CITATION: R v Fullwood, 2026 ONSC 1735
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N: )
HIS MAJESTY THE KING )
- and - )
KIMERA FULLWOOD )
Darren Anger, for the Public Prosecution Service of Canada
Roy Wellington, for the Defendant
) HEARD: February 17, 2026
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
LATIMER J.
1Kimera Fullwood pleaded guilty on May 13, 2025, to possession of fentanyl and crystal methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking. An agreed statement of facts was filed as Exhibit 1, documenting the storage of these drugs in a room the defendant was found in during a search warrant execution on a residential property. A subsequent trial addressed separate handgun-related charges. I ultimately acquitted Mr. Fullwood of those charges: see 2025 ONSC 3794. These acquittals are noted only for context and play no role in determining sentence.
I. The Offences
The Offences
2Factually, this case involved a police investigation built upon surveillance and the subsequent execution of a search warrant. In the early morning on April 7, 2022, the police entered a residence and found Mr. Fullwood sleeping upstairs. He was arrested and, in the closet of the same bedroom, a cooler was located that contained the following commercial-level quantities of narcotic:
582.7 grams of crystal methamphetamine
494.8 grams of fentanyl
3These quantities were divided into eight separate packages. On his plea, Mr. Fullwood acknowledged possessing these drugs for the purpose of trafficking.
4Mr. Fullwood was not the only individual in the residence at the time of the search warrant execution. Several individuals were located on the main floor of the home, sleeping on mattresses and a futon. I accept that Mr. Fullwood participated with other individuals in a commercial enterprise to sell drugs for profit in the Niagara area.
II. The Offender
The Offender
5Kimera Fullwood grew up in Scarborough and was living there just prior to his time in the Niagara region. He had been working in construction as a junior carpenter prior to his April 2022 arrest. He is described by his boss as a “hardworking, respectful, and reliable young man [who] takes pride in his work, treats customers well, and is always willing to go the extra mile to help others”. Work was sporadic, however, and Fullwood was experiencing financial strain: see PSR, pp. 7, 10.
6The pre-sentence report provides helpful information about Fullwood’s background and current circumstances. He is presently twenty-seven years old. At a young age, he was removed from his home and lived in a foster home in Grafton, Ontario. This community is to the east of Cobourg. He advised the PSR writer that he experienced racism and harassment because of being only one of three black students in the school. He lived with his foster family for approximately a year before returning home. His placement appears to have been the result of mental health concerns involving his mother: PSR, pp. 3-4.
7Upon returning to Scarborough, his family lived in various communities. Mr. Fullwood describes them as, “not somewhere I want to be. Once I move from here, I’m not coming … [because] there are a lot of people selling drugs, doing drugs”: PSR, p. 4.
8Recently, in December 2025, Mr. Fullwood married his girlfriend. They had been dating since March 2023. He described her as positive support and their plan is to live together following his release from custody.
9In November 2019, Mr. Fullwood was shot in the stomach and his right arm. He advised the police he did not know who his assailant was, nor was anyone ever arrested. He began consuming narcotics and continued up to his April 2022 arrest. His wife believes he used drugs to cope with anxiety, although I do note that she did not know him during this 2019 to 2022 time period.
10Mr. Fullwood is described as “cooperative, respectful and engaged” by the PSR writer. He advised that he came to the Niagara area to make money. It was recently after he had been shot, and he wanted to get out of Scarborough: PSR,
p.8. Following his arrest, he acknowledges how his conduct harmed the Niagara community at large.
11The PSR writer concludes that Mr. Fullwood’s “involvement in drug trafficking appears closely connected to a convergence of financial instability, exposure to high-risk environments, trauma, and limited adaptive coping strategies”: PSR, p. 10. He demonstrates several significant strengths that “mitigate his risk to re-offend”, including acknowledging responsibility for his actions, choosing not to minimize his involvement, and expressing “genuine remorse and shame regarding the harm caused by drug trafficking”. He has strong family support from his mother, siblings and partner, and has housing and emotional support available upon release.
12The PSR is comprehensive and provides significant insight into Mr. Fullwood’s background, criminogenic variables, and prospects for rehabilitation. The author is commended for the quality of this Report.
III. Positions of the Parties
Positions of the Parties
13The parties’ sentence recommendations are far apart: the Crown seeks a sentence in the ten-to-twelve-year range, focusing on the significant harm caused by trafficking these two narcotics on the scale alleged in this case. The defence recommends a sentence in the three-to-five-year range, focusing on Mr. Fullwood’s positive rehabilitative prospects and the principle of restraint. It is submitted that the defendant’s conduct can be denounced and the public deterred without the imposition of an unduly crushing sentence on a youthful first offender.
IV. Relevant Legal Considerations
Relevant Legal Considerations
14I will now review the operative principles of sentencing before moving to
specific consideration of Mr. Fullwood’s circumstances.
15The Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs & Substances Act both instruct that “the goal of any criminal sentence is to protect society, contribute to respect for the law and help maintain a just, peaceful, and safe society": s. 718 of the Code; s. 10(1) of the CDSA. Sentencing judges seek to achieve this goal by imposing just sanctions on offenders that address one or more of the traditional sentencing principles contained in the Code. These include denunciation, general and specific deterrence, rehabilitation, making reparation to victims of crime, and promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders and an acknowledgment of the harm they have caused the community, and specific victims in our community: s. 718(a) – (f) of the Code.
16Ultimately, the fundamental principle of sentencing is to impose a sanction that is proportionate to the gravity of the offence committed, and the degree of responsibility of the person who committed it: see s. 718.1. For the sentence I impose to be appropriate, it must be tailored to Mr. Fullwood’s circumstances, and the circumstances of the offences that he has committed.
17Determining an appropriate sentence requires considering what aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present before me: s. 718.2(a). These circumstances include features of Mr. Fullwood’s background, features of the crimes he has committed, and the evidence I have received during this sentencing hearing. It would also include any legal direction, whether found in statute (e.g. s. 718.2(a) of the Code, or s. 10(2) of the CDSA) or provided by the higher courts, regarding aspects of the case that require particular focus. For example, my review of the jurisprudence makes plain that deterrence and denunciation are the predominant sentencing principles in a case that involves the possession of significant quantities – over a kilogram – of Schedule I narcotics. Rehabilitation, while relevant, is a secondary consideration, but one that still requires significant attention in the context of a first offender: see R v Celenk, infra, at paras. 20-21.
18The following factors are particularly relevant in shaping the appropriate sentence in this case:
Mr. Fullwood has pleaded guilty, relieving the Crown of the obligation to try to prove him guilty. His plea, and his subsequent focused trial on the other charges, saved meaningful court time. While it was not the earliest plea (coming after a contested Charter application in Superior Court), it is still deserving of meaningful mitigation.
Mr. Fullwood is a relatively young man with promising prospects for the future. He is both amenable to rehabilitation and capable of benefiting from it. He presents as an intelligent man who appreciates the severity of his conduct and its impact on the community. He has community support and job prospects upon his eventual release from custody. At the close of this
hearing he spoke credibly about his understanding of the enormity of the mistakes he has made, and his readiness to take accountability. I accept his statements as honest.
Mr. Fullwood has no prior criminal record.
Mr. Fullwood was in possession of 582.7 grams – over half a kilogram – of crystal methamphetamine. This is a significant quantity of a highly addictive drug. Fourteen years ago, in R. v. Ho, 2011 OJ 6672, Justice Molloy described methamphetamine as becoming “more and more prevalent in Ontario”.
Molloy J’s decision documents accepted findings in a government report that described methamphetamine as producing “a powerful psychological dependence. Its use is associated with episodes of violent behaviour, paranoia, anxiety, confusion and insomnia. Long term use has also been associated with psychotic behaviour including paranoia, auditory hallucinations, mood disturbances, and delusions. The paranoia may result in homicidal or suicidal thoughts. Psychotic symptoms may persist for months after the drug is discontinued”: para. 31. She ultimately imposed, after trial, a four-year sentence for possession for the purpose for an offender she described as a “mid-level commercial dealer”. Mr. Ho possessed 115.4 grams of methamphetamine, roughly 20% of the narcotic Mr. Fullwood possessed. The Ho decision documents the risk of harm crystal methamphetamine presents.
- Fentanyl is an even more dangerous drug. As it has become more common in our courts, there is a risk that judges will become numb to the danger fentanyl poses to Canadian society. I caution myself not to. Justice Moldaver, in concurring reasons in R v Parranto, 2021 SCC 46, at paras 96- 97, wrote:
“Beyond its mere potential to cause harm, however, fentanyl has had - and continues to have - a real and deadly impact on the lives of Canadians. Indeed, trafficking in fentanyl is so deadly that various courts have described it as a national crisis, reflective of an increased understanding of the gravity of the harm it causes (see, e.g., R. v. Smith, 2017 BCCA 112, at para. 50; R. v. Vezina, 2017 ONCJ 775, at para. 58; R. v. Aujla, 2016 ABPC 272, at para. 1). This heightened understanding is supported by the available statistical evidence. The expert evidence on the record before us establishes, for instance, that fentanyl-related deaths in Alberta increased by 4,858 percent between 2011 and 2017, rising from 12 deaths in 2011 to 583 deaths in 2017. More broadly, federal
statistics on opioid-related deaths show that, between January 2016 and March 2021, approximately 23,000 Canadians lost their lives due to accidental apparent opioid-related deaths, with fentanyl involved in 71 percent of these deaths (Special Advisory Committee on the Epidemic of Opioid Overdoses, Opioid and Stimulant-related Harms in Canada (September 2021) (online). The epidemic also shows no signs of abating, with over 6,000 accidental deaths occurring in 2020 alone, 82 percent of which involved fentanyl (Government of Canada, Federal actions on opioids to date (June 2021) (online)). These figures throw into stark relief the dark and inescapable reality that "[e]very day in our communities, fentanyl abuse claims the lives of Canadians" (R. v. Loar, 2017 ONCA 696, at para. 33.
The scale of fentanyl's devastating impact becomes even more apparent when one considers that, between 2016 and 2020, there were approximately 3,400 homicides across Canada, a number far below the number of fentanyl-related deaths (Statistics Canada, Table 35-10-0069-01 - Number of homicide victims, by method used to commit the homicide, July 27, 2021 (online)). This disparity makes clear that, in a very real way, those individuals responsible for the large-scale distribution of fentanyl within our communities are a source of far greater harm than even those responsible for the most violent of crimes.”
The Supreme Court ultimately upheld a fourteen-year sentence on Mr. Parranto, who had a lengthy record and had been found guilty of possessing over 500 grams of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and two counts of possessing a firearm.
- There are, post-Parranto, a worrying number of subsequent fentanyl sentencing decisions. I accept fentanyl trafficking remains a prevalent offence throughout Ontario, including the Niagara Region: see R v. Disher, 2020 ONCA 710, at para. 28. The Crown has provided several authorities in support of its sentence recommendation of ten to twelve years. I have reviewed their chart and would expressly note the following cases for comparative purposes:
a) R v Aiton-Poore, 2021 ONCJ 85. In this decision, the offender pleaded guilty to possession of 489.65 grams of fentanyl (almost identical to the amount in this case), 249.67 grams of crystal methamphetamine (less than half the amount in this case), as well as possession of proceeds of crime (currency), a loaded handgun, an unloaded handgun, and an unloaded rifle. Mr. Aiton-Poore was 23 years old, no prior record, and
had a supportive family. He acknowledged remorse at sentencing and a willingness to change his life. He received a total sentence of 11 years, nine months jail. For the fentanyl count, he received eight years, nine months, and on the crystal methamphetamine count, three years jail concurrent.
b) R v. Yu, 2019 ONCA 942. In this decision, offenders Yu and Mai had no prior criminal records, family support, and conducted focused trials. They also had gainful employment. The sentencing judge found it aggravating that their conduct – the possession for the purpose of 620 grams heroin, 983 grams cocaine, 250 grams of crystal methamphetamine, and 67 fentanyl patches – was profit motivated conduct that extended over at least four months. There was a degree of sophistication in their criminal conduct, a degree that exceeds any present in Mr. Fullwood’s case. A total sentence of 13 years was upheld, including six years, three months for the fentanyl count.
c) R v Lynch, 2022 ONCA 109. In this decision, the Court of Appeal allowed a Crown appeal and increased the sentence to six years for a twenty-nine-year-old with one prior criminal entry who pleaded guilty to the possession of 41 grams of fentanyl, 965 grams of cocaine, and 145 grams of MDMA, all for the purpose of trafficking. Mr. Lynch sold drugs on multiple occasions to an undercover officer.
- The quantity of fentanyl and crystal methamphetamine Mr. Fullwood possessed in this case is a significant aggravating factor, but it is not wholly determinative of the length of sentence. Put another way, the amount possessed is proportionately linked to the risk of harm Mr. Fullwood visited upon the Niagara community. His moral culpability is increased because of the significant amount of narcotic he possessed, and its corresponding negative impact on society: see Lynch, at paras. 16-17. But a sentencing exercise does not reduce to ‘the more weight, the more jail’. This is a multi- faceted analysis that considers the offence committed and, importantly, the person who committed it. Mr. Fullwood’s personal circumstances cannot be lost in the analysis.
This is particularly important in the case of a first-time offender, as the Court of Appeal for Ontario recently instructed in R v Celenk, 2026 ONCA 60. In that decision, an offender was convicted by a jury of possession of 1.35 kg of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and possession of a loaded handgun. He received a thirteen-year sentence.
The Court held that the trial judge erred in his application of the restraint principle, notwithstanding the fact that he adverted to the principle, and the
offender’s status as a youthful first offender, in his reasons. The sentence imposed was more consistent with individuals who had prior records. It is an error in principle in all cases, even serious cases that require emphasis on denunciation and deterrence, to lose sight of the restraint principle. A balance must be maintained between the personal circumstances of a youthful first offender and the serious offence that individual committed: Celenk, para. 21. I accept Mr. Fullwood is a youthful first offender and this judicial direction applies to him as well.
In Celenk, a thirteen-year sentence was reduced by the Court of Appeal to 10 years less pre-trial custody.
19In summary, I am sentencing a youthful first offender who pleaded guilty to two offences in the Superior Court of Justice after an unsuccessful Charter application. He has stability in the community and positive prospects for rehabilitation. He has, however, participated in a joint venture with other individuals to sell a substantial amount of dangerous narcotics, particularly fentanyl, in an area of the province that has historically suffered at the hands of the fentanyl trade: Disher, para. 28.
20I seek to balance these considerations in the context of similar sentences imposed on similar offenders. Mr. Aiton-Poore is a similar offender who possessed the same amount of fentanyl but less crystal methamphetamine but also possessed a loaded handgun and a rifle. He received a sentence of 11 years, nine months jail. Mr. Celenk is also a similar offender who possessed more fentanyl (1.35 kg – substantially more) but no other narcotics. He also possessed a loaded handgun and was convicted after trial. On appeal, his sentence was reduced to 10 years jail.
21I am satisfied that, in this case involving a guilty plea, the appropriate total sentence is nine years jail. I come to this conclusion by considering the appropriate sentence in its aggregate and tempering it for totality purposes: R v England, 2024 ONCA 360, at para. 92. The totality principle ensures the total sentence is not unduly long or harsh. I would reduce the nine-year sentence by the 40 days served in pre-trial custody (credited to 60 on a 1.5 basis), and by a further ten months given the bail terms Mr. Fullwood has successfully complied with during his pre- trial release. This is 12 months total credit, resulting in a remaining sentence of eight years.
V. Disposition
Disposition
22On the count of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, I impose a sentence of seven years imprisonment, less 12 months of pre-trial credit.
23On the count of possession of crystal methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, I impose a two-year sentence to be served consecutively.
24The total sentence going forward is eight years custody.
25I would waive the fine surcharges in the circumstances, but impose the following ancillary orders:
DNA Databank Order
Weapons prohibition for ten years under s.109(2)(a) and life under s.109(2)(b) of the Code.
LATIMER J.
CITATION: R v Fullwood, 2026 ONSC 1735
COURT FILE NO.: CR-24-28
DATE: March 23, 2026
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
- and -
KIMERA FULLWOOD
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
LATIMER J
Released: March 23, 2026