Court File and Parties

CITATION: R. v. Sero, 2026 ONSC 2606

COURT FILE NO.: CR-24-00000075-0000

DATE: 2026-05-01

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

BRANDON SERO

COUNSEL:

Lynn Ross, for the Crown

Liam Thompson, for the Accused

HEARD: March 30, 2026

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

MUSZYNSKI J.

[1] On October 30, 2025, I dismissed Brandon Sero’s Charter application.[^1] On January 12, 2026, based on an agreed statement of facts filed by the parties, Mr. Sero was convicted of one count of possession for the purpose of trafficking fentanyl, one count of possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine, one count of possession of proceeds of crime not exceeding $5,000, one count of possession of a prohibited weapon (taser) without a license, and one count of possession of a prohibited weapon (taser) while prohibited. The charges were stayed against Mr. Sero’s co-accused, Marie Miller.

[2] On March 30, 2026, I heard sentencing submissions. These are my reasons for sentence.

Circumstances of the Offence

[3] On February 8, 2024, following a police investigation, a search warrant was executed in Mr. Sero’s shared residence with Ms. Miller. A ten-year-old child was at the residence when the search warrant was executed. Amongst other things, police seized: 27 grams of fentanyl, 12.4 grams of cocaine, and a taser.

Circumstances of Mr. Sero

[4] Mr. Sero is 42 years old. He is Indigenous and a member of the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte.

[5] Mr. Sero has a lengthy criminal record, including numerous convictions when as a young offender. He spent much of his youth in and out of youth facilities. As an adult, he has been convicted with the following offences:

• 2006: robbery;

• 2011: possession of property obtained by crime, break and enter, theft under $5,000, mischief;

• 2017: theft under $5,000, fail to comply;

• 2018: fail to comply;

• 2019: possession of schedule I substance for the purpose of trafficking, fail to comply;

• 2023: possession of schedule I substance for the purpose of trafficking, fail to comply.

[6] Mr. Sero was out of custody for just a few months before he was arrested in relation to the subject offences.

[7] Mr. Sero reports being addicted to drugs and selling drugs to support his addiction. On several occasions, Mr. Sero has had to be administered Narcan after overdosing.

Gladue Reports

[8] Two Gladue reports were entered into evidence on the sentencing hearing. The first report is dated December 4, 2019. It was authored by Johanna Webb, a Gladue writer for the Tyendinaga Justice Circle, and was considered at an earlier sentencing hearing (the “2019 Report”). The updated report is dated March 6, 2026 and is authored by Priscilla Krebs, a Gladue writer for Tontakayè:ri’ne, Restorative Justice and Gladue Services, and was commissioned for the subject sentencing hearing (the “2026 Report”).

[9] Mr. Sero’s biological father was a registered member of the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte. He was raised by his grandparents, as he reportedly suffered severe abuses at the hands of his own parents. He was an alcoholic and died when Mr. Sero was nine years old.

[10] Mr. Sero’s biological mother was adopted by a non-Indigenous family but suspects that she has Indigenous heritage and was a victim of the “Sixties Scoop”. Mr. Sero’s mother was interviewed for the 2019 Report. She noted that she was abused in foster care, became pregnant at the age of 16, was sent to “training school”, was in and out of custody during her early adulthood, and abused drugs.

[11] Mr. Sero’s mother reported that neither she nor Mr. Sero’s father learned any parenting skills and, as a result, were unable to provide Mr. Sero and his sister with a stable home life. The Children’s Aid Society has been involved with Mr. Sero’s family since he was four years old. Over the course of his childhood, he was placed in 10 to 15 foster homes and group homes. Mr. Sero described being the victim of physical, emotional and sexual abuse when he was in care. He transitioned from group homes to youth custodial facilities when he started getting in trouble with the law around 10 to 12 years of age.

[12] Mr. Sero was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder as a child and prescribed Ritalin. When he was about 20 years old, Mr. Sero started using hard drugs. He has been in and out of trouble with the law since.

[13] The author of the 2019 Report noted: “There is little doubt that Brandon’s childhood trauma, in conjunction with the Intergenerational Trauma suffered by his family have impacted his ability to interact with the world around him”.

[14] When he was not in custody, Mr. Sero would often rely upon his mother for housing and support. Mr. Sero’s mother died in October 2022, when he was serving a sentence.

[15] In the 2026 Report, it was noted that after Mr. Sero was released from custody in October 2023, he had no place to go. Mr. Sero reported “floating around” from place to place and using drugs “to get by”.

[16] The author of the 2026 Report addressed Mr. Sero’s participation in Indigenous programming while in custody. According to Mr. Sero, although he had hoped to serve his 2019 sentence at the Waseskun Healing Centre in Quebec, due to Mr. Sero’s security classification (medium), he was not approved to be placed at Waseskun. Mr. Sero reportedly started the “Aboriginal High Intensity Substance Abuse Program” while in Bath Institution but did not complete it due to COVID.

[17] Currently, Mr. Sero reports being on the “Methadone Program” at Quinte Detention Centre and expresses the willingness to continue with this program. He also reports wanting to attend counselling to discuss his history of abuse in a supportive environment. The 2026 Report sets out various recommendations for programming within Corrections Canada, including the Waseskun Healing Center, the Indigenous Integrated Correctional Program Model, or the Continuum of Care Model and the Pathways Initiatives Program.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

[18] The Crown submits that a fit and just global sentence in this case is 9 years less pre-sentence custody. Specifically, the Crown submits that the global sentence can be broken down across counts as follows:

Count 1: for the purpose of trafficking, possessed of fentanyl, contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act,[^2] thereby committing an indictable offence under s. 5(3)(a) of the CDSA – 8 years;

Count 2: for the purpose of trafficking, possessed of cocaine, contrary to s. 5(2) of the CDSA, thereby committing an indictable offence under s. 5(3)(a) of the CDSA – 2 years concurrent to count 1;

Count 4: unlawfully possessed property or proceeds of property less than $5,000 knowing that all or part of it was obtained or derived directly or indirectly by the commission of an indictable offence under Part I of the CDSA, contrary to s. 354(1)(a) of the Criminal Code,[^3] thereby committing an offence under s. 355(b) of the Criminal Code – 6 months concurrent to count 1;

Count 5: possessed of a prohibited weapon (taser) while prohibited from doing so by reason of an order made pursuant to s. 109(3) of the Criminal Code at Belleville, October 13, 2023, contrary to s. 117.01(1) of the Criminal Code – 12 months consecutive to count 1;

Count 6: possessed a prohibited weapon (taser) without a licence contrary to s. 91(2) of the Criminal Code – 6 months concurrent to count 1.

[19] Mr. Sero acknowledges that a penitentiary sentence is warranted. He submits that a fit and just global sentence is 6 years. Specifically, he takes the position that an appropriate sentence is: 5.5 year custodial sentence on count 1 (fentanyl); 2 year concurrent custodial sentence with respect to count 2 (cocaine); and a 6 month consecutive sentence on count 5, possession of a prohibited weapon while prohibited with the remaining counts to run concurrent.

[20] With respect to ancillary orders, the Crown seeks a lifetime s. 109 weapons prohibition, an order for DNA, and a forfeiture order with respect to items seized. Mr. Sero is in agreement with the s. 109 lifetime weapons prohibition and forfeiture order. He takes no position with respect to the Crown’s request for DNA.

[21] It is agreed that Mr. Sero has pre-sentence custody of 812 real days and that, using the usual 1.5:1 ratio, his pre-sentence custody is enhanced to 1,218 days.

[22] Further, the parties reached a joint submission on a credit of an additional 180 days for the harsh conditions Mr. Sero endured in pre-sentence custody, including frequent lockdowns and triple bunking by way of a “Duncan” credit. I acknowledge the appellate authority that states that conditions within the institution pending trial are more appropriately considered as a mitigating factor on sentencing, not necessarily a numerical credit.[^4] However, I see no reason to depart from this joint submission by experienced counsel and find that Mr. Sero will be entitled to a reduction of any custodial sentence of an additional 180 days.

[23] In total, any custodial sentence I impose will therefore be reduced by 1,398 days.

PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCING

[24] The principles of sentencing are largely codified. Section 718 of the Criminal Code sets out the fundamental purpose of sentencing, which “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 sentences that have one or more of the following objectives:

a. denouncing unlawful conduct;

b. deterring the offender and others from committing crimes;

c. separating offenders from society where necessary;

d. assisting in the rehabilitation of the offender;

e. providing reparations for harm done to the victim or to the community;

f. promoting a sense of responsibility in the offender; and

g. acknowledging the harm done to victims and the community.

[25] The principle of proportionality is set out in s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code. This is a foundational principle of sentencing. Any sentence I impose must reflect the gravity of the offence and the responsibility of the offender.

[26] I am also required by s. 718.2 of the Criminal Code to take the following matters into consideration when imposing a sentence:

a. the sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender;

b. the sentence should be like sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances;

c. where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh;

d. offenders should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate; and

e. all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders.

[27] In R. v. Gladue, the Supreme Court of Canada explained that s. 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code directs a sentencing judge to consider an Indigenous offender “individually, but also differently, because the circumstances of aboriginal people are unique”.[^5]

[28] The Court of Appeal for Ontario has since summarized how Gladue factors should be considered on sentencing: “For an offender’s Aboriginal background to influence his or her ultimate sentence, the systemic and background factors affecting Aboriginal people in Canadian society must have impacted the offender’s life in a way that (1) bears on moral blameworthiness, or (2) indicates which types of sentencing objectives should be prioritized in the offender’s case”.[^6]

[29] Section 10 of the CDSA provides further guidance on sentencing in the context of drug offences. In this case, the following aggravating factors must be considered at the time of sentencing:

a. the involvement of a weapon – s. 10(2)(a)(i);

b. the presence of a child – s.10(2)(a)(iii); and

c. a prior conviction of a designated substance offence – s. 10(2)(b).

[30] Courts have repeatedly held that in cases involving hard drugs such as fentanyl and cocaine, denunciation and deterrence are the primary factors to consider in reaching a fit and just sentence. The serious and broad societal impact of trafficking in hard drugs has resulted in courts describing these offences as both “violent and serious”.[^7]

ANALYSIS

Mitigating factors

[31] Counsel for Mr. Sero submits that while there was no guilty plea, his client worked cooperatively with the Crown to efficiently litigate the Charter application. When his Charter application was unsuccessful, he agreed to the facts that were ultimately placed before the court that support his conviction. I would not describe the Charter application as particularly efficient. Indeed, due to the sheer number of issues that were raised, numerous dates were required to litigate all the issues. However, I acknowledge the ultimate agreed statement of facts following the dismissal of the Charter application did serve a utilitarian benefit of saving court time and thus has a modest mitigating impact on sentence.

[32] Mr. Sero’s drug addiction is well-documented in the Gladue reports. He has been on methadone programs in the past. I accept that his involvement in the drug trade is for the purposes of supporting his habit rather than for purely commercial reasons.

[33] I further consider Mr. Sero’s Gladue factors. The information contained in both Gladue reports highlights systemic factors impacting Indigenous communities in Canada and the direct impact that those factors have had on Mr. Sero’s life. Both of Mr. Sero’s parents were removed from their homes at a young age. They both abused substances. They were each abused by persons in authority. In turn, they struggled as parents. Mr. Sero and his sister spent most of their childhood in state care, where they were also abused. He had not had the benefit of stability in his life.

[34] The Crown acknowledges the relevance of the Gladue factors in this case. However, the Crown submits that given the seriousness of the offence, coupled with Mr. Sero’s criminal record, the principles of denunciation and deterrence should be the primary considerations of the court in coming to a fit and just sentence. The Crown relies on R. v. Wells, where the Supreme Court of Canada stated: “the more violent and serious the offence, the more likely as a practical matter that the appropriate sentence will not differ as between aboriginal and non-aboriginal offenders, given that in these circumstances, the goals of denunciation and deterrence are accorded increasing significance”.[^8]

[35] Mr. Sero takes the position that “he is someone that epitomizes the unfortunate circumstances far too many Indigenous people involved in the criminal justice system find themselves.” It is submitted that the court should recognize the significantly reduced moral blameworthiness of Mr. Sero and sentence him to the lower end of the established range for these offences.

Aggravating factors

[36] There are several aggravating factors in this case.

[37] Firstly, along with the drugs, I consider that a taser was seized from Mr. Sero’s residence. The taser was not actually used in the commission of an offence in this case. Nonetheless, courts have repeatedly held that the presence of a weapon in combination with drugs are an aggravating factor to be considered on sentencing.[^9]

[38] Secondly, I consider that there was a ten-year-old child present in Mr. Sero’s shared residence with the co-accused, Ms. Miller, when police executed the search warrant and located the taser and drugs. The controlled substances in the home present an obvious risk to children, not only from the risks of being exposed to the dangerous drugs themselves, but also the lifestyle associated with drug trafficking, which could include violence.

[39] Further, I consider the dangers associated with fentanyl. Fentanyl is an extremely addictive and powerful opioid. In the Supreme Court of Canada case of R. v. Parranto, Moldaver J. highlights in his concurring reasons the devastating impact of fentanyl on individual users and within our communities, writing that “fentanyl has altered the landscape of the substance abuse crisis in Canada, revealing itself as public enemy number one.”[^10]

[40] Finally, I consider Mr. Sero’s criminal record, specifically his 2019 conviction for possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking and his 2023 convictions for possession of fentanyl, cocaine and methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking. Mr. Sero had only been released from custody for just a few months before he was arrested on the subject charges.

Range of sentence

[41] In this case, the parties are relatively ad idem on the range of appropriate sentence for offences of this nature.

[42] The Crown relies on some of the following cases in support of its position that an appropriate global sentence is 9 years in custody:

• R. v. Richer: 3-year custodial sentence for a first-time offender trafficking fentanyl, 27g.[^11]

• R. v. Pauze: 6-year custodial sentence on the fentanyl count for an older offender with a gap in his criminal record, 20g.[^12]

• R. v. Lynch: 4-year custodial sentence increased to a 6-year custodial sentence on appeal for a mid-level trafficker in fentanyl, guilty-plea, Court of Appeal confirms a sentencing range of 6-8 years for mid-level traffickers of fentanyl.[^13]

• R. v. Woolcock: Establishes a range of 6 months – 2 years less a day for trafficking smaller amounts of cocaine (i.e. less than one ounce).[^14]

[43] Mr. Sero relies on the following cases in support of his position that an appropriate global sentence is 6 years less pre-sentence custody:

• R. v. Tonkin: 29-month custodial sentence for possessing 27.15g of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and concurrent 15-month sentence for 55.62g of cocaine was given to a youthful first offender.[^15]

• R. v. Irwin: 6.5-year custodial sentence for an addict trafficker, 56.2g of fentanyl.[^16]

• R. v. Jackson: 5-year custodial sentence, unsuccessful Charter application followed by trial proceeding on the basis of an agreed statement of facts. The offender had a criminal record but no drug convictions. The impact of systemic racism was considered as a mitigating factor on sentence, 60g of fentanyl.[^17]

• R. v. Samuel: 6-year custodial sentence post-trial, criminal record for simple possession, 58.2g of fentanyl and 102g of cocaine.[^18]

CONCLUSION

[44] The tension in arriving at a fit and just sentence in this case lies between the consideration of the Gladue factors and the severity of the offence and Mr. Sero’s two very recent convictions for possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking.

[45] I have considered the seriousness of the offences, including the nature of the controlled substances and the quantities. I have considered all of Mr. Sero’s personal circumstances, including those set out in the two Gladue reports. When doing so, I am mindful that as the seriousness of an offence increases, the personal circumstances of an offender, including Gladue factors, must be given less weight.[^19]

[46] I have considered the prospect of rehabilitation, particularly where Mr. Sero has, and accepts, a meaningful opportunity to engage with Indigenous programming within the corrections system.

[47] I have also considered the seriousness of the offence and the tragic and far-reaching consequences of trafficking hard drugs. Given the serious nature of the offence, while I have considered all of the principles of sentencing, the sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence are primary in this case.

[48] Mr. Sero has been convicted on three occasions of possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking. Mr. Sero’s proposal of a 6-year global sentence, particularly in light of his 2023 conviction and the close proximity of time between his release from custody on those charges and his arrest on the subject charges, does not adequately address the primary sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence.

[49] The 9-year global custodial sentence proposed by the Crown is, in my view, excessive –as it does not adequately consider the mitigating factors present in this case.

[50] The parties agree that it is appropriate for count 5 on the indictment, possession of a prohibited weapon while prohibited, to attract a consecutive sentence. The principle of totality has therefore played a role in the sentences imposed.[^20]

[51] Globally, I find that a fit and just sentence for Mr. Sero is 7.5-years incarceration less pre-sentence custody which, as agreed upon including the additional credit, is 1,398 days. Mr. Sero is therefore sentenced to a further 1,339 days in custody.

[52] Mr. Sero’s global sentence is broken down as follows:

Count 1: for the purpose of trafficking, possessed of fentanyl, contrary to s. 5(2) of the CDSA, thereby committing an indictable offence under s. 5(3)(a) of the CDSA – 7 years;

Count 2: for the purpose of trafficking, possessed of cocaine, contrary to s. 5(2) of the CDSA, thereby committing an indictable offence under s. 5(3)(a) of the CDSA – 2 years concurrent to count 1;

Count 4: unlawfully possessed property or proceeds of property less than $5,000 knowing that all or part of it was obtained or derived directly or indirectly by the commission of an indictable offence under Part I of the CDSA, contrary to s. 354(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, thereby committing an offence under s. 355(b) of the Criminal Code – 6 months concurrent to count 1;

Count 5: possessed of a prohibited weapon (taser) while prohibited from doing so by reason of an order made pursuant to s. 109(3) of the Criminal Code at Belleville, October 13, 2023, contrary to s. 117.01(1) of the Criminal Code – 6 months consecutive to count 1;

Count 6: possessed a prohibited weapon (taser) without a licence contrary to s. 91(2) of the Criminal Code – 6 months concurrent to count 1.

[53] I further make the following ancillary orders:

a. A weapons prohibition pursuant to s. 109 for life;

b. A DNA order;

c. A forfeiture order for all material seized.

[54] I acknowledge that Correctional Services Canada is the best equipped to determine Mr. Sero’s institutional placement. That said, I encourage a placement where Mr. Sero would be presented with the best opportunity to engage with Indigenous services. I further encourage Mr. Sero to take advantage of those opportunities when offered.

Muszynski J.

Released: May 1, 2026

CITATION: R. v. Sero, 2026 ONSC 2606

COURT FILE NO.: CR-24-00000075-0000

DATE: 2026-05-01

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

BRANDON SERO

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

Justice K. Muszynski

Released: May 1, 2026

[^1]: R. v. Sero and Miller, 2025 ONSC 6092.

[^2]: S.C. 1996, c. 19 (“CDSA”).

[^3]: R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.

[^4]: R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344, at paras. 43, 53.

[^5]: 1999 679 (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688, at para. 93.

[^6]: R. v. F.H.L., 2018 ONCA 83, 360 C.C.C. (3d) 189, at para. 40.

[^7]: R. v. Hamilton (2004), 2004 5549 (ON CA), 72 O.R. (3d) 1 (C.A.), at para. 104.

[^8]: 2000 SCC 10, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 207, at para. 42. See also Gladue, at para. 79.

[^9]: See R. v. Oickle, 2015 NSCA 87, 2015 NSCA87, 330 C.C.C. (3d) 82, at paras. 24-28; R. v. Schramek, 2021 ONSC 436, at para. 47.

[^10]: 2021 SCC 46, [2021] 3 S.C.R. 366, at para. 93.

[^11]: 2025 ONCA 439, 178 O.R. (3d) 761.

[^12]: 2024 ONSC 6318.

[^13]: 2022 ONCA 109, 160 O.R. (3d) 241, at para. 15.

[^14]: [2002] O.J. No. 4927 (C.A.), at para. 15.

[^15]: 2023 ONSC 2139.

[^16]: 2025 ONCJ 247.

[^17]: 2024 ONSC 2402.

[^18]: 2023 ONSC 5124.

[^19]: R. v. Heinrichs, 2025 MBCA 101, at para. 42; Hamilton, at para. 100.

[^20]: R. v. McCue, 2012 ONCA 773, 299 O.A.C. 14, at para. 20.