His Majesty the King v. Jamal El-Hajj Ahmad, 2026 ONSC 3010

CITATION: R. v. El-Hajj Ahmad, 2026 ONSC 3010

COURT FILE NO.: CR-24-0769

DATE: 2026 05 21

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

JAMAL EL-HAJJ AHMAD

Meaghan Hourigan, for the Crown

Kim Schofield, for Jamal El-Hajj Ahmad

HEARD: May 21, 2026

REASONS FOR DECISION ON SENTENCE

CONLAN J.

1Mr. Jamal El-Hajj Ahmad (the “Offender”) has pleaded guilty to and been found guilty and convicted of four offences:

(i) trafficking cocaine contrary to section 5(1) CDSA;

(ii) trafficking Fentanyl contrary to section 5(1) CDSA;

(iii) a second trafficking Fentanyl contrary to section 5(1) CDSA; and

(iv) unlawful possession of a loaded restricted handgun contrary to section 95 CCC.

2The Agreed Statement of Facts (Exhibit 1), very succinctly put, outlines that the Offender:

(i) sold 27.23 grams of cocaine to an undercover police officer;

(ii) provided to another person 30.75 grams of Fentanyl, which that other person then sold to an undercover police officer;

(iii) provided to that same other person 73.1 grams of Fentanyl, which that other person then sold to an undercover police officer; and

(iv) inside his motor vehicle, concealed in a sock, was in possession of a loaded restricted handgun – a .40 caliber Smith and Wesson M&P40, with an obliterated serial number.

3We know from the Offender’s affidavit (Exhibit 2) that he is 31 years old and with no prior criminal record. He has been in a relationship with his partner since 2019. He has a good employment history, having worked for a motor vehicle rental company, in the automotive industry, and in the fast-food business. He was born in Toronto but spent his life between 1 and 18 years old in Lebanon with his parents. He was a user of illegal narcotics before his arrest on these offences but is now sober and clean. He spent 30 days in presentence custody at Maplehurst Correctional Complex, where he was subjected to the COVID-19 restrictions and 18 straight days of total lockdown. He has been on a judicial interim release order for 4 years and 8 months.

4Exhibits 3 and 4 are letters written by the Offender’s parents. Among other things, those letters confirm the impact of the bail conditions on the Offender and his family and the crises that have occurred since the time that the Offender was on bail, including his brother suffering a stroke and his maternal grandfather being diagnosed with and passing away from cancer.

5Exhibit 5 is a current medical letter confirming the Offender’s severe back pain and altered gait.

6Experienced counsel have put forward what is almost entirely a joint submission on sentence. The only point of contention is how much Downes credit is appropriate in this case. The Crown suggests about 6 months. The defence suggests about 24 months.

7Having considered the stringent test for rejecting a joint submission on sentence, this Court will not be disturbing in any way what is being proposed. The joint submission is certainly not something that would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or that is otherwise contrary to the public interest. R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204, at paragraph 32.

8The joint submission is for a global sentence of 6.5 years’ imprisonment less 30 days of presentence custody grossed up to the equivalent of 45 days and less any Downes credit that this Court sees fit to give in these circumstances. Both sides want this Court to quantify the Downes credit. Counsel jointly submit the following breakdown of the carceral sentence: 6.5 years on count 8 – the 73.1 grams of Fentanyl; 3 years concurrent on count 1 – the cocaine; 3 years concurrent on count 15 – the handgun; and 4 years concurrent on count 4 – the 30.75 grams of Fentanyl. As well, all of the ancillary orders sought by the Crown are on consent – secondary DNA, forfeiture, and a lifetime section 109 prohibition.

9After considering the matter, I have decided to give to the Offender 18 months of Downes credit.

10There is no magic formula for arriving at an appropriate credit on account of strict bail conditions. It is discretionary. It is very case-specific, which is why counsel have been able to find cases that give no credit at all, on the one end of the spectrum, and those that give as much as 0.5 days credit for every day spent on bail.

11Here, the sheer time spent on bail has been lengthy – 4 years and 8 months. The strictness of the conditions throughout has been severe: house arrest, with very few exceptions, and GPS monitoring through an ankle bracelet; no contact or communication with several persons including the Offender’s common law spouse (that term was later amended to allow very restricted communication between the Offender and his spouse); the surrendering of all passports and travel documents; no weapons or firearms; no access to any motor vehicle; and very restricted access to electronics including a mobile telephone, included.

12Pretrial bail, generally, is a potential mitigating factor on sentence. It must be weighed in conjunction with all of the other mitigating and aggravating factors. It is not the same as presentence custody. Some of the criteria that should be considered in deciding on the weight of the mitigation are:

(i) the time spent on bail (here, very lengthy);

(ii) how stringent the terms were (here, very stringent);

(iii) their impact on the liberty of the offender (here, quite significant as evidenced by Exhibits 2, 3, and 4);

(iv) the ability of the offender to carry on normal relationships, employment, and activity (here, that was significantly hampered, most particularly regarding the spousal relationship);

(v) whether the offender did anything to try to alleviate the strictness of the bail (here, the Offender did, without success);

(vi) whether there were any problems with the law, including any breaches, while on bail (here, there were none); and

(vii) whether the bail conditions were punitive enough to be viewed as being akin to punishment (here, undoubtedly so, in my opinion).

13Some of the above factors are taken from the very recent and most helpful decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in R. v. Prindle, 2025 ONCA 386, at paragraphs 12-13, while others are my own thoughts.

14Thus, the decision of the Court is as follows. The victim fine surcharges are waived. All of the ancillary orders are issued. The Offender is sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 4 years and 10 months.

15That net period of imprisonment is calculated by (i) subtracting 18 months of Downes credit from the agreed-upon starting point of 6.5 years, and then (ii) subtracting a further 45 days on account of the agreed-upon credit for presentence custody, and then (iii) rounding down to the nearest month. If necessary, the extra half-month indulgence for the Offender may be reasonably viewed as Duncan credit for the overly harsh conditions that the Offender experienced at Maplehurst Correctional Complex.

C.J. Conlan J.

Released: May 21, 2026

CITATION: R. v. El-Hajj Ahmad, 2026 ONSC 3010