Citation: R v. Siddiqui, 2026 ONSC 1563
Courtfile: CR-25-0201-0000
Date: 2026 03 03
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
v.
MUHAMMAD DANISH SIDDIQUI
R E A S O N S F O R J U D G M E N T
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE C. CONLAN
on March 3, 2026, at MILTON, ONTARIO
INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN CANNOT BE PUBLISHED,
BROADCAST OR TRANSMITTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 517 OF THE
CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA BY ORDER OF
JUSTICE J. BHACHU, ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE,
DATED JULY 23, 2025
APPEARANCES:
T. Ormond Counsel for the Federal Crown
B. Neil Counsel for Muhammad Danish Siddiqui
tuesday, march 3, 2026
R E A S O N S F O R S E N T E N C E
THE COURT: Okay, everyone is here. And I had reviewed many of the documents in advance, so I am prepared to impose the sentence now. Mr. Muhammad Siddiqui is before the court to be sentenced for two criminal offences. Specifically, that on or about December 7th, 2024 at the town of Milton, he did unlawfully possess a controlled substance, namely hydromorphone, for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19, and further, count five, that on or about the same date at the same place, he did operate a conveyance while prohibited from doing so, contrary to section 320.18(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. Mr. Siddiqui has entered guilty pleas to those two counts. This court has entered findings of guilt and has registered convictions on those two counts.
The facts may be summarised as follows. On the date in question, Mr. Siddiqui was operating a BMW motor vehicle on Highway 401 eastbound near the City of Cambridge in the Region of Waterloo. A motorist called in a traffic complaint about the motor vehicle swerving heavily while travelling at inconsistent speeds. At one point, the BMW being operated by Mr. Siddiqui almost became involved in a motor vehicle collision with another motorist. Members of the Cambridge OPP believed that the individual operating the BMW, and that was Mr. Siddiqui, was driving while impaired, and thus the police were in the area on the highway attempting to locate the motor vehicle in question. The police did eventually locate the motor vehicle and initiated a traffic stop. Mr. Siddiqui provided a suitable sample of his breath on demand of the police into the approved screening device and registered a zero reading. The police managed to identify this offender as the operator of the motor vehicle. It was discovered by the police that Mr. Siddiqui was a suspended driver for an impaired driving conviction in late 2023. Mr. Siddiqui was placed under arrest for driving while prohibited, and a search was conducted incident to the arrest. That search revealed a variety of items, including but not limited to $7,742.75 in cash, 57.6 grams of methamphetamine, 1,621 pills of hydromorphone, and other illicit substances.
In terms of the circumstances of the offender, Mr. Siddiqui is a racialized man who is currently 28 years of age, born September 20th, 1997. He has a criminal history. His record has been marked Exhibit number one. In 2017, out of Milton, Mr. Siddiqui was convicted of possession of a Schedule II substance for the purpose of trafficking. He received a suspended sentence and probation for 12 months, plus ancillary orders. Later in 2023, also out of Milton, Mr. Siddiqui was convicted of possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition. He was also convicted on the same date of possession of a firearm or ammunition contrary to a prohibition order. On both convictions from that date, Mr. Siddiqui received a relatively lenient sentence. Seven months in custody in total, on top of 34 months of pre-sentence custody, plus probation, plus ancillary orders. In 2023, also out of Milton, Mr. Siddiqui was convicted of operating a conveyance while impaired. He received a $1,000 fine and was prohibited from operating any motor vehicle for a period of one year. That is the extent of Mr. Siddiqui's criminal history. Mr. Siddiqui has been in pre-sentence custody for a lengthy period of time, 451 real days. The records related to his time at Maplehurst Correctional Complex have been filed with the court. Those records are very concerning to this court. They indicate in part that during his time at Maplehurst, Mr. Siddiqui has been subjected to 156 lockdowns. The records also indicate that Mr. Siddiqui has been triple bunked for 446 days while at Maplehurst, which essentially is every day that he has been at the facility. Mr. Siddiqui has experienced zero misconducts while at Maplehurst, according to the facility's records. Each submission that has been put forward by experienced counsel has merit to it. Neither submission is unreasonable in my view, but sentencing is a highly discretionary and individualised exercise.
The position of the Crown is that Mr. Siddiqui be sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 4 to 5 years in duration, less credit for pre-sentence custody. The Crown is content that the 451 real days served to date by Mr. Siddiqui be enhanced to the equivalent of 677 days as per the maximum enhancement allowed under the provisions of the Criminal Code and in accordance with the decision in R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 575. The Crown also asks for several ancillary orders, and all of those orders are on consent of the Defence.
The position of the Defence is that this court consider a sentence of imprisonment of somewhere between 2 and 2.5 years in duration, less the 677 days credit for pre-sentence custody. The Defence arrives at the 2-to-2.5-year range after a consideration of the mitigating factor of the overly harsh conditions in pre-sentence custody that Mr. Siddiqui has experienced and that is the proper way of dealing with Duncan and Marshall credit. Overly harsh conditions in pre-sentence custody are to be treated as a mitigating factor on sentence.
In terms of the principles of sentencing, this court agrees with Ms. Ormond for the Federal Crown that the primary sentencing objectives in this case are denunciation and deterrence, both general deterrence and individual or specific deterrence for Mr. Siddiqui. Of secondary importance, is the principle of rehabilitation. But in this case, rehabilitation must take a back seat to denunciation and deterrence. Both sides have filed some helpful court decisions. I have reviewed and considered all of those decisions. I think that the two most relevant decisions I would say with respect in terms of general principles and the general range of sentence in this case are the decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Lynn and in Barham. The Lynn decision was filed by the Crown, R. v. Lynn, 2019 ONCA 277. In that case, the panel of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Justices Doherty, Pepall and Trotter, were dealing with a case where Mr. Lynn was seeking leave to appeal his sentence of 26 months less credit for pre-trial custody of four months, plus two years of probation for possession of hydromorphone for the purpose of trafficking. We know from the facts outlined in the Lynn decision that the appellant in that case was found to be in possession of a relatively small quantity of hydromorphone, and that he was a drug addict and that he had made some efforts towards his rehabilitation. Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Lynn, argued before the Court of Appeal for Ontario that given those facts, the sentencing judge erred in imposing an unduly serious sentence of imprisonment. The Court of Appeal for Ontario disagreed with that submission. Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but sentence appeal was dismissed. At paragraph five of the decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario it was indicated that hydromorphone is a synthetic heroin substitute with deadly and destructive effects. The Court of Appeal indicated, "Absent exceptional circumstances, the sale of heroin, even in small amounts by first offenders who are addicts, calls for a penitentiary sentence". And in that regard, the Court of Appeal referenced its earlier decision from 1994 in the case of R. v. Farizeh, [1994] O.J. No. 2624 (Ont. C.A.), at paragraph five. The Barham decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario is an older case, but still very relevant in my opinion. It was filed by the Defence. The citation is R. v. Barham, 2014 ONCA 797, Justices Weiler, Gillese and van Rensburg. In that case, the appellant had pleaded guilty to six offences and received a custodial sentence of 14 months and 28 days, less 165 days of pre-sentence custody. The facts were that Mr. Barham was arrested and charged on January 17th, 2014 with the offence of possession of hydromorphone for the purpose of trafficking. He was also charged with causing a disturbance and with breach of probation. At the time of his arrest, he also had outstanding charges for possession of cocaine and for possession of stolen property. Further, he had an outstanding charge for breach of probation. The sentencing judge had broken down the sentence imposed as follows. On the possession of hydromorphone for the purpose of trafficking, Mr. Barham was sentenced to 12 months in custody, less 5.5 months of pre-trial custody, 14 days concurrent on the breach of probation, 14 days concurrent on the cause disturbance, two months consecutive on the possession of cocaine, 14 days consecutive on the possession of stolen property under $5,000, and 14 days consecutive on the further breach of probation. Mr. Barham argued before the Court of Appeal for Ontario that the sentencing judge had erred in failing to give weight to mitigating factors, and in doing so, that the sentencing judge had imposed a harsh and excessive sentence, particularly for the offence of possession of hydromorphone for the purpose of trafficking. The Court of Appeal disagreed with those submissions and found that the sentencing judge committed no error. The sentencing appeal was dismissed. We can take from these two Court of Appeal for Ontario decisions that there is quite a wide range of sentence for possession of hydromorphone for the purpose of trafficking. A fit sentence could in some cases be as low as a reformatory sentence of imprisonment. In the range, even in the case of Mr. Barham, of one year in jail, and a fit sentence could also be a significant penitentiary sentence, which is what the Crown is asking for here for Mr. Siddiqui, in line with the comments of the Court of Appeal in Lynn.
I agree with the Crown, Ms. Ormond, that there are some aggravating factors to be considered in our case. Those include the high quantity of hydromorphone at issue. 1,621 pills of hydromorphone is a sizable amount. As well, it is aggravating that Mr. Siddiqui had other illegal narcotics in his possession at the same time. I also think it is aggravating that in the overall circumstances of the case, Mr. Siddiqui had these dangerous illicit narcotics in a motor vehicle that he was operating on a highway in a careless manner. When I say "careless", I do not necessarily mean contrary to a specific section of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, but I mean careless in terms of the layperson's description of what was happening. And of course, Mr. Siddiqui was not permitted lawfully to operate a motor vehicle at all on the date in question. I agree with Mr. Neil, counsel for the Defence, that there are mitigating factors in this case. Oh, I should say that a third aggravating factor in this case is Mr. Siddiqui's criminal history. It is not the most extensive criminal record that this court has ever seen, but it is a concerning criminal record and a related criminal record.
As Mr. Neil has pointed out, however, there are important mitigating factors in this case. The two most pressing ones being the guilty pleas and the overly harsh conditions that Mr. Siddiqi has experienced while in pre-sentence custody. The guilty pleas have saved the administration of justice considerable resources that would have been required to try this case. The guilty pleas are an acceptance of responsibility by Mr. Siddiqui. They are an expression of his remorse for having committed these criminal offences. That expression of remorse was repeated today by Mr. Siddiqui in his allocution to the court. It should be noted as well that these guilty pleas are being entered by Mr. Siddiqui, not on the eve of trial, but well in advance of the scheduled trial date. A review of the endorsements on the e-indictment indicates that this trial is set to commence on January 11th, 2027. So, the guilty pleas are relatively timely in this case. In terms of the strength of the mitigating factor of the overly harsh conditions while in pre-sentence custody, this court and other judges have commented on the conditions at Maplehurst many times. I agree with Ms. Ormond that there is no evidentiary foundation in this case, and no cogent reason for this court to make some general pronouncements about other issues at Maplehurst Correctional Complex, if any. But I would just point out that the number of lockdowns in this case is extensive and the number of triple bunking days in this case is grotesque. To have someone triple bunked in a correctional facility while presumed innocent, almost every day that the inmate is in pre-sentence custody is indeed overly harsh. There is no question that the test for placing some mitigating effect on these pre-sentence custody conditions for this offender, that test, having been outlined by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754 and R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344, has been met in this case. I will indicate that, but for the Duncan and Marshall considerations, this court would have likely imposed on Mr. Siddiqui a penitentiary sentence in the range of somewhere between three and three and a half years in length. Given the mitigating factor of the overly harsh conditions in pre-sentence custody balanced along with all of the other mitigating and aggravating factors, the sentence to be imposed on Mr. Siddiqui will be shorter than that.
For all of these oral reasons, the sentence imposed on this offender is as follows. First, the victim fine surcharge is waived on each of the two convictions. Second, a forfeiture order is issued and has been signed by this court in the form presented by the Crown. Third, a secondary DNA order is issued. Fourth, there is a section 109 Criminal Code firearms and weapons prohibition order issued for a duration of life for all items under both subsections. Fifth, there is a Criminal Code of Canada driving prohibition order issued for a duration of two years. Sixth, on count number two, the hydromorphone conviction, the sentence of the court is as follows, 913 days imprisonment. That is approximately 2.5 years less pre-sentence custody of 451 real days, credited as 677 days for a net sentence from today of 236 days in jail. I will repeat that. On count number two, the hydromorphone conviction, 913 days in custody. That is approximately 2.5 years less pre-sentence custody of 451 real days, credited as 677 days for a net sentence from today of 236 days in jail. And on count number five, the sentence is 180 days in custody from today, concurrent with the sentence imposed on count number two running at the same time as the sentence imposed on count number two. For purposes of the warrant of committal, there is no pre-sentence custody attached to count number five. So, the global sentence for Mr. Siddiqui is 236 days in jail from today. Madam registrar, this is Exhibit number one, the criminal record for Mr. Siddiqui.
CLERK REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
THE COURT: This is the forfeiture order that I have signed. And before I ask Mr. Siddiqui if he understands all aspects of the sentence, which is something that I am required to do, is there anything you want clarified, Ms. Ormond?
T. ORMOND: No, Your Honour, and I will be seeking to withdraw any remaining counts.
THE COURT: So noted. Thank you. Mr. Neil?
B. NEIL: No, Your Honour. Thank you.
THE COURT: Okay, so, Mr. Siddiqui, stand up please. The victim surcharge has been waived on each conviction. There's nothing more I need to say. There has been a forfeiture order issued. Most of the items seized, you are not getting back. Do you understand that?
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUI: Yes.
THE COURT: There is a secondary DNA order that has been issued. You must cooperate with the authorities in providing a sample of your DNA. It is usually done by way of a blood sample. If you do not cooperate, you could be charged with a further criminal offence of breaching the order. And if found guilty, you could be sentenced to time in jail just for that breach. Do you understand? MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUI: Yes, I understand.
THE COURT: The firearms and weapons prohibition order, you must obey that order. If you do not, you could be charged with a further criminal offence of breaching that order. If found guilty, you would probably be sentenced to a period of time in jail. Do you understand?
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUI: Yes.
THE COURT: The driving prohibition order for two years, you must obey that order. If you do not, just like what happened here, you will likely be charged with a further criminal offence of driving while prohibited for breaching that order. And if found guilty, you would likely be sentenced to a period of time in jail. Do you understand that? MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUI: Yes.
THE COURT: And the sentence of imprisonment is 236 days in jail from today on top of what you have already served. Your lawyer, Mr. Neil, will explain it more to you. Do you understand the sentence that has been imposed?
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUI: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you have any questions you want to ask me about any aspect of the sentence?
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUI: No.
THE COURT: Okay, you may have a seat, sir. Okay, Ms. Ormond?
T. ORMOND: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour. And thanks for fitting us in in our entirety this morning. Madam Registrar just pointed out, the dates that were scheduled for this matter for trial have been repurposed for a different one of Mr. Neil's matters.
B. NEIL: They've been repurposed, but they haven't been vacated yet.
T. ORMOND: Do they need to be vacated for Mr. Siddiqui and then....
B. NEIL: They've already been put on the record. In fact, it may have been by Your Honour on the other matter, but it's doubled up right now. They have to be vacated for Mr. Siddiqui.
THE COURT: Okay, I'll make sure that I make that known to the trial office.
T. ORMOND: The other matter is Mr. McNerney (ph), if that assists.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Okay, Ms. Ormond. I think that you did a very fine job with this case.
T. ORMOND: Thank you.
THE COURT: The materials that you filed were helpful, very relevant. And Mr. Neil, thank you very much for your submissions and for taking the time to get the records.
B. NEIL: Thank you, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Thank you. So I'll step out until the next case is ready. Okay?
CLERK REGISTRAR: Order, all rise.
. . .WHEREUPON THIS MATTER WAS CONCLUDED
FORM 3
ELECTRONIC CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPT (SUBSECTION 5(2))
Evidence Act
I, Eric Magri, certify that this document is a true and accurate transcript of the recording of R v. Siddiqui in the Superior Court of Justice held at 491 Steeles Avenue East, Milton taken from Recording Number 1211_6_20260303_075528__10_CONLANC.dcr, which has been certified in Form 1.
March 9, 2026
Date (Electronic signature of authorized person)
3595206113
(Authorized court transcriptionist's identification number - if applicable)
Ontario, Canada
(Province of signing)
LEGEND
[sic] - Indicates preceding word has been reproduced verbatim and is not a transcription error.
(ph) - Indicates preceding word has been spelled phonetically.
Transcript Ordered: March 3, 2026
Transcript Completed: March 9, 2026
Transcript Approved for Release: pending
Ordering Party Notified: pending
A certificate in Form 3 is admissible in evidence and is proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the transcript is a transcript of the certified recording of evidence and proceedings in the proceeding that is identified in the certificate.