SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
v.
PAUL JAMES EMERSON CRONK
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 20, 2026, at MILTON, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
T. Morgan Counsel for the Crown
C. Spettigue Counsel for P. Cronk
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
Reasons for Sentence ..................................... Page 1
LEGEND
[sic] – Indicates preceding word has been reproduced verbatim and is not a transcription error.
(ph) – Indicates preceding word has been spelled phonetically.
Transcript Ordered:............................ May 25, 2026
Transcript Completed:.......................... May 28, 2026
Submitted for Judicial Review:................. May 25, 2026
Ordering Party Notified:....................... May 28, 2026
WEDNESDAY, MAY 10, 2026
R E A S O N S F O R S E N T E N C E
I will begin by indicating that this court will accept the joint submission on sentence. There is no need to hold everyone in suspense. I think that the conditional sentence order recommended by counsel is a reasonable disposition, in light of the specific facts of the offence, and in light of the particular circumstances of the offender.
In terms of some oral reasons for the sentence, they are as follows:
Mr. Paul Cronk is before the court to be sentenced after pleading guilty to, and being found guilty of, and convicted of, one count. That is, that he, on or about January 8, 2023, at Burlington, Ontario, did unlawfully possess a controlled substance, namely methamphetamine, for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S. C. 1996, c. 19.
The facts underlying the offence are contained in the written agreed statement of facts, marked Exhibit Number 1. They may be summarized as follows:
On the date in question, Mr. Cronk's motor vehicle was stopped by the police due to a suspected traffic violation. Police approached and observed the odour of cannabis emanating from Mr. Cronk's vehicle. Mr. Cronk was the operator of the vehicle at the time.
Further to the Cannabis Control Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 26, Sched. 1, the vehicle was searched and police discovered the following:
56.7 grams of methamphetamine located in three separate packages; 14.1 grams for the first package, 14.6 grams for the second package, and 28 grams for the third package. Two grams of cannabis were also located in a clear baggie in the centre console of the motor vehicle. Police also located two digital scales, some drug packaging materials, and two mobile phones.
In terms of the circumstances of the offender, Mr. Cronk will be turning 50 years of age later this year. He has some serious health concerns and this court accepts that. Those include some hearing loss, some eyesight difficulties, hypertension, diabetes and mental health issues, including depression and a substance use disorder.
Mr. Cronk is currently employed full-time with a flooring company. Unfortunately, Mr. Cronk has experienced significant personal loss over the last short while with no fewer than four close family members having passed away recently.
Mr. Cronk does have a criminal history. The record is marked Exhibit Number 2. The criminal history begins in 1997 out of Owen Sound and ends in 2011 out of Toronto. The criminal record does include prior narcotics related convictions.
In particular, on October 27, 2006, out of Toronto, Mr. Cronk was convicted of possession of a Schedule III substance for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. On that conviction, Mr. Cronk was sentenced to 75 days in custody, to be served intermittently, plus a period of probation.
On May 18, 2011, out of Toronto, Mr. Cronk was convicted of two counts of trafficking in a Schedule I substance, contrary to section 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. And on the same date, Mr. Cronk was also convicted of possession of a Schedule I substance for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. On those convictions, Mr. Cronk was sentenced to 473 days incarceration, on top of 67 days of pre-sentence custody, concurrent on all counts. As well, Mr. Cronk received a section 109 Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, firearms and weapons prohibition order.
That is the extent of Mr. Cronk's prior narcotics related convictions.
Crown counsel acknowledges that the guilty plea by Mr. Cronk is particularly mitigating in this case because of the live triable Charter issues, in terms of the constitutionality of the search of Mr. Cronk's motor vehicle.
In my view, the most pressing principles of sentencing applicable here are denunciation and deterrence, general deterrence and specific deterrence for Mr. Cronk. Of secondary importance, but still relevant in this case is the principle of rehabilitation, as Mr. Cronk has had quite a gap in his criminal record, and hopefully, at nearly 50 years of age, he can put this behind him and move on with his employment and take care of his personal issues.
It should be observed that although this is a very serious offence, the quantity of methamphetamine involved is not the most significant that this court has ever seen, or nearly so.
In the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the case R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, Justice Moldaver brought clarity to the test for rejecting a joint submission on sentence. We know the following from that decision, beginning at paragraph 31:
That the governing test is the public interest test.
That it was found to be the governing test because "it is more stringent than the other tests" that Justice Moldaver considered.
That there are many benefits to the criminal justice system in having joint submissions on sentence.
That, generally speaking, the criminal justice system benefits from all of the stakeholders, knowing that there is a high degree of certainty in joint submissions on sentence.
That a trial judge should not depart from a joint submission on sentence unless the proposed sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or is otherwise contrary to the public interest.
What does that mean? What does that threshold mean? Justice Moldaver answered that question at paragraph 33 in Anthony-Cook by saying the following, referring to a prior decision of the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal in a case called R. v. Druken, 2006 NLCA 67.
"A joint submission will bring the administration of justice into disrepute or be contrary to the public interest if, despite the public interest considerations that support imposing it, it is so 'markedly out of line with the expectations of reasonable persons aware of the circumstances of the case that they would view it as a break down in the proper functioning of the criminal justice system'."
That is a powerful statement that was endorsed by Justice Moldaver on behalf of the Supreme Court of Canada. That, undoubtedly, represents a high test to meet, a stringent test to meet. Justice Moldaver found that such a stringent test was consistent with the recommendations made by the Martin Committee years prior.
At paragraph 34, Justice Moldaver concluded this section of the decision by saying that:
"Rejection [of a joint submission on sentence] denotes a submission so unhinged from the circumstances of the offence and the offender that its acceptance would lead reasonable and informed persons to believe that the proper functioning of the justice system had broken down."
Justice Moldaver described this as:
"An undeniably high threshold - and for good reason."
Needless to say, my conclusion is that the threshold has not been met in this case. Quite to the contrary. I think that this joint submission on sentence is an entirely appropriate response in the unique facts and circumstances of this case. And thus, I have endorsed the matter as follows:
That the joint submission on sentence is accepted by the court.
Because Mr. Cronk is employed, I am not going to waive the victim fine surcharge. The victim fine surcharge is imposed, but Mr. Cronk is given 180 days or six months to pay the surcharge.
As well, there is a section 109 order for life for all items. There is also a secondary DNA order and a forfeiture order, which I have signed.
Finally, Mr. Cronk is sentenced to a period of imprisonment, which shall be served in the community by way of a conditional sentence order. The length of the conditional sentence order is the maximum length available, two years less one day. And the conditional sentence order will have all of the terms suggested by counsel. I will review those terms now.
Mr. Cronk shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour. Appear before the court when required to do so by the court. Possess no weapons as defined by the Criminal Code.
For the first 12 months of the order, Mr. Cronk shall remain in his residence, except for the purposes of travelling to, from, and while at verifiable employment, and the purposes reported to and approved by the supervisor in advance, including substance use counselling where directed by the supervisor. And for the purpose of walking his dog within a two-block radius of his residence for a total of 20 minutes per walk. And for medical emergencies involving Mr. Cronk or an immediate family member. And between 1:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m., a four-hour period, on Saturdays for the purpose of obtaining the necessities of life. That is the first 12 months.
The second 12 months, less one day, has no house arrest. Instead it has a curfew. So for those 12 months, less a day, Mr. Cronk shall remain in his residence between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. daily, except for the purposes of travelling to, from, and while at verifiable employment. And except for the purposes reported to and approved by the supervisor in advance. And except for medical emergencies involving Mr. Cronk or an immediate family member.
Mr. Cronk shall report to a supervisor within two working days of today, and thereafter when required by the supervisor and in a manner directed by the supervisor.
Mr. Cronk shall remain within the jurisdiction of the court, unless written permission to go outside that jurisdiction is obtained from the court or the supervisor.
Mr. Cronk shall notify the court or the supervisor in advance of any change of name or address, and promptly notify the court or the supervisor of any change of employment or occupation.
FORM 3
ELECTRONIC Certificate of Transcript (SUBSECTION 5(2))
Evidence Act
I, Laura Rowsell, certify that this document is a true and accurate transcript of the recording of R. v. Paul James Emerson Cronk, in the Superior Court of Justice held on May 20, 2026 at 491 Steeles Avenue East, Milton, Ontario, taken from Recording No. 1211_6_20260520_110809__10_CONLANC.dcr, which has been certified in Form 1.
Date: May 28, 2026
Laura Rowsell, Authorized Court Transcriptionist #1611571159
905-440-2053
Signed in the province of Ontario, Canada
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