity in Black communities is often expressed through violence and dominance because acceptable means of displaying masculinity are blocked for Black men, who often experience racism on a regular basis. For some, exerting violence and aggression, or at least exhibiting the potential for violence and aggression, is key to gaining respect.
35I accept that anti-Black racism has played a role in Mr. Noel’s life and in the choices he has made. Mr. Noel has experienced many of the challenges identified by the experts in R. v. Morris. Mr. Noel’s mother was only 15 years old when he was born. He has never met his father. He lived with his mother, stepfather and 5 siblings in community housing and experienced significant poverty. Mr. Noel also lived in a neighbourhood with high levels of violence. He lost at least one friend to gun violence. Mr. Noel has been prescribed medication for post-traumatic stress disorder while in custody at the Toronto East Detention Centre to help him cope with the impact of the violence he has experienced and witnessed. Mr. Noel also has a learning disability which made school very difficult for him. Mr. Noel’s mother wrote that he only started to flourish when he participated in a co-op placement at an auto shop in high school. Mr. Noel’s life experiences and the social context in which he grew up do not excuse his conduct. Nor do they reduce the seriousness of his offences. But his experiences and the social context somewhat diminish his level of moral blameworthiness.
e. Conditions of detention
36Mr. Noel was arrested on March 17, 2024 and spent 20 days in custody before he was released on bail. He has been back in custody since February 9, 2025. Mr. Noel argues that he has experienced particularly harsh conditions while in custody. He argues the conditions of his detention are a significant mitigating factor in this case.
37The Crown argued that the conditions of detention are not a significant mitigating factor because the conditions were not particularly onerous and there is no evidence from Mr. Noel about how the conditions have impacted him: R. v. Omoragbon, 2020 ONCA 336 at para. 32, R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754 at paras. 6-7.
38I am satisfied that the conditions in which Mr. Noel has been detained have been quite onerous and have had a negative impact on him. I am, therefore, satisfied that the conditions of detention are a mitigating factor in this case.
39Between March 16 and November 26, 2025, a period of 256 days, Mr. Noel was housed in a cell with two other people 81 times (or more than 30 percent of the time). When three people are housed in a cell designed for two, one person sleeps on the floor, which must make the already confined space unbearably cramped.
40To compound the impact of over-crowding, there have been numerous lockdowns at the Toronto East Detention Centre. I only received information about the lockdowns between March 16 and November 26, 2025. During that period, Mr. Noel experienced 4 full day lockdowns, three of which were caused by security issues in the institution and one was caused by staff shortages. Mr. Noel also experienced 101 partial lockdowns, 16 of which were caused by security issues and 85 of which were caused by staff shortage. Most of the partial lockdowns (86 out of 101) occurred between 6pm and 9pm. I have no difficulty finding that there have likely been regular lockdowns at the Toronto East Detention Cnetre since November 26, 2025 given the number and pattern of lock-down between March 16 and November 26, 2025.
41According to the evidence from the Toronto East Detention Centre, the evening lockdowns do not affect family visits or access to the outdoors. The letter from Mr. Noel’s mother seems to corroborate this evidence. She wrote that she has visited Mr. Noel often at the institution. She did not mention any difficulties visiting Mr. Noel because of lockdowns.
42I recognize that the conditions are much worse at other correctional facilities in Ontario than at the Toronto East Detention Centre. Nonetheless, I am concerned that over-crowding and frequent lockdowns remain an issue at the Toronto East Detention Centre. Some lockdowns are inevitable in a large correctional institution. But with the proper allocation of resources, over-crowding and staffing shortages could be addressed. As many of my colleagues have found, the fact these problems persist reflects an unacceptable level of indifference on the part of the Government towards the conditions in provincial correctional institutions: R. v. Sanchez, 2019 ONSC 5272, at para. 53, R. v. Persaud, 2019 ONSC 188 at paras. 29-34.
43In addition to the over-crowding and lockdowns, Mr. Noel has medical issues that make it more difficult for him to be in custody. Mr. Noel has hemophilia, a genetic disorder that stops his blood from clotting properly. I accept that it would be more stressful for someone with hemophilia to being in a correctional facility than it would be for someone without that condition. Mr. Noel has been medicated for PTSD while in custody. He has also experienced significant depression and anxiety.
44I find that the sheer number of lockdowns coupled with the number of days Mr. Noel had to share a cell with two other peoples and his medical issues have made his time in custody unusually difficult. I, therefore, find that the conditions of Mr. Noel’s detention mitigate his sentence to some extent.
E. Conclusion
45Counsel for Mr. Noel argued that a two-year sentence reflects a proper balance of the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case. In her submissions, counsel for Mr. Noel relied heavily on this Court’s decision in R. v. Stewart, 2024 ONSC 281. Mr. Stewart pleaded guilty to possessing a loaded handgun and to possessing 9.9 grams of fentanyl. Mr. Stewart was arrested as he got out of his car. The firearm and drugs were in a bag he was carrying when he was arrested. Like Mr. Noel, Mr. Stewart was a young Black man. He was only 19 years old at the time of the offence and had no criminal record. Mr. Stewart had significant family support and had taken very significant steps towards his own rehabilitation. The Court had an enhanced pre-sentence report that detailed the barriers Mr. Stewart faced in his life. The trial judge granted Mr. Stewart a conditional sentence. Counsel for Mr. Noel argued that the facts of in Stewart are very similar to the facts admitted by Mr. Noel. Counsel argued the only difference between the two cases is that Mr. Stewart pleaded guilty to possession of fentanyl while Mr. Noel pleaded guilty to possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking. Counsel for Mr. Noel argued that imposing a two- or two-and-a-half-year term of imprisonment, rather than a conditional sentence, would adequately account for that different.
46I agree there are several similarities between this case and Stewart. However, I find there are three important differences that justify a longer sentence in this case. First, Mr. Stewart was sentenced for simple possession of fentanyl. Mr. Noel has pleaded guilty to the more serious offence of possessing fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking. Second, Mr. Noel was in possession of more fentanyl than Mr. Stewart. Given the lethality of fentanyl, the difference between 10 grams and 15 grams is meaningful. Third, by the time of Mr. Stewart’s sentencing hearing, he had already proven he could lead a pro-social life. Mr. Stewart was living in the community and had a job. Mr. Stewart had also done volunteer work and completed various counselling programs. While Mr. Noel is to be commended for his efforts while in custody and his motivation to participate in the transition programs, he still has a lot of work to do ensure he does not engage any other criminal activity in future.
47I find the shortest sentence within the established ranges that will adequately denounce the seriousness of Mr. Noel’s offences is three years in custody on each offence.
48The Crown did not argue that the sentences should be served consecutively. Generally, when offences arise out of the same incident, they will be served concurrently: R. v. Sadikov, 2018 ONCA 609 at para. 13, R. v. Gummer, 1983 5286 (ON CA), [1983] O.J. No. 181 (CA) at para 13. Sentencing judges have the discretion to impose consecutive sentences for offences arising out of a single incident if the offences are designed to protect different interests. In some cases, sentencing judges have exercised their discretion to impose consecutive sentences for drug offences and firearms offences that arise from the same incident. There is, however, no rule that drug and weapons offences should attract consecutive sentences: R. v. Delchev, 2014 ONCA 448 at para. 34. In the circumstances of this case, I find it is appropriate to order that the sentences be served concurrently. The firearm was found during the search for drugs in Mr. Noel’s car. They arise out of the same transaction. I am also satisfied that a global sentence of three years is appropriate given the important mitigating factors in this case. I find that consecutive sentences would result in a total sentence that is disproportionate.
49Mr. Noel has spent 396 days in custody on these charges. If Mr. Noel is given one and a half days credit for each day he has spent in custody, he has already served the equivalent of 594 days (or 1 year, 7 months and 19 days). Mr. Noel must, therefore, serve an additional 501 days in custody on each count. The sentence imposed on each count will be served concurrently.
F. Ancillary Orders
50The Crown sought two ancillary orders.
51First, the Crown asked me for an order authorizing the taking of a sample of Mr. Noel’s bodily substances for the purpose of DNA analysis: Criminal Code, s. 487.052(3). Both offences that Mr. Noel has been found guilty of are “secondary designated offences”; Criminal Code, s. 487.04. I, therefore, have the discretion to make the order if I am satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to do so. When deciding whether to make an order, I must consider the nature of Mr. Noel’s offences, the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offences, the impact the order would have on Mr. Noel’s privacy and security of the person. Counsel for Mr. Noel did not make any submissions on why a DNA order should not be made. I appreciate that Mr. Noel is quite young and has no criminal record. I also appreciate that providing a sample of his DNA will infringe Mr. Noel’s privacy. Nonetheless, given the seriousness of the offences and the fact that Mr. Noel possessed a gun in the context of the illicit drug trade, I am satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to order him to provide a sample of his bodily substances for DNA analysis.
52Second, the Crown asked me to make a weapons prohibition order: Criminal Code, s. 109. Because Mr. Noel was found guilty of possession of a prohibited firearm, I am required to make such an order under s. 109 of the Criminal Code. There are two parts to the order. For a period of 10 years after Mr. Noel is released from custody, he is prohibited from possessing (i) any firearm other than a prohibited or restricted firearm, (ii) any crossbow, and (iii) any restricted weapon, ammunition, or explosive. Mr. Noel is also prohibited from possessing any prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device or prohibited ammunition for the rest of his life.
53Mr. Noel asked me to waive the requirement that he pay the victim fine surcharge. The Crown took no position on his request. Mr. Noel has been in custody for more than 12 months. Because of his precarious financial circumstances, I am satisfied that requiring him to pay the victim fine surcharge would cause him undue hardship: Criminal Code, s. 737(2.1)(a). Mr. Noel is, therefore, not required to pay the victim fine surcharge.
___________________________ Davies J.
Released orally: February 20, 2026
Released in writing: February 24, 2026
CITATION: R. v. Noel, 2026 ONSC 1152
COURT FILE NO.: CR-25-10000304-0000
DATE: 20260224
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
TEVIN NOEL
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Davies J.
Released: February 24, 2026