Court File and Parties

Citation: R v. Nguyen, 2026 ONSC 3096 Courtfile No: Cr-23-00026-0000 Date: 2026-05-12

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

HIS MAJESTY THE KING v. NAM HOANG NGUYEN

R E A S O N S F O R S E N T E N C E

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE C. CONLAN On May 12, 2026, at ORANGEVILLE, Ontario

APPEARANCES: R. Ghaly Counsel for the Federal Crown J. Christie Counsel for Nam Hoang Nguyen

Transcript Details

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

Legend [sic] – indicates preceding word has been reproduced verbatim and is not a transcription error. (ph) – indicates preceding word has been spelled phonetically.

W I T N E S S E S

WITNESSES Exam In-Ch. Cr-Exam Re-Exam

E X H I B I T S

EXHIBIT LETTER ENTERED ON PAGE

Transcript Ordered: May 15, 2026 Transcript Completed: May 18, 2026

Reasons for Sentence

TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2026

CONLAN, J. (Orally):

So, this is a case where I am going to impose the sentence first and not hold everyone in suspense. And then give some oral reasons afterwards for why I think this is an appropriate sentence for this particular offender on these unique facts.

First, the court grants the forfeiture order sought by the Federal Crown. I have signed the order, forfeiting all of the items listed to the Crown.

Second, this court imposes the victim fine surcharge on Mr. Nguyen. Mr. Nguyen is granted six months to pay the surcharge.

Third, and perhaps most important to everyone concerned, Mr. Nguyen is sentenced to a period of imprisonment to be served in the community by way of a conditional sentence order, for a duration of two years less one day.

With respect to the conditional sentence order, all of the compulsory terms apply as set out in subsection 742.3(1) of the Criminal Code.

As well, the following optional conditions apply for the entire length of the sentence:

• Mr. Nguyen shall abstain from the consumption of drugs except in accordance with a medical prescription.
• Mr. Nguyen shall abstain from the consumption of alcohol.
• Mr. Nguyen shall abstain from the consumption of cannabis.
• Mr. Nguyen shall abstain from owning, possessing or carrying a firearm or weapon.
• Mr. Nguyen shall attend and actively participate in any counselling or therapy or treatment program that is recommended to him by the supervisor.
• Mr. Nguyen shall not leave that counseling or therapy or treatment program without the prior written approval of the supervisor.
• Mr. Nguyen shall sign any releases of information demanded of him by the supervisor in order to monitor his progress with the counselling or therapy or treatment program.
• Mr. Nguyen shall obey a curfew by remaining inside his home or on the property of his home including any out buildings 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, with the following exceptions:

1. for any reason with the prior written permission of the supervisor, which written permission shall be carried on Mr. Nguyen’s person at all times;
2. for medical emergencies involving himself or his spouse;
3. for required court attendances;
4. for pre-scheduled meeting with his legal counsel;
5. for meetings with his supervisor;
6. for attendance and counselling, therapy or treatment;
7. on each Saturday between 12:00 noon and 4:00 p.m. for obtaining the necessities of life for himself and/or his spouse;

and,

8. all these exceptions include direct travel to and from.

These are the reasons why I think this is an appropriate sentence.

This sentencing decision, in my view, will have very limited precedential value because of the uniqueness of the overall circumstances. I will say more about that in a moment.

We know the following in terms of general sentencing principles. What I am about to review comes from the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Parranto 2021 SCC 46 at paragraphs 9 through 12.

First, sentencing is one of the most delicate stages of the criminal justice process in Canada.

Second, sentencing is much more of an art than a science requiring judges to consider and balance a multiplicity of factors.

Next, sentencing proves a discretionary exercise in balancing all relevant factors to meet the basic objectives.

Next, the goal in every case is a fair, fit and principled sanction. Proportionality is the organizing principle in reaching that goal.

Accordingly, all sentencing starts with the principle that sentences must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

Next, individualization is central to the proportionality assessment. Whereas, the gravity of a particular offence may be relatively constant each offence is committed in unique circumstances and by an offender with a unique profile. That is precisely why proportionality sometimes demands a sentence that has never or rarely been imposed in the past for a similar offence. The question is always whether the sentence reflects the gravity of the offence, the offender’s degree of responsibility and the unique circumstances of each case.

In this case, Mr. Nguyen is before the court to be sentenced with regard to one offence. It is an offence that he pleaded guilty to. The offence is count two on the indictment dated August 22, 2023.

The offence is that Mr. Nguyen, on or about September 2, 2022 at Caledon, did unlawfully possess cannabis for the purpose of distributing it, contrary to Section 9(2) of the Cannabis Act, S.C. 2018, c. 16. The facts underlying the guilty plea and the finding of guilty and now the conviction, may be summarized as follows:

The Caledon Fire Department responded to a call and attended at a property where they observed marijuana plants outside. The Fire Department also observed two persons tending to the plants outside. Investigation at that time revealed that there were no licences to grow the marijuana plants that were observed. Police applied for and obtained a search warrant. Police executed the search warrant. Police discovered 500 large marijuana plants being tended to by Mr. Nguyen and his spouse. Police also located some growing equipment located, found rather, in a garage.

At the time of the execution of the search warrant, Mr. Nguyen, the offender before the court, produced to the police three Health Canada licences that appeared to the police to be expired.

In total, police seized 500 marijuana plants, 615 kilograms of ground cannabis, 109 kilograms of powdered cannabis, financial lists and some lab equipment to grow marijuana.

In terms of the circumstances of the offender, Mr. Nguyen is 71 years of age. He was born in and grow up in Vietnam. Mr. Nguyen has significant neurological problems and his spouse does as well. Both Mr. Nguyen and his spouse have relatively limited incomes that come exclusively from Canada Pension Plan benefits.

Mr. Nguyen does have a criminal record marked Exhibit Number 1. The criminal history does include related narcotic convictions but they are very dated, from 1991 and 1994. Mr. Nguyen’s criminal history over the past 16 years consists of the following: a conviction of impaired driving out of Toronto in July 2010, for which he received a fine and an 18-month driving prohibition order. Next, a conviction out of Bracebridge in January of 2020 for driving while prohibited for which Mr. Nguyen received a 30-day intermittent jail sentence and a driving prohibition order for one year.

And most relevant for our circumstances, in 2022, specifically June 3, 2022, out of Timmins, Mr. Nguyen was convicted of an offence very similar to the one before this court. At that time, in Timmins, Mr. Nguyen was convicted of possession of cannabis for the purpose of selling cannabis, contrary to section 10(2) of the Cannabis Act.

Mr. Nguyen received a fine as the sentence for that conviction, a $5000 fine.

The Federal Crown, Ms. Ghaly is correct that this court does not know the details or the facts underlying that conviction. But it is highly relevant, in my view, that the last time Mr. Nguyen was in trouble for something similar to what is before this court he received no custody whatsoever.

I referred earlier to the highly unique circumstances of this case and that uniqueness arises primarily from the fact that Mr. Nguyen was not doing what he was doing in the absence of any Health Canada licence at all. Rather, it is uncontroverted that Mr. Nguyen did have a licence issued by Health Canada under the cannabis regulations. He had some kind of licence before the execution of the search warrant, that is, before the offence date. And he also had some kind of licence that was effective on the actual offence date.

We know the latter from a review of Exhibit Number 2. Exhibit Number 2 is a copy of a Health Canada licence issued effective September 2, 2022. That is the same date of the offence that Mr. Nguyen has been found guilty of. That Health Canada licence, Exhibit Number 2 was effective on September 2, 2022 and did not expire until September 2, 2023.

Now, it is correct that Exhibit Number 2 is not in the name of Mr. Nguyen, but rather, is in the name of his spouse. But this court accepts that Mr. Nguyen and his spouse were doing this in tandem. And therefore, I find that it is likely that both Mr. Nguyen and his spouse had Health Canada licences before September 2, 2022 and it is likely that Mr. Nguyen also had a licence that was effective on September 2, 2022, similar to that marked Exhibit Number 2, in the name of his spouse.

But the fact is, we do not know that, and so that is why Mr. Nguyen, or that is in part why Mr. Nguyen has entered a guilty plea to the offence. Put another way, it is uncertain whether Mr. Nguyen would have been able to advance a legal defence to the charge. He knows that. And his experienced counsel, Mr. Christie, knows that. And that is why Mr. Nguyen pleaded guilty to the offence.

My point, however, is this whole business about the licence, in my view, lessens the degree of moral blameworthiness on the part of Mr. Nguyen, and ought to be treated as a mitigating factor on sentence. And so the chief mitigating factors in this case are the guilty plea, Mr. Nguyen’s age and his significant neurological problems and this issue about the Health Canada licence or licences that Mr. Nguyen did, in fact, possess.

The Federal Prosecutor, Ms. Ghaly, is correct that there are aggravating factors in this case. That Mr. Nguyen is not a first-time offender and has a related criminal record, is aggravating on sentence. The findings in the expert report, marked Exhibit Number 3, the report of Acting Detective Sergeant Bamford, the findings contained in that report are aggravating on sentence.

I recognize that these findings have not been tested in court by way of cross-examination, however, it is worth observing that the said report of Bamford opines a minimum value of all of the drugs seized in this case, excluding the marijuana cannabis plants at just under $720,000. That is the bear minimum value attributed to the drugs by Bamford. Again, excluding the 500 mature cannabis marijuana plants that were seized, according to Bamford, the marijuana plants, if sold in one pound increments would have yielded on the street, approximately $250,000. And so in total, for the entire operation, the minimum value attributed to this by Bamford including all of the narcotics on site and the cannabis marijuana plants is at least just under $1,000,000. That is aggravating on sentence.

In the end, however, I am satisfied that a conditional sentence in this case would be appropriate. It is statutorily available, we know that. There is no mandatory minimum penalty for this offence. I do not see Mr. Nguyen as a danger to the community, going forward. I am satisfied that a sentence of imprisonment of less than two years in duration is a fit one. As I indicated, I am satisfied that a sentence of imprisonment in the community would not endanger the safety of the public. And I am satisfied that a conditional sentence of imprisonment would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in sections 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code.

The main principles of sentencing applicable here, I agree with the Crown, are denunciation and deterrence - both general deterrence and individual or specific deterrence. In the very unique circumstances of this case, though, I think that a conditional sentence order can adequately meet the principles of denunciation and deterrence.

Those are the reasons why this court imposed a conditional sentence order.

Electronic Certificate of Transcript

FORM 3 ELECTRONIC CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPT (SUBSECTION 5(2)) Evidence Act

I, Marilyn Levine, (Name of authorized person)

certify that this document is a true and accurate transcript based on the quality recording of

R. v. NGUYEN et al (Name of case) (Name of court)

held at 10 Louisa Street, Orangeville, Ontario (Court address)

taken from Recording 0611_203_20260512_085119__10_CONLANC.dcr which has been certified in Form 1.

May 18, 2026 (Date) (Electronic signature of authorized person)

(Authorized court transcriptionist’s identification number – if applicable)

ONTARIO _________________________________________________, Canada. (Province of signing)

A certificate in Form 3 is admissible in evidence and is proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the transcript is a transcript of the certified recording of evidence and proceedings in the proceeding that is identified in the certificate.

Form 3 – Electronic Certificate of Transcript – September 1, 2022