ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
-and-
JOEL DOSMAN
Counsel: E. Barefoot for the Crown G. Orr for Mr. Dosman
Sentencing hearing held: February 20, 2026, March 12, 2026, March 16, 2026
Before: Justice R. Chown
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
1I am tasked with sentencing Joel Dosman, currently age 50, after a jury found him guilty of one count of possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking (202 g), one count of simple possession of psilocybin (3.6 g), and one count of possession of a prohibited weapon (a conductive energy device).
2The Crown seeks a sentence of five to six years for the possession for the purpose of trafficking, 90 days concurrent for the prohibited weapon, and the Crown did not suggest a specific sentence for possession of psilocybin.
3Prior to getting off the record, Mr. Orr submitted on Mr. Dosman’s behalf that I should impose a conditional sentence and specifically a non-custodial sentence with probation, including an electronic monitoring device if deemed necessary. After Mr. Orr was off the record, Mr. Dosman made the same request for a conditional sentence.
4The Crown proposed and Mr. Orr did not oppose ancillary orders as follows: DNA collection, s. 109(2) weapons prohibition, and forfeiture of all items seized.
Circumstances of the Offence
5On the evening of Wednesday, May 13, 2020, police executed a warrant to search Mr. Dosman’s residence. As a result of the search, police recovered 202 g of methamphetamine packaged in plastic bags in smaller quantities. These were in a blue bin on a side table in Mr. Dosman’s basement. Police also recovered 3.6 g of psilocybin in a plastic bag on a shelf in the basement.
6There was an abundance of evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that Mr. Dosman had possession of the methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking. The evidence showed that in the three months before his arrest, Mr. Dosman was texting with others relating to trafficking. He had a home surveillance system. The video from that system showed that Mr. Dosman did not appear to be leaving the house on a regular schedule, as one might expect if he was working. Mr. Dosman had quite a few visitors to his residence. Often these visitors came for short visits, consistent with trafficking. One visitor can be seen counting cash on the back porch. Mr. Dosman could be seen on video counting cash inside the residence after a short attendance from a visitor. Mr. Dosman had $6,910 in cash in his front hoodie pocket when he was arrested. He had safes in his residence. One of the safes contained $2,000 in cash. There were three or four digital scales in the premises. The methamphetamine was in multiple smaller packages. There was a cutting agent that was in a storage area that Mr Dosman said was occupied by another tenant of the house, but nevertheless it was there and accessible. There were several items that appeared to be debt lists.
7During his trial testimony, Mr. Dosman admitted that he sold gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB), and that he referred to it in coded language as “water” in some of his text messages. He further admitted that the police had not discovered a jar of GHB in his residence. Mr. Dosman also admitted that he sold marijuana.
8Although there was abundant evidence of trafficking, the evidence did not suggest that Mr. Dosman was living a lavish lifestyle from trafficking. To the contrary, he was apparently renting a modest, messy, crowded apartment in a modest house in a modest neighbourhood in Hanover. He did not have a vehicle.
9The prohibited weapon was a conductive energy device or “stun gun.” The police evidence was that it was functioning and was capable of delivering a shock. The jury must have accepted this evidence. The device also served as a flashlight. It was found on a shelf in the living room of the residence. There is no evidence to suggest that this device is something Mr. Dosman regularly carried with him.
10At the time of the police raid, Mr. Dosman was in the residence and there were six other people there. In addition, his daughter was in the back yard with a friend of Mr. Dosman’s, Trevor Oosthoeck. This daughter was born in 2017 so was age three or four at the time. One of the people in the house was Shaelyn Gorman, who was Mr. Dosman’s romantic partner at the time.
Circumstances of the Offender
11I have been provided with a detailed pre-sentence report (PSR). In addition, I received several letters of support for Mr. Dosman, including letters from his friends Darren Scheifele and Stephanie Zettler. Mr. Scheifele and Ms. Zettler acknowledged that their letters were prepared with the assistance of artificial intelligence, but they both also testified and adopted the letters as accurate. Mr. Dosman also testified on both the first day and the second day of his sentencing hearing, as I will describe. On the first day of the sentencing hearing, I also received letters of support from Todd Minor, Manny Vargas, and Brenda Power. Just prior to the second day of his sentencing hearing, Mr. Dosman provided his own letter and a letter from his parents. He indicated that his letter was also prepared with the assistance of AI, and I infer that his parents’ letter was also prepared with the assistance of AI. Finally, on the morning of the second day of sentencing submissions, Mr. Dosman supplied a last-minute letter purporting to be from Patty Grimes.
Mr. Dosman’s Role as a Caregiver
12Mr. Dosman has four children:
A 23-year-old daughter who attends school at the University of Guelph.
A nine-year-old daughter who has always lived with him. This is the daugther who was three or four years old and was present at the house when the search warrant was executed. This daughter’s mother, Stephanie Tunkl, died of a fentanyl overdose at their house in April 2019, when the girl was age two or three.
A five-year-old daughter, born after Mr. Dosman’s arrest. Her mother is Ms. Gorman. This girl resides with Mr. Dosman.
A one-year-old son, whose mother is also Ms. Gorman. This boy lives with Ms. Gorman.
13Mr. Dosman testified that in between these last two children, he and Ms. Gorman also had another son, but he died of sudden infant death syndrome at age four months. He further testified that after that, in approximately November of 2022, Ms. Gorman left, leaving the now five-year-old daughter with Mr. Dosman. Ms. Gorman came back into Mr. Dosman’s life briefly after Mr. Dosman had been visited by police, who said they were looking for Ms. Gorman. He passed this on to Ms. Gorman, so she came back to Hanover to turn herself in, and she stayed with Mr. Dosman for three months. She got pregnant with the youngest son at that time. Mr. Dosman had seen little of the youngest son but recently has been able to see him at times.
14Mr. Dosman also testified that his residence at time of his arrest was sold, and in November 2025 he and his two younger daughters moved in with his parents, who also live in Hanover.
15Mr. Dosman testified that he has not worked since early 2025. His only significant source of income is the child tax credit.
16Mr. Scheifele provided supportive evidence on behalf of Mr. Dosman, indicating that Mr. Dosman is a “great father,” who does everything for the children including cooking and laundry, walking them to school, playing with them at the park, and taking them swimming. Ms. Zettler, who is Mr. Scheifele’s spouse, provided similar evidence. The letters of support also emphasize that Mr. Dosman has a strong relationship with his two daughters.
17Mr. Dosman’s parents’ letter indicates that since the charges arose, Mr. Dosman “has worked hard to rebuild his life and focus on being the father his children need” and “has dedicated himself to raising his children and providing them with a stable and loving home.” They say that the children “rely on their father for everything, and he has been their constant source of stability, love, and support.” They say they “are not in a position to take on the full responsibility of raising three young children ourselves.” They also say, “The hardship and emotional impact on the children if their father were removed from their daily lives would be significantly detrimental.” The letter does not indicate that the youngest child lives with Ms. Gorman, but rather it suggests Mr. Dosman is the caregiver for this child, which I understand from his evidence is not the case. This detracts from the credibility and reliability of the parents’ letter.
18Mr. Dosman was not a credible witness at the trial or in his sentencing hearing. In addition, Mr. Dosman failed to provide the probation and parole officer who prepared the PSR with a release for the records of Child and Family Services. Mr. Dosman said that there were no active files with CFS, but at the same time he did not provide a means for the probation and parole officer to obtain the records.
19Despite these weaknesses in the evidence, I accept that Mr. Dosman is the primary caregiver for his two younger daughters and that there is a bond of love between them. The nine-year-old’s mother is deceased. The five-year-old’s mother, Ms. Gorman, has apparently had limited involvement in raising her. I accept that Mr. Dosman’s incarceration will be traumatic for the children. Mr. Dosman’s parents’ letter said it would be “significantly detrimental” to the children, but I suspect that is an understatement, given the role Mr. Dosman plays in the children’s lives.
20It is important, however, not to be naïve about what was going on at Mr. Dosman’s residence while his then three-or four-year-old daughter lived with him. He was engaged in trafficking from his house. The phone download suggests he had been engaged in this kind of activity for at least three months before his arrest. Video surveillance from the security cameras at the house showed his daughter there while known drug users were there. There is footage of people coming for short visits that are consistent with trafficking. There is footage showing Mr. Dosman on his front porch counting money in the presence of two males and his daughter. The security camera system itself is telling about Mr. Dosman’s lifestyle. At the time of the arrest, there were six other people in the house, some of them known drug users. Two of these known drug users were sitting on a couch right beside two meth pipes with methamphetamine residue on them. At the time, as I have already said, Mr. Dosman’s daughter was outside playing with Mr. Dosman’s friend, Travis Oosthoek. To be clear, I am not setting out these facts as aggravating factors on sentence, per se, but rather as circumstances that serve to balance against the risk of overemphasizing how incarceration would impact the children.
21Again, I accept that Mr. Dosman has been the primary care provider for his two younger daughters. I have limited faith in the evidence as to the quality of the care he provides, but I accept that he has tried to be a good father.
Mr. Dosman’s Employment
22Mr. Dosman completed high school in Hanover and was on the honour role. The probation and parole officer wrote in the PSR that Mr. Dosman had a great deal of difficulty remembering dates of employment but said his most recent employment was at a packaging company located in Hanover. Mr. Dosman told the probation and parole officer that he believed he would be able to begin working with a local company doing windows and doors once the charges were resolved. The probation and parole officer said that Mr. Dosman had “a pattern of unemployment.”
23In his testimony at the first day of his sentencing hearing, Mr. Dosman repeated the same information about working for a packaging company in Hanover and that he had not worked since then. He was able to add the date, saying that he was laid off in January 2025. He provided little information about his employment history. He did say that since January 2025 he had done some snow shoveling to earn some money, but it would seem he has earned very little income from that. As indicated, he moved into his parents’ house in November 2025. I understood Mr. Dosman to be suggesting he and his daughters were able to live on the Child Tax Credit because he was not paying rent at his prior residence for a considerable period of time prior to November 2025.
24On the last day of the sentencing hearing, Mr. Dosman provided a letter of support purporting to be from Patty Grimes. He said he had requested the letter the previous day and received the letter that morning. The letter indicates that Mr. Dosman had recently begun employment with “Morrys Trailer Sales” [sic] and said:
I have supervised Joel Dosman for two weeks now I am writing this letter to verify his employment and to attest to his character as an employee. [sic]
Joel is currently employed with us as a RV Technician. He works 40 hours per week and is responsible for performing diagnostic examinations on customers rvs, Throughout his short period of time with us, Joel has proven to be a reliable, punctual, and dedicated member of our team. [sic]
If Joel is granted probation/leniency, our company is prepared to support his rehabilitation by providing a stable work environment and flexible scheduling for any court ordered programs.
25When, at the Crown’s request, Mr. Dosman again took the witnesses and attested the accuracy of the letter, Ms. Barefoot suggested that the letter was fraudulent. She observed that Mr. Dosman had not mentioned this employment in his own letter dated March 9, 2026. Ms. Barefoot then provided an affidavit from her paralegal indicating that the paralegal had called Ms. Grimes after receiving the letter that morning. Ms. Grimes told the paralegal that she did not prepare the letter and she did not employ Mr. Dosman. Mr. Dosman denied that Ms. Barefoot’s information was accurate.
26At that point, Mr. Orr had finished his submissions but agreed that Mr. Dosman could take the witness stand to attest to the three last-minute letters that had been provided. Upon hearing the information that the Crown had developed, Mr. Orr indicated he felt he had to get off the record. Mr. Orr indicated he had received the letter from Mr. Dosman that morning and he had not made direct inquiries to the purported author. Mr. Orr felt his relationship with Mr. Dosman had broken down. It seemed to me that the circumstances were such that Mr. Orr might be in a conflict of interest in any effort to address the allegedly fraudulent letter. Mr. Orr asked for an adjournment of the hearing and asked to be removed from the record. There was no suggestion by the Crown, and no reason whatsoever to believe, that Mr. Orr was aware of the alleged fraudulent nature of the letter.
27Mr. Dosman did not oppose Mr. Orr being removed from the record. I ruled that he was to be removed from the record. After a break in which Mr. Dosman was permitted to make inquiries about getting legal aid, Mr. Dosman indicated he did not want to adjourn the hearing. He wanted to get it over with. He elected to represent himself. After some inquiries of Mr. Dosman, and bearing in mind that Mr. Orr had already completed fulsome submissions, I agreed to proceed.
28In these circumstances, I do not accept the employment letter as accurate, but neither will I consider it to be an aggravating factor in Mr. Dosman’s sentencing.
Principles of Sentencing
The purpose, objectives, and principles of sentencing
29Under the Criminal Code, s. 718,
The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:
(a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;
(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;
(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;
(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;
(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and
(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community.
30In addition, under s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code, it is a fundamental principle that “[a] sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.”
Sentencing in Trafficking Cases
31The language of s. 10(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act complements s. 718 of the Criminal Code. It states:
Without restricting the generality of the Criminal Code, the fundamental purpose of any sentence for an offence under this Part is to contribute to the respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society while encouraging rehabilitation, and treatment in appropriate circumstances, of offenders and acknowledging the harm done to victims and to the community.
32Subsection 10(2) of the CDSA identifies aggravating factors I am required to consider. The aggravating factors include: threatening to use violence, trafficking near a school or other place frequented by young people, trafficking to a minor, or involving a minor in trafficking. None of these are applicable here.
33Another aggravating factor is carrying, using, or threatening to use a weapon. While Mr. Dosman was found to have a conductive energy device (“stun gun”) in his home, there is no evidence that he used it in connection with possessing or trafficking drugs. It was on a shelf in Mr. Dosman’s living room. Mr. Dosman testified that it belonged to his late wife, Ms. Tunkl. She got it from a friend. It did not work. He had nothing to do with it when his wife was alive. It was kept in the bedroom when his wife was alive. He moved it to the living room after she died. He used it only as a flashlight, and it did not work as a stun gun. As indicated, I did not find Mr. Dosman to be very credible, but I accept his evidence on this point, other than his suggestion that the device did not work as a stun gun. The police found that it made a spark and the jury obviously accepted that it worked as a stun gun. From where it was found, the device would likely have been out of reach for Mr. Dosman’s daughter, unless she got something to stand on. This is not a case like R. v. Oickle (2015), 330 C.C.C. (3d) (N.S.C.A.), where the accused was found with drugs in his vehicle and the weapon was readily accessible to him. Here, it cannot be said that Mr. Dosman carried, used, or threatened to use a weapon in connection with trafficking.
34Yet another aggravating factor under the CDSA is a prior conviction for a CDSA offence, other than a conviction for simple possession. Mr. Dosman has a prior conviction for simple possession (two counts) but that does not fit within the list of aggravating factors.
35A conviction for trafficking in narcotics usually results in a custodial sentence. The seriousness of trafficking in methamphetamine has long been recognized. Over forty-five years ago, in R. v. Ward, 1980 2882 (ON CA), [1980] O.J. No. 1439, at para 10, Martin J.A. said:
The principle has been clearly expressed by this Court on many occasions, and by other appellate courts in Canada that, save in exceptional circumstances, a custodial sentence is required to be imposed following a conviction for trafficking in the more dangerous drugs, of which Methamphetamine is one.
36General deterrence is an important consideration in trafficking cases. With that said, those involved in commercial drug dealing are unlikely to be dissuaded by the sentence that is appropriate in this case. General deterrence plays a lesser role in determining an appropriate sentence in this case.
37Denunciation is also an important consideration in trafficking cases, and an important factor here.
38Specific deterrence and rehabilitation are also important considerations in this case.
39The type, quantity, quality and value of drugs in an offender’s possession is always an important consideration in trafficking cases. Where the offender is found to have a significant amount of cash, that can also be an important consideration. As I indicated at the outset, Mr. Dosman was in possession of 202 g of methamphetamine. Between what was in his pocket and in his safe, he had $8,910 in cash. These amounts and the other evidence suggest that Mr. Dosman was engaged in trafficking at a moderate level – well above a subsistence level but not a large-scale or sophisticated operation.
Similar Cases
40Under s. 718.2(b) of the Criminal Code, “a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances.” Both counsel put forward precedents to support their submissions.
Defence Cases
41Mr. Orr directed me to the following cases.
42R. v. Zaryski, 2011 ONCJ 74. This case involved about 460 g of methamphetamine. The offender pled guilty. He was 31 at the time of sentencing. His criminal record was limited to a conviction for simple possession in 2002 for which he received a $400 fine. He was found by the sentencing judge to be a young addict trafficker. He had consistently, since his arrest, attended weekly treatment sessions with a psychiatrist and attended church and participated as a volunteer at the church. He had also consolidated his debts and worked two jobs. He had been on strict bail for four years and living drug free. He received a conditional sentence of two years less a day. Thus, the case involved almost double the amount of methamphetamine as in this case, but there was a guilty plea and some mitigating circumstances that are not present here.
43R. v. Gerrard, 2017 ONCJ 502. This case involved 27 g of cocaine, 385 g of cannabis, 274 pills of methamphetamine, 11 grams of MDMA, five pills of oxycodone and four pills of oxycontin. The offender pled guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of oxycodone for the purpose of trafficking. The offender was a 26-year-old man with four children and no criminal record. He was employed full time and was highly regarded as an employee with good prospects for his future based on his employment history. He was the sole provider for his wife and four children, all under the age of seven. He was sentenced to 18 months in jail.
44R. v. Lavcanski, 2017 ONCJ 838. The offender pled guilty to four counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking on two separate dates. On one date, he was found with 67 grams of crack cocaine, 12 grams of powdered cocaine and 111 grams of methamphetamine, and on another date, he was found with 23 g of powdered cocaine, 9 g of crystal methamphetamine, 139 six mg pads of hydromorphone, 19 g of marijuana, and 12 g of crack cocaine. On the latter date he also admitted and pled guilty to a breach of condition of recognizance. He was 35 and had no criminal record. It was the probation officer’s opinion that the offender “was in denial and engaged in minimization and rationalization.” He received a sentence of two years less a day.
45R. v. Voisin, 2017 ONSC 871. This case involved a plea of guilty to possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine (15 g), possession for the purpose of trafficking amphetamines (1003 methamphetamine pills and 19 g of methamphetamine powder), and a breach of condition of recognizance. The offender was 26 and was a corporal in the armed forces. He had a seven-year-old daughter and treasured being a father. He had “enormous addiction issues.” He received a sentence of 90 days on the cocaine charge, to be served intermittently, and a consecutive conditional sentence of 12 months on the other two charges. The amount of methamphetamine in the pills is not indicated in the case, so it is difficult to compare this case to others. I infer the pills contained small doses. If not, the case seems like an outlier as a comparator for assessing the sentencing range. The sentencing judge seemed to recognize this as well, saying “I accept that the usual range of sentence for these offences, which are serious, is a penitentiary term in order to recognize the need for denunciation and deterrence.” He indicated he was giving prominence to the individual needs of the defendant in that case.
46R. v. Singh, 2025 ONSC 7381. In this case, the offender pled guilty to possession of 148 g of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking. He also had $17,000 in his hotel room. He was age 31 and had no relevant criminal record. He had been on house arrest for four years and not able to work. He received a conditional sentence of 2 years less a day.
47I observe that every one of the cases cited by Mr. Orr involved a guilty plea, which would be a significant mitigating factor that was not present in this case. The offenders were all considerably younger than Mr. Dosman and that was cited as a significant factor in some of these cases.
Crown Cases
48Ms. Barefoot directed me to the following cases, among others.
49R. v. Brown, 2014 ONCJ 179. This case also involved a guilty plea. A 34-year-old man was found to have 69 g of methamphetamine and a large quantity of cash. His long-time addiction was found to be a significant factor, and he was employed full time. He received a sentence of 30 months.
50R. v. Ticzon, 2016 ONSC 7299. In this case, a 28-year-old man with a seven-year-old daughter in the Philippines was sentenced after a trial to four years for possession of 64 g of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking. He was also convicted of possession of a knife for a purpose dangerous to the public peace. He had significant drug addiction issues. Myers J. referred to his addiction as a double-edged sword, noting that it “can provide a less culpable motive for crime,” but “the public needs to be kept safe from having him around” if his choices are driven by his addiction and drug use. The case was appealed (R. v. Ticzon, 2018 ONCA 198), and the Court of Appeal upheld the convictions but allowed the appeal over sentence, reducing the sentence to three years on the trafficking offence and one year concurrent on the weapons offence. Thus, in that case, the Court of Appeal felt a sentence of three years was appropriate for possession for the purpose of trafficking 64 g of methamphetamine.
51R. v. Graham, 2017 ONCA 245. This case involved as guilty plea by a 29-year-old man for possession of two ounces of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking. He entered his plea ten days after his arrest, which suggests serious remorse. Other mitigating factors included the fact that the accused had a very difficult background and had been subject to sexual abuse as a child. He was sentenced to three years, and on appeal the Court of Appeal said that three years was at the high end for this quantity of methamphetamine. That is, three years was at the high end for two ounces or 56 g of methamphetamine. They reduced Mr. Graham’s sentence to two years.
52Not cited to me but from my own experience, I am aware that in R. v. Halk, 2024 ONCA 108, the Court of Appeal said that five years was at “the very low end of the range” for a kilogram of methamphetamine. I note that Mr. Halk was one of the visitors to Mr. Dosman’s property in this case.
53Each case turns on its own facts, but I find these Court of Appeal decisions instructive. Three years was an appropriate sentence for 64 g of methamphetamine in Ticzon. Four years was too high for the specific facts of that case. In Graham, three years was said to be at the high end of the range for 56 g of methamphetamine. In Halk, it was said that five years is at the very low end of the range for a kilogram of methamphetamine.
54Bearing in mind the amount of methamphetamine in this case, it seems to me that based upon the amount involved and the cases cited to me, the Crown’s proposed range of five to six years is a bit high for 200 g of methamphetamine, but depending on the circumstances, it may not by high by very much.
Mitigating and Aggravating Factors
Aggravating Factors
55Under s. 718.1(a) of the Criminal Code, a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
56An aggravating factor in this case is the amount of methamphetamine involved and the dangerousness of methamphetamine. The expert evidence at trial was that the 200 g Mr. Dosman had in his possession represented between about 200 and 2,000 doses. At the gram level, 200 g was worth between $14,000 and $30,000 at the time.
57Mr. Dosman’s criminal record is a factor in determining an appropriate sentence but in this case, under our law, it plays a minor role in determining a fit sentence, because it is aged and does not include convictions for trafficking. The possession conviction that I mentioned is from 2012. At that time, Mr. Dosman was convicted of one count of simple possession of a schedule I substance, one count of simple possession of a schedule II substance, and three counts for failure-to-comply offences. Mr. Dosman received a sentence of 14 days plus 11 days time served for the first count, and 15 days concurrent for the second count. These are the only drug-specific convictions on Mr. Dosman’s record.
58Ms. Barefoot submitted that it is an aggravating factor that Mr. Dosman was “running a drug den” in his house while the pandemic was raging. I do not see that as a matter that should result in a longer sentence. I do not recall evidence to the effect that there was a lock-down imposed at the time. I do recall that the officers all wore masks for the search and that, because of the pandemic, they released the persons found in the residence with a plan to summons them later. However, I do not recall specific evidence that there was a public health lockdown in place at the time. In any event, I do not think this is a factor that could reasonably justify a longer sentence.
Mitigating Circumstances
59Two mitigating factors that were highlighted by Mr. Orr are: (1) Mr. Dosman’s role as a single parent and primary caregiver for two of his four children; and (2) the length of time it has been since Mr. Dosman was charged and on release, and the lack of evidence of any criminal or antisocial behaviour on his part since then.
Family Consequences as a Mitigating Factor
60In a case dealing with importing cocaine, R. v. Spencer, (2004), 2004 5550 (ON CA), 72 O.R. (3d) 47 (C.A.), at paras. 46-47, leave to appeal refused, [2005] S.C.C.A. No. 4, the Court of Appeal said the following:
46It is a grim reality that the young children of parents who choose to commit serious crimes necessitating imprisonment suffer for the crimes committed by their parents. It is an equally grim reality that the children of parents who choose to bring cocaine into Canada are not the only children who are the casualties of that criminal conduct. Children, both through their use of cocaine and through the use of cocaine by their parents, are heavily represented among the victims of the cocaine importer's crime. Any concern about the best interests of children must have regard to all children affected by this criminal conduct.
47The fact that Ms. Spencer has three children and plays a very positive and essential role in their lives cannot diminish the seriousness of her crime or detract from the need to impose a sentence that adequately denounces her conduct and hopefully deters others from committing the same crime. Nor does it reduce her personal culpability. It must, however, be acknowledged that in the long-term, the safety and security of the community is best served by preserving the family unit to the furthest extent possible. In my view, in these circumstances, those concerns demonstrate the wisdom of the restraint principle in determining the length of a prison term and the need to tailor that term to preserve the family as much as possible. Unfortunately, given the gravity of the crime committed by Ms. Spencer, the needs of her children cannot justify a sentence below the accepted range, much less a conditional sentence.
61In the 2025 decision R. v. Al-Enzi, 2025 ONCA 485, at para. 10, the Ontario Court of Appeal said that family consequences may be a relevant factor in sentencing decisions, but courts “must be careful not to let these consequences overwhelm the other principles of sentencing.” The court cited R. v. Dent, 2023 ONCA 460, 167 O.R. (3d) 161, at para. 124, for this proposition. In Dent, the court allowed a Crown appeal from the 18-month conditional sentence imposed by the trial judge on the basis that “the trial judge gave undue weight to avoiding the separation of Ms. Dent from her child, allowing it to overwhelm all other considerations.” The court further found the trial judge to be in error because he “based his decision on this consideration without any case-specific analysis of why the temporary separation of Ms. Dent from her child warranted such priority.” In that case, the child would have been roughly nine years old at the time of sentencing. The offence has no similarity to the offence here, but the sentence ultimately imposed by the Court of Appeal was incarceration for two years less a day and three years of probation.
62The Court of Appeal has also made it clear that disregarding family consequences is also an error. In R. v. Habib, 2024 ONCA 830, the appellant had been convicted of gun related offences. He was 19 at the time of his offences. His arrest was a turning point, and he found a good job and became the primary financial provider for his parents and five younger siblings. Tulloch C.J.O. said the following about family circumstances as a mitigating factor.
42As recognized in R. v. Spencer, it is an unfortunate reality that sentencing defendants to prison often harms their families. Family members are deprived of the defendant’s love and care and suffer the emotional pain of separation. They must often assume the added burdens of the breadwinning and caregiving responsibilities that the defendant formerly performed. Further, they may suffer financial hardship, educational deprivation, and even the loss of the family residence. As well, being unable to care and provide for their families increases the severity of incarceration for defendants.
43The courts have been careful not to let these consequences overwhelm the other principles of sentencing. As emphasized in Spencer, these consequences are not an excuse to overlook the harm that the defendant’s criminal conduct caused victims of crime, or the importance of protecting those victims and society, or the need for denunciation and deterrence. Likewise, family separation may have a reduced impact on the sentence if its effects on defendants and their families are less strong. Further, these consequences cannot justify imposing a disproportionate sentence. Thus, this court has sometimes imposed or affirmed significant prison sentences to respect the other principles of sentencing even after accounting for family separation consequences…
44But as Spencer ruled, sentencing judges must “preserve the family as much as possible” within these limits. As that case explained, if incarceration is necessary, sentencing judges must give serious and sufficient consideration to family separation consequences in “determining the length of [the] prison term.” That same careful consideration is also needed when determining whether to incarcerate the defendant.
45Thus, depending on the facts, family separation consequences may justify a sentence adjustment – even a significant one – or a departure from the range. This is true even for grave offences that require deterrence and denunciation, as in Spencer, where the court considered that the defendant had “much to offer her children” in setting the sentence. Failure to consider these consequences is an error in principle that usually impacts the sentence and justifies appellate intervention.
46Courts follow this approach to protect both the defendant’s family members and society. While defendants and not the courts are to be blamed for the adverse consequences that those family members may suffer, those family members are still innocent. They do not deserve to suffer for the defendant’s crimes. And as explained in Spencer, the restraint principle, which Parliament has directed courts to apply, requires courts to prevent and mitigate these adverse consequences as much as possible. This benefits society because families are its foundational fabric. Our society depends on families to raise and nurture children, transmit knowledge, skills, and values from generation to generation, and provide love, care, emotional, economic, and social support to their members. Courts thus try to minimize the impact of sentencing on defendants’ families because, as Spencer recognized, interfering with this foundational social institution, even for just reasons, can endanger community safety and society’s well-being.
47Courts also take this approach to account for Parliament’s direction to foster rehabilitation and consider mitigating factors and collateral consequences. Caring and providing for family members is a mitigating factor that shows good character and can increase rehabilitative prospects. Further, the pain of being unable to care and provide for family members while incarcerated is a collateral consequence that increases the severity of incarceration and can jeopardize rehabilitation. Courts must thus assess “all the relevant circumstances,” including the mitigating role of caring and providing for family members and family separation collateral consequences, to determine a proportionate sentence. They cannot determine a proportionate sentence without considering family separation consequences.
Length of Time Since the Offences were Committed
63It has been five and half years since Mr. Dosman’s arrest. While he has not had significant release conditions, this matter has been hanging over him for a long time. I have not done a detailed review of the reasons for the delay, but my recollection is that the main reason it took so long was Mr. Orr’s busy trial schedule. The delay does not go to Mr. Dosman’s credit, but it is a factor to take into consideration that there is no evidence that Mr. Dosman engaged in trafficking during that time.
Mr. Dosman’s Addiction
64Addiction is a mitigating factor in this case. The PSR describes Mr. Dosman’s own views about his drug use. The PSR states:
He described himself as “dependant” on the drug, needing it to get through each day. He shared that his daily use of methamphetamine lasted from the time of his partner’s death until he was charged with the matters before the court.
… The subject shared that he recognized that he needed to cease his use, so quit on his own. He indicated that since his arrest, he has only used on four occasions, and not at all in the past year.
65Mr. Dosman confirmed this in his testimony at his sentencing hearing. The PSR goes on to state:
When asked how his substance use impacted his life, he spoke about the impact it had on his interpersonal relationships, specifically with his parents. He added that his use negatively impacted his relationship with the mother of his eldest daughter, as well as his eldest daughter herself. Ministry records from 2012 support this, indicating that at that time, the subject was recognizing [the] strain his use was placing on the relationship between him and his daughter. Further, the subject spoke about the financial implications his substance use had. He shared that, while he was not “blowing” all his money on substances, he was not saving anything either. Further, the subject advised that he is having ongoing dental infections which he attributes to his previous drug use.
The subject acknowledged that he continues to smoke marijuana daily before bed each night. He denied this impacting him in any way. …
When asked about treatment or programming, the subject indicated that he had tried treatment on one occasion, however had left prior to completing it. Ministry records indicate that the subject did not complete any programming to address his substance use during his prior periods of community supervision.
66Mr. Dosman’s addiction to methamphetamine is a mitigating factor but only a moderate mitigating factor in this case, because Mr. Dosman continued to function at a high level and he obviously had insight into his own addiction and the harm that methamphetamine causes, and yet he amassed a significant quantity of methamphetamine to traffic to others.
Appropriateness of a Conditional Sentence Order
67It is open to the court to order a conditional sentence in a trafficking case in appropriate circumstances. Section 742.1 of the Criminal Code gives the court jurisdiction to make conditional sentence orders. Section 742.1 is applicable to offences under the CDSA: Interpretation Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-21, s. 34(2).
68The term “conditional sentence” may give an incorrect impression that the offender who receives a conditional sentence avoids any punishment if they obey the conditions of their release. To the contrary, a conditional sentence does not mean the offender goes unpunished.
69At one time, conditional sentence orders were not available for offences where, as here, the maximum penalty is life imprisonment. However, that exception was removed from the Criminal Code effective November 17, 2022. Currently, s. 742.1 provides that conditional sentences are generally available, but the section identifies numerous specific circumstances in which a conditional sentence is unavailable. The first is that a conditional sentence is only available if the court imposes a sentence of imprisonment of less than two years. I agree with the Crown that, even considering the mitigating factors, the circumstances require a custodial sentence of more than two years, so this is a barrier to a conditional sentence in this case.
70Even if a conditional sentence was an option, I would be concerned that adequate monitoring to prevent Mr. Dosman from using and trafficking methamphetamine again cannot be achieved with a conditional sentence. Mr. Dosman has convictions for breaches of conditions or court orders, and although these are from long ago, the comments he made to the probation and parole officer and to me in his allocution suggest that he blames others for his crimes. Furthermore, no persuasive or re-assuring plan for strict supervision and monitoring of Mr. Dosman has been put forward and this is another factor against imposing a conditional sentence.
71I acknowledge that a conditional sentence would have the benefit of allowing Mr. Dosman to continue to be involved in the lives of his children, and for them to continue to have their father in their lives. I am not persuaded, however, that a non-custodial sentence of less than two years would be a fit sentence in this case. However, I have taken this collateral consequence into consideration in the length of Mr. Dosman’s sentence.
72For the above reasons, a conditional sentence must be ruled out. I must therefore determine an appropriate custodial sentence.
Appropriate Sentence
73Mr. Dosman, please stand.
74The offence of possession of 200 g methamphetamine for the purpose trafficking could readily attract a sentence of five years, but in your case, I think that would be too much. The harm that methamphetamine causes is substantial, and it has a greater impact on younger people. It is listed on schedule I of the CDSA because it is among the most harmful street drugs in use in Canada. Our law imposes significant sentences to those who are involved trafficking methamphetamine and other similar drugs.
75It does not seem like you were underprivileged as a child, but rather it seems that your parents provided you with a good upbringing. Your problems seemed to start with your own addiction, although you do not describe yourself as a heavy addict, and certainly at the time of the offences you were functioning at a high level and were productive, albeit your productivity was misdirected towards trafficking.
76It seems clear that you had friends who were addicts. And given your own history, it is surprising that you did not see trafficking as an anti-social behaviour that is incredibly harmful to society.
77After careful consideration, I have concluded that an appropriate sentence in your case is four years in jail for the charge of possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking. I have concluded that a sentence of 90 days concurrent is appropriate for the prohibited weapon. For simple possession of 3.6 g psilocybin, an appropriate sentence in this case is seven days concurrent.
Collateral Orders
78In addition, there will be a mandatory weapons prohibition order pursuant to section 109(2) of the Criminal Code, and a mandatory DNA order pursuant to section 487.051(1). I will also sign a forfeiture order for all the seized items.
Time Served
79I revoked Mr. Dosman’s bail on March 12, 2026. He has been in custody for five days, inclusive, since then. He is to receive credit of eight days for his time served.
Released: March 17, 2026