R. v. Welsh, 2026 ONSC 259

CITATION: R. v. Welsh, 2026 ONSC 259

COURT FILE NO.: CRIM J(F) 551/22

DATE: 2026-01-13

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

NIGEL ANTHONY WELSH

Gregory Corriveau, for the Crown

Alonzo Abbey, for Nigel Welsh

HEARD: November 27, 2025

REASONS FOR SENTENCE¹

RAHMAN, J.

1. Introduction

1On November 28, 2024, a jury found the offender, Nigel Welsh, guilty of importing and possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine and importing cannabis. Mr. Welsh was a baggage handler at Pearson Airport. He unloaded cocaine and cannabis from the cargo hold of a flight that had originated in Montego Bay, Jamaica. An aircraft mechanic who was checking the cargo hold found Mr. Welsh inside. The mechanic left but then realized that something was not

right. The mechanic called his supervisor about seeing Mr. Welsh and told his supervisor to call the airport’s Airside Safety personnel. When the mechanic saw Mr. Welsh again, he yelled at him to stop. Mr. Welsh began to run. A chase ensued with the mechanic following Mr. Welsh through the “tunnels” of the airport. The mechanic lost Mr. Welsh during the chase. During the chase, Mr. Welsh dropped a knapsack containing the drugs that he had retrieved from the plane. Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) officers began searching the airside area of the airport. There is no dispute that Mr. Welsh was caught hiding in a large baggage container on the airport’s tarmac area when he was finally discovered by a CBSA officer. Mr. Welsh immediately ran when he was discovered, but was apprehended very quickly after he tripped over a barrier. The knapsack Mr. Welsh had removed from the aircraft had nine one-kilogram bricks of cocaine with a value between

$420,000 to $450,00 (at the kilogram level) and $721,000 to $992,000 (at the gram level). There was also a 780-gram brick of cannabis worth between $3,800 and $7,800.

2Mr. Welsh testified in his own defence claiming that he was not the man the aircraft mechanic confronted in the cargo hold and was not the man being chased through the airport. He explained that he had gone outside onto the tarmac to make a phone call. He claimed that he had gone outside to talk on the phone because of a raucous dominoes game that was happening in the break room he had previously been in. Mr. Welsh explained that he hid in the baggage container because he realized he had gone outside without his identity card and was worried he would get in trouble. He said that he ran from the baggage cart to get to his jacket which had his identity card. The jury clearly rejected his account in finding him guilty.

3After being found guilty, Mr. Welsh’s lawyer, Mr. Abbey, told the court that he wanted to obtain an enhanced pre-sentence report (EPSR) for his client. The matter was adjourned a number of times over the following months to await the completion of that report. The report was completed in August 2025. It is an unfortunate reality that, given the demand for such reports and the limited resources to prepare them, sentencing hearings usually happen several months after an offender has been found guilty.

4The Crown asks the court to sentence Mr. Welsh to 10 years in the penitentiary. The Crown observes that the usual range for a courier importing multiple kilograms of cocaine is six to eight years. However, it argues that because of the breach of trust involved with Mr. Welsh’s crime, the

sentence must be higher than what a courier would get. The Crown acknowledges that Mr. Welsh is not someone who is high up in the drug hierarchy but says that a “corrupt insider” like Mr. Welsh must receive a significant sentence, and one that is higher than a courier who imports the same amount of drugs.

5Mr. Welsh seeks a conditional sentence or, alternatively, a sentence in the range of six to seven years. Mr. Welsh says that the court must take into account his financial circumstances, which obviously motivated his crime. Mr. Welsh submits that there is a connection between his experience of anti-Black racism, and the circumstances that led to him offending. The EPSR sets out Mr. Welsh’s difficult past and his inability to obtain stable employment after coming to Canada. Mr. Welsh also points to the fact that his incarceration will lead to hardship for his children. Finally, Mr. Welsh notes that the court should consider that he faces the very serious collateral consequence of likely deportation.

6These reasons will proceed in three parts. I will first review Mr. Welsh’s circumstances. Next, I will review the parties’ positions. Finally, I will conclude with my analysis explaining the sentence that I have decided is appropriate.

2. Mr. Welsh’s circumstances

7Mr. Welsh is 52 years old. He was born in Jamaica and lived there until 2006 when he settled in the British Virgin Islands. He came to Canada in 2013 and ultimately became a permanent resident in 2018. He is not currently in a relationship. He has four children ranging from 15 to 24 years of age. He has one son (age 21) and one daughter (age 24) who live with him in Canada. His other son (age 15) and other daughter (age 24), with whom he maintains regular contact, still live in Jamaica. Mr. Welsh also has a very close relationship with his mother and communicates with her daily.

8I will not set out all of the details of Mr. Welsh’s background in these reasons. They are described fully in the EPSR and PSR. What follows is only a brief summary. It is clear from both reports that Mr. Welsh has not had an easy life.

9Mr. Welsh’s early life in Jamaica was difficult. He was raised by his mother and stepfather. His stepfather favoured his own children within the family and abused and neglected Mr. Welsh.

His stepfather also abused Mr. Welsh’s mother, and she sometimes left the home for periods of time to escape. Mr. Welsh himself ultimately left the home to escape his stepfather’s abuse. Mr. Welsh worked various jobs, including driving a taxi when he was 17 years old. Mr. Welsh got something of a break when his uncle invited him to live and work with him in Tortola, British Virgin Islands. Mr. Welsh got a work permit and worked there in construction for several years. Mr. Welsh ended up meeting his biological father for the first time there in 2006 and learned that his father had not known that Mr. Welsh was his son when he was born.

10Mr. Welsh remained in Tortola for about six to seven years. His work and income there were stable, and he was able to buy some property where he planned to build a home and sponsor his children’s immigration to the British Virgin Islands. Mr. Welsh ultimately decided against living in Tortola because of the prevalence of anti-Black racism. He decided that Canada would be a better place to live both because of its diversity and employment opportunities. Mr. Welsh received a visa for Canada and arrived in Toronto in July 2013 at the age of 40.

11Mr. Welsh’s life did not get easier when he moved to Toronto. Indeed, Mr. Welsh believes that he would have been better off had he stayed in Tortola where he had steady work and income. After having some difficulties maintaining stable employment in Toronto, Mr. Welsh went to Nova Scotia but could not find employment there for months. When he returned to Toronto, Mr. Welsh experienced (as described in the EPSR) “ongoing housing, financial, and employment instability.” Much of his work was temporary and involved low-paying general labour type jobs.

12Mr. Welsh later married a woman who agreed to help him obtain permanent residency. But that relationship was marred throughout by conflict. During their relationship, his wife gave birth to a baby boy and Mr. Welsh became the boy’s primary caregiver. He later discovered that the boy was not his biological son. Mr. Welsh’s wife accused him of abuse after he accused her of having an affair. Mr. Welsh was arrested but released without being charged. During this time, Mr. Welsh reported that he developed suicidal ideation because he was distressed about the state of his life and the revelation that he was not the father of the boy his wife had given birth to. However, Mr. Welsh maintained his will to live because he wanted to help his children.

13Mr. Welsh’s most stable job in Canada was at the airport – the job that facilitated this offence. He obviously lost that job after getting arrested. Mr. Welsh currently works on an as-

needed basis doing appliance deliveries for $180 per day. He also does food delivery for Skip the Dishes. Because of the instability of this work, he has had to supplement his income with Ontario Works assistance since July 2024.

14Mr. Welsh filed several character letters from people who know Mr. Welsh well. They all speak very positively of him. He is described as kind, patient, and compassionate. A man of integrity. He is also a very important member of his church community at Light and Life Ministries. He attends weekly Sunday services and regularly participates in Bible studies and prayer gatherings. He also belongs to the men’s choir and serves as an usher during church services. Several of the letter writers observe that the offences for which Mr. Welsh is being sentenced do not reflect who he is.

15Mr. Welsh’s children also wrote letters in support of their father. His son describes his father as “the foundation that keeps us standing.” He explains that everything that the family has is because his father has “worked tirelessly, sacrificed his own comfort and carried the full weight of our family on his shoulders.” His son explains that the family depends on their father financially, emotionally and spiritually. The prospect of losing his father’s presence “brings fear and uncertainty into [their] lives” and without Mr. Welsh, “our entire support system changes. Mr. Welsh’s daughter knows her father as “steady, hard-working, supportive, and dependable.” He is someone who goes out of his way to support friends, relatives, and others without expecting anything in return.

3. Parties’ positions

3.1. Crown’s position

16The Crown argues that a sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment is appropriate. The Crown begins with the proposition that importing cocaine is a very serious offence, because cocaine is not indigenous to Canada and cocaine trafficking is a crime that begets violence. Crown counsel observes that the long-established sentencing range for couriers – the lowest level importers – for multi-kilogram cocaine importing is six to eight years. The Crown highlights the seriousness of the offence and the breach of trust involved. The Crown submits that Mr. Welsh’s status as a “corrupt insider” who abused his access to secure areas of the airport increases the sentencing range here. The Crown reasons that if a mere courier receives six to eight years, then Mr. Welsh,

as someone whose multi-kilogram importation involved a breach of trust, deserves a higher sentence. In making this submission, the Crown relies heavily on Code J.’s decision in R. v Duncan et. al., 2016 ONSC 1319. The Crown disagrees with the defence submission that there is a connection between Mr. Welsh’s crime and his experience of anti-Black racism. The Crown contends that Mr. Welsh’s background does not provide an explanation why he committed this offence.

3.2. Defence position

17The defence asks the court to impose a conditional sentence. The defence submits that if the court finds that the sentencing range here extends downwards to two years, the court should impose a conditional sentence of imprisonment. The defence submits that Mr. Welsh is not a danger to society and that Mr. Welsh’s difficult life circumstances and other mitigating factors justify a conditional sentence. The defence says that a jail sentence will separate Mr. Welsh from his children and will negatively impact them financially and emotionally. Alternatively, the defence submits that, if the court does not consider the range low enough to impose a conditional sentence, the court should consider a sentence in the range of six to seven years instead. The defence also submits that there is a connection between anti-Black racism and Mr. Welsh’s commission of these offences, and that this should be considered a mitigating factor.

4. Analysis

18Before getting to the reasons explaining the sentence I plan to impose, I start with some observations about the exercise of sentencing a sympathetic offender for a drug offence.

4.1. Drug sentencing and the difficulty sentencing sympathetic offenders

19Sentencing judges commonly remark that sentencing is one of the most difficult – if not the most difficult – tasks that they have to perform. But it is more than just difficult. It is unpleasant. I have not met a single judge who finds it to be a positive experience. It is the end of the process where the judge reflects on the life of the offender, their circumstances, and how those circumstances may have led them to commit the offence (or why it is out of character). Where there are victims, the sentencing judge must consider the impact that the crime has had on them and that nothing that the judge does can help fully restore the victim to who they were before the crime happened. A judge cannot help but feel a sense of tragedy after deciding on and imposing

sentence. Nobody wins, and everyone has lost something. The job of sentencing is especially difficult in circumstances like this one, where the court is faced with a first-time, sympathetic offender who has committed a very serious crime. Taking away someone’s liberty is unpleasant even when they have committed a serious crime that they knew would result in a lengthy jail term.

20A judge’s first reaction when faced with a sympathetic offender often involves giving in to the very strong feeling of sympathy. This feeling of sympathy can overwhelm the task of determining a fit sentence. The judge will try to reason through a path to a lenient sentence. In this case, I know that Mr. Welsh may very likely face deportation after he serves his sentence and may be sent back to a country he has not called home for 19 years.² During his incarceration, he will be separated from his family and friends. They will lose the presence of someone who is, by all accounts, a devoted father and a dependable and caring friend. Imprisonment will be yet another setback in a life that has been full of setbacks.

21It is also important to note that sentencing hearings for drug offences are very different than sentencing hearings for crimes with victims who are present in court and who read out (or have Crown counsel read out) their victim impact statements. It is very easy to lose sight of the real victims of what are often inaccurately described as victimless crimes. When offenders are sentenced for importing or for possessing deadly contraband – whether drugs or guns – there is no victim in court to explain the harm that would have been caused by the crime. The entire focus is on the offender. The Crown will refer to the impact of the crime that is set out in sentencing case law, but there is nobody present to talk about the plight of those who are addicted to these drugs, nor do any of those people appear to give a victim impact statement. It is much easier to default to the feeling of sympathy for the offender when there is no live victim in the courtroom.

22Despite the absence of a live victim, judges are not ignorant of the effects of drugs. Judges who routinely sit in criminal courts know about the harm caused by hard drugs. As Code J. observed in Duncan, at para. 37, “[t]he trial courts bear witness every day to the widespread ravages and criminal consequences of cocaine addiction and cocaine trafficking.” Although opioids have, understandably, garnered far more attention of late, cocaine remains a dangerously

addictive drug. Indeed, it is sometimes mixed with opioids like fentanyl or heroin. The fact that opioids have caused a recent crisis does not diminish the impact of cocaine. Cocaine addiction is still a problem. It still ruins lives and sometimes ends them. Deterrence and denunciation remain very important goals when sentencing cocaine importers. It is important not to lose sight of the significant human toll of cocaine addiction, even if its victims are not present at the sentencing hearings of offenders. Just as it would be improper to allow feelings of sympathy for a victim to overwhelm a judge’s sentencing analysis, so too is it a mistake to allow sympathy for an offender to overwhelm the sentencing analysis of a judge imposing a sentence where there is no victim present.

23Having made these general observations, I will next address whether there is a connection between the offence and Mr. Welsh’s experience of anti-Black racism.

4.2. The connection between the offence and anti-Black racism

24Apart from the length of sentence, the main disputed issue between the parties is whether there is a connection between Mr. Welsh’s experience of anti-Black racism and the offences for which he is being sentenced. I accept Mr. Welsh’s submission that there is some connection between the offences and the role that anti-Black racism has played in Mr. Welsh’s life.

25The law does not require Mr. Welsh to establish a causal connection between his offending and anti-Black racism: R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, at paras. 96-97. Because Mr. Welsh denies committing these offences, I have no direct evidence about his motives. Despite the absence of any direct evidence, I am satisfied that he helped bring drugs into Canada to make money. Mr. Welsh is not well off and has been doing relatively low-paying jobs for most of his life in Canada. I am prepared to infer that he committed this offence for financial gain. To the extent that his racialized background has contributed to his very difficult financial circumstances, and considering that he likely committed this offence to make some quick money, I am satisfied he has established a connection. As the EPSR sets out, “Mr. Welsh’s decision to leave Jamaica in search of economic prosperity was rooted in his status of poverty, an issue that disproportionately affects Black communities.” I also accept that Mr. Welsh left a relatively stable life in Tortola because of anti-Black racism. His decision to leave Tortola brought him to a country where he hoped to have a better, more secure life. Instead, he ended up with unstable employment and unstable housing.

26Where there is a connection between anti-Black racism and the offender’s crime, that connection diminishes the offender’s moral blameworthiness. In that sense, it is a mitigating factor: Morris, at paras. 96, 100. But it does not impact the gravity of the offence: Morris, at paras. 75-

78. It also does not eliminate the need for general deterrence and denunciation: Morris, at paras. 83-86.

27In this case, as in Morris, the connection between Mr. Welsh’s crime and anti-Black racism is only a limited mitigating factor: Morris, at para. 101. This is a case where the seriousness of the offence weighs more heavily in the sentencing calculus than any mitigation of the offender’s moral blameworthiness: R. v. Husbands, 2024 ONCA 155, at para. 60. In short, Mr. Welsh’s reasons for committing these offences do not detract from the seriousness of his crimes and the harm that they cause to the public: R. v. Samuels, 2025 ONCA 736, at para. 82. Anti-Black racism is relevant in this case, but it cannot serve to significantly lower the final sentence.

28I will next review the aggravating and mitigating factors present in Mr. Welsh’s case, and the collateral consequences that he will experience.

4.3. Aggravating and mitigating factors

29Mr. Welsh benefits from several mitigating factors, none of which are disputed:

1. Mr. Welsh has no criminal record.

2. Mr. Welsh is by all accounts, a person of good character. A devoted father and son who is beloved by a seemingly large community of people who regard him as a kind man of great integrity.

3. Mr. Welsh has strong family support and strong support from his church community, which was evident in the many letters of support, and the large turnout of supporters at his sentencing hearing.

4. Mr. Welsh was subject to restrictive bail conditions, including four months where he had to wear an ankle monitor. He also served nine actual days of pre-sentence custody (for which he is entitled to Summers credit of 14 days).

30There are also some aggravating factors present in this case:

1. The offence involved a very significant breach of trust.

2. Mr. Welsh’s flight after being discovered caused what was, by all appearances, a major security incident at an international airport. An importing suspect was essentially running around the secure airside area of the airport. It is important to note, however, that there is no evidence that Mr. Welsh’s decision to run caused any impact to the airport’s operations by causing flight delays or requiring that certain areas of the airport be locked down. While this is an aggravating factor, it has little impact on the final sentence.

3. The offence involved a very large amount of cocaine with a street value approaching one million dollars.

31There are also two significant collateral consequences present in this case. The first is that Mr. Welsh faces deportation for serious criminality because of his conviction for this offence. To be clear, whatever sentence he receives will not change the fact that he is inadmissible. Rather, it is his conviction for this offence, standing alone, that likely makes him inadmissible to Canada because it constitutes serious criminality: Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) s. 36(1)(a). However, a jail sentence of more than six months will mean that Mr. Welsh will lose his right to appeal an inadmissibility finding to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada’s Appeal Division: IRPA s. 64(1)(2). The second significant collateral consequence is that Mr. Welsh will be separated from his family if he is imprisoned. Mr. Welsh’s children wrote in their letters that separation from their father would impact them because he is an important part of their lives. Although neither of them said so explicitly, I can infer that, because they both live with Mr. Welsh, they will also experience some financial impact if he is no longer living with them.³ However, I have no evidence about how significant this impact will be.

32I will next review the appropriate range of sentence for this offence

4.4. The range of sentence for importing cocaine

33The sentencing range for importing multiple kilograms of cocaine is well-established. The Court of Appeal has repeatedly affirmed the range of six to eight years for couriers who import multiple kilograms of cocaine: R. v. Hamilton (2004), 2004 5549 (ON CA), 72 O.R. (3d) 1 (C.A.), at paras. 105-109; R.

v. Zeisig, 2016 ONCA 845, at para 13; R. v. L.C., 2022 ONCA 863, at paras. 3, 29; R. v. Henry,

2024 ONCA 797, at paras. 27-32.

34Although drug sentences are not subject to a mathematical formula, importing sentences generally increase as the amount of drugs involved increases. This is because as the quantity of drugs increases, so does the gravity of the offence: Hamilton, at para. 90. Sentences also increase based on an offender’s place in the drug hierarchy, or role in committing the offence: R. v. Malanca (2007), 2007 ONCA 859, 88 O.R. (3d) 570 (C.A.); R. v. Niemi, 2012 ONCA 133; R. v. Tello, 2023 ONCA 335.

Where an offender commits a breach of trust, this will also increase the range of sentence for importing beyond that of a courier: R. v. Ruddy, 2021 ONCA 490; Duncan, at para. 40. In Ruddy, the offender was a CBSA officer who pleaded guilty to breach of trust, and conspiracy to import five kilograms of cocaine. The Court of Appeal upheld the 10-year sentence, observing that the “egregious breach of trust in this case was a significant aggravating factor” (at para. 20). In Duncan, Code J. found that the appropriate sentence for three baggage handlers who were found guilty of conspiring to import 33 kilograms of cocaine was 12 years’ imprisonment.⁴ I will refer more to Duncan, and its discussion about sentencing “corrupt insiders” below.

35It is clear that the range of sentence here far exceeds two years less a day. Even if I were to consider the range of sentences for couriers as being appropriate, the bottom end of that range exceeds two years. Consequently, I cannot agree with Mr. Welsh that a conditional sentence is appropriate. Indeed, Mr. Welsh’s own submission about the appropriate range undercuts his submission that a conditional sentence is appropriate. Mr. Welsh’s alternative submission appears to accept a range that is well beyond two years. It is difficult to understand how Mr. Welsh can receive a conditional sentence when even a very lenient sentence for a courier importing multiple

kilograms of cocaine is well over two years. I find that Mr. Welsh should not receive a conditional sentence because a reformatory sentence would be demonstrably unfit.

36Moreover, although Mr. Welsh will suffer serious collateral consequences, those consequences do not justify a conditional sentence. As the Supreme Court observed in R. v. Suter, 2018 SCC 34, at para. 56, “collateral consequences cannot be used to reduce a sentence to a point where the sentence becomes disproportionate to the gravity of the offence or the moral blameworthiness of the offender.” Giving Mr. Welsh a conditional sentence, or even a sentence in the range of two years, would be grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offence and his degree of responsibility.

37I should be clear that I recognize that ranges are not straitjackets and the court should not slavishly adhere to a range where the circumstances of a particular case justify a sentence that falls outside of the usual range of sentence: R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64 at paras. 57-58. But a conditional sentence in this case would not fulfil the paramount sentencing objectives of general deterrence and denunciation. And, as mentioned, it would be disproportionate. The crime Mr. Welsh has committed is too serious for his personal circumstances to bring the sentence into the reformatory range.

38Having ruled out a conditional sentence, I will now explain how I arrive at the appropriate sentence in this case.

4.5. The appropriate sentence

39Mr. Welsh committed a very serious crime. Importing cocaine is a serious offence on its own. But Mr. Welsh’s crime involved more than what this court typically sees in most importing cases where a courier carries cocaine into Canada secreted in their luggage. His offence involved an enormous breach of trust. I agree with the Crown that the sentence for a “corrupt insider” should be higher than that imposed on a courier. Based on Duncan and Ruddy, I am satisfied that 10 years is the low end of the range for a corrupt insider who imports multiple kilograms of cocaine.

40Mr. Welsh abused his position as someone with access to a secure area of the airport to import a dangerous and highly addictive drug into the country. The airside area of an international airport is a highly secure area to which the public does not have access. As part of his job, Mr.

Welsh was able to access that very secure area. I agree with and adopt the following comments made by Code J. in Duncan, at para. 40:

Airport workers with security clearance and access to the “air side” of the airport, such as the accused, are particularly attractive to drug importers. The successful corruption of airport workers, who accept money in return for breaching the trust imposed in them by virtue of their position, significantly increases the moral culpability of Mr. Welsh beyond that of a “mere courier” who poses as a tourist and boards an airplane. In addition, this kind of offence represents a threat to airport and border security, matters in which there is a high public interest, because it sends the message that an important Canadian institution is open to bribery and corruption. For these reasons, the accused must be sentenced in a range above the six to eight years Cunningham range for multiple kilo couriers. The quantities involved in this case also take it above the Cunningham range. [Emphasis added]

41Even though Mr. Welsh probably would not have made much money for his role in the importation, he was clearly an integral part of getting the cocaine and cannabis that he retrieved from the plane into Canada. Courts have repeatedly observed that couriers are an integral part of the importation of drugs into Canada and that they must receive exemplary sentences despite their often vulnerable circumstances: R. v. Cunningham (1996), 1996 1311 (ON CA), 27 O.R. (3d) 786 (C.A.); Hamilton, at para 105; R. v. Wellington (1999), 1999 3054 (ON CA), 43 O.R. (3d) 534 (C.A.); L.C., at para. 29. The same reasoning applies to corrupt insiders where their participation is an essential part of an importing scheme. Like couriers, baggage handlers who help bring drugs in the country have to engage in some deliberation before committing their crime. I appreciate that someone may be exploiting a financial or other weakness to get them to commit the offence. Nonetheless, importers have to engage in some cost benefit analysis when deciding to go through with committing the offence. I know that the usefulness of general deterrence as a sentencing objective is often questioned: see R. v. Gordon, 2025 ONSC 2597, at paras. 14-17. But to the extent that significant sentences can affect someone’s decision to commit a crime, a pre-meditated crime like importing is amenable to general deterrence.

42Moreover, denunciation is an equally important sentencing objective for the crime of importing. Unlike the objective of general deterrence, which attaches negative consequences to criminal behaviour, denunciation “embodies the communicative and educative role of law”: R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, at para. 105. A denunciatory sentence “represents a symbolic, collective statement that the offender’s conduct should be punished for encroaching on our society’s basic

code of values as enshrined within our substantive criminal law”: R. v. M. (C.A.), 1996 230 (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R 500, at para. 81. The gravity of this offence heightens the need for denunciation and therefore requires a higher sentence.

43Although there are several mitigating factors in Mr. Welsh’s favour, I do not believe that they can lower the sentence to the range of six to seven years that he submits is appropriate. Moreover, although Mr. Welsh’s unblemished character is a significant mitigating factor, as the Crown observes, this kind of breach of trust is necessarily committed by someone of good character. This is not to say that his unblemished character is not a mitigating factor. It is. However, it is important to point out that it is common in offences involving a breach of trust.

44Given the combined effect of the very significant mitigating factors in this case, including the time Mr. Welsh spent on restrictive bail, and the collateral consequences that he will suffer, it is appropriate to impose a sentence slightly below what I have identified as the low end of the range for this offence. In my view, the appropriate sentence for Mr. Welsh for importing cocaine is one of 9 years’ imprisonment.

5. Conclusion

45I recognize that this sentence may seem particularly harsh for someone like Mr. Welsh. I am very sympathetic to his circumstances, and those of his family and friends. Mr. Welsh is by all accounts a kind, compassionate and caring man. A good person. But he is a good person who made a choice to do something very wrong, something that would have had serious consequences for many people who are total strangers to Mr. Welsh. Like Mr. Welsh, those people also have families and friends, and many of them likely had or have difficult life circumstances.

46The appropriate global sentence for Mr. Welsh in this case is one of 9 years’ imprisonment. Subtracting 14 days for Mr. Welsh’s pre-sentence custody, Mr. Welsh’s net sentence from today breaks down as follows:

1. Count 1: importing cocaine: 8 years and 11 months and 14 days.

2. Count 2: possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine: 7 years concurrent

3. Count 3: importing cannabis: 4 years concurrent

47I also impose the following ancillary orders, which were not opposed.

1. An order under s.487.051(3) of the Criminal Code requiring Mr. Welsh to provide a bodily sample for inclusion in the national DNA databank.

2. An order under s. 109 of the Criminal Code prohibiting him from possessing the items listed in that section for 10 years and life.

48A forfeiture order will also issue in the form of the draft order provided by the Crown.

Rahman, J.

Released: January 13, 2026

CITATION: R. v. Welsh, 2026 ONSC 259

COURT FILE NO.: CRIM J(F) 551/22

DATE: 2026-01-13

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

Footnotes

1. 1I read these reasons orally when sentencing Mr. Welsh on January 9, 2026, omitting headings, citations, and footnotes. I explained that these written reasons would follow and that they may contain grammatical and stylistic changes. In the event of any discrepancy between the oral reasons and these written reasons, the written reasons govern.
2. 2I incorrectly said 12 years when reading my oral reasons, which is how long ago Mr. Welsh came to Canada and not when he left Jamaica.
3. 3I note that there was some suggestion in the PSR that Mr. Welsh’s daughter had moved out and was no longer living with him. The EPSR, which was written in August 2025, refers to Mr. Welsh and his son living in an apartment together, without mentioning his daughter living there as well. However, I note that the address on the letter she submitted is the same as her brother’s, so I will assume that she also lives with them.
4. 4Code J. ultimately reduced the sentence by one year and imposed a sentence of 11 years’ imprisonment because of delays in bringing the case to trial.