CITATION: R. v. Masters-George, 2026 ONSC 3365

COURT FILE NO.: CR-25-20000146-0000

DATE: 20260213

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

JORDAN MASTERS-GEORGE

Defendant

Antia Kwan, for the Crown

Daniel Rechtshaffen and Emily Conte, for Defendant

HEARD: December 15, 2025

1On September 29, 2025, I convicted Mr. Masters-George of conspiracy to commit the indictable offence of trafficking in controlled substances contrary to s. 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c.19.

2The Crown seeks an 18 month conditional sentence with two thirds served on house arrest and the following ancillary orders:

(a) a s. 109 weapons prohibition order for 10 years;

(b) a DNA order for this secondary designated offence; and

(c) a forfeiture order for the property seized (cocaine, Percocet, Canadian and American currency and drug trafficking paraphernalia).

3The defence seeks a suspended sentence and probation, or alternatively, a conditional sentence. The defence takes no issue with the ancillary orders except the DNA order which is opposed.

1. background

Circumstances of the Offence

4The circumstances of the offence are fully set out in my Reasons for Judgment dated September 29, 2025. In summary, Mr. Masters-George was a member of a conspiracy to traffic a schedule 1 substance, namely cocaine, between April 7 to 14, 2022 when, in essence, his friend Mr. Smith covered Mr. Master-George’s trafficking business while he was away on vacation.

5The parties agree the amount of cocaine that formed part of this conspiracy was between half an ounce (14 grams) and one ounce (28 grams), with the amount being closer to half an ounce. The specific amount actually trafficked during this conspiracy was approximately seven grams which had an approximate street value of $700 in 2022.¹

6Mr. Masters-George was arrested on June 2, 2022 and released on a Form 10 undertaking.

Circumstances of the Offender

7Mr. Masters-George is a Black man who is 35 years old (born in 1990). He is a Canadian citizen. He does not have any other criminal convictions. Mr. Masters-George has an older sister who is currently fifty years old.

8He shares parenting responsibility of his two children, ages nine and five, with their mother who lives separately. Parenting time is split 50-50 with each parent having the children with them full-time on alternating weeks. He and the children’s mother were together for 10 years and ended their romantic relationship approximately two years ago. They have maintained a positive relationship since they broke up and successfully co-parent. She speaks of Mr. Masters-George in glowing terms both as a person and as a father. She indicates that the consequences would be catastrophic if Mr. Masters-George were not available to his children. (Exhibit 2, Tab 4)

9Mr. Masters-George has worked for the City of Toronto full-time since May 2012 and is currently a water maintenance worker. His supervisor since 2018 describes Mr. Masters-George as a reliable and hard worker who is dedicated to his career. He is an employee who the supervisor can count on to regularly work overtime and who also performs extra duties without compensation (Exhibit 2, Tab 3). While Mr. Master-George’s current annual base salary is $68,000 (Exhibit 2, Tab 2), he anticipates his employment income in 2025 will be approximately $110,000 as a result of the large amount of overtime he performed.

10A relative and friends describe Mr. Masters-George as a loving and present person, a true support to them and others, hardworking, a contributing member of the community and a dedicated parent. They describe him as taking responsibility for his actions and deserving of a second chance. While each state that they do not excuse his actions in relation to this offence, they ask that he not be defined by it. (Exhibit 2, Tabs 5 to 8)

11Defence counsel advised that Mr. Masters-George grew up in a predominantly white area in Vaughan, Ontario and was subject to constant harassment by police including carding and being pulled over. In his youth, he saw people shot and stabbed. He has experienced members of his extended family, some of whom resided in his family home, go to jail.

12Mr. Masters-George has suffered other trauma as result of the illnesses and deaths of his parents and older brother. When Mr. Masters-George was 8 years old, his father was diagnosed with diabetes. He passed away when Mr. Masters-George was 16 years old. During these years, his father lost an eye, had both legs amputated, had fingers amputated, was on dialysis and used a wheelchair. While his mother was the primary caregiver to his father, Mr. Masters-George also provided a significant amount of care from a very young age. He was also alone at home when mother was in the hospital with his father.

13When his father passed away, Mr. Masters-George took on the burden of caring for the household. He was sad, angry, and unable to focus on his schooling. He was kicked out of high school over a false allegation of assault and attended a behavioural high school.

14Mr. Masters-George mother was diagnosed with dementia in 2012. Her mental health declined quickly and she could not take care of herself. She lived with Mr. Masters-George who was her primary caregiver until her death in 2020. During the time frame when he was taking care of his mother, his older brother, who was living in the Cayman Islands, was diagnosed with aggressive ALS in 2014 and died in 2018 at 38 years old. Mr. Masters-George visited his brother regularly between 2014 and 2018. Mr. Masters-George went through a very difficult period after his brother’s death.

15Remarkably, while Mr. Masters-George was providing care and support to his mother, he managed to obtain a diploma in emergency telecommunications from Humber College in 2013. It also appears he worked either part-time or full time with the City while attended college.

16Recently, Mr. Masters-George has started to address the trauma, grief and loss he has suffered and other factors that may have contributed to his criminal offending. Between October and December 2025, he has completed a 10 session individual counselling program focused on mental health, emotional regulation and offence-related risk factors with a Registered Social Worker with Durham Psychotherapy. The therapist’s impression is that his risk of future criminal behaviour is low if he continues to engage in therapy; strengthens his emotional regulation skills; reduces his reliance on cannabis for coping; and maintains his current commitments to parenting and stable employment. He has expressed a strong desire to continuing therapy and indicated he does not want to repeat the choices that led to this conviction. (Exhibit 2, Tab 1)

17Mr. Masters-George spoke to the court directly at the sentencing hearing. He was remorseful. He told me that he that he put himself in this situation and that he has learned his lesson. He has learned from his experience of being charged and living with the related uncertainty and stress not only for himself, but also for his family and children over the last three years. He said that this experience has led him to cut ties with people involved in trafficking and deters him from any future criminal behaviour.

2. LEGAL PRINCIPLES

(a) Purpose, Objectives and Principles of Sentencing

18The purpose and objectives of sentencing are set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46:

718 The fundamental purpose of sentencing 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 just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:

(a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;

(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;

(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;

(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and

(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community.

19The fundamental and overarching principle of sentencing is that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender: s. 718.1. Proportionality requires the more serious a crime and its consequences, or the greater the offender’s degree of moral culpability or blameworthiness, the heavier the sentence will be: R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 1089, at para. 12.

20Other sentencing principles are set out in s. 718.2 and include:

The principle of individualization, which involves consideration of the individual circumstances of each offender and the offence committed by the offender. The sentence therefore must be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating factors as they relate to the offence or the offender: s. 718.2(a); and R. v. Pham, 2013 SCC 15, [2013] 1 S.C.R. 739, at para. 8.
The parity principle, which requires treating similar offenders who commit similar offences in similar circumstances in a similar way: s. 718.2(b).
The restraint principle which requires that an offender should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate; and that all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances should be first considered: ss. 718.2(d) and (e). This principle is particularly important when dealing with first time offenders.

21These other sentencing principles are tools that help calibrate proportionate sentences and must be taken into account: R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46, [2021] 3 S.C.R. 366, at paras. 10-12; R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, 159 O.R. 3(d) 641, at para. 61; Lacasse, at paras. 53-54.

(b) Anti-Black Racism – R. v. Morris

22Anti-Black racism is a reality in our society. It is reflected in our social institutions including the criminal justice system. Its impact can be profound and insidious on those who experience it. In Morris, our Court of Appeal addressed how trial judges should take evidence of anti-Black racism into account on sentencing. As the Court explained at para. 56:

A sentencing judge has a specific and focused task. A sentencing judge must impose a sentence tailored to the individual offender and the specific offence. While evidence relating to the impact of anti-Black racism on an offender will sometimes be an important consideration on sentencing, the trial judge’s task is not primarily aimed at holding the criminal justice system accountable for systemic failures. Rather, the sentencing judge must determine a fit sentence governed by the fundamental tenets of criminal responsibility, including free will, and the purposes, principles and objectives of sentencing laid down in Part XXIII of the Criminal Code. [Citations omitted].

23Courts should admit evidence on sentencing directed at the existence of anti-Black racism in the offender’s community, and the impact of that racism on the offender’s background and circumstances. Social context evidence relating to an offender’s life experiences may be used where relevant to: (1) mitigate the offender’s degree of responsibility for the offence; and/or (2) to assist in the blending of the principles and objectives of sentencing to achieve a sentence which best serves the purposes of sentencing described in s. 718. However, an offender’s experience with anti-Black racism does not impact on the seriousness or gravity of the offence. Evidence that an offender’s choices were limited or influenced by his or her disadvantaged circumstances speaks to the offender’s moral responsibility for his or her acts and not to the seriousness of the crimes: Morris, at paras. 13, 76 and 123.

24While there need not be a direct causal link between the offence and the negative effects of anti-Black racism on the offender before anti-Black racism can be seen as mitigating personal responsibility, some connection is required. As the Court explained in Morris at para. 97:

There must, however, be some connection between the overt and systemic racism identified in the community and the circumstances or events that are said to explain or mitigate the criminal conduct in issue. Racism may have impacted on the offender in a way that bears on the offender’s moral culpability for the crime, or it may be relevant in some other way to a determination of the appropriate sentence. Absent some connection, mitigation of sentence based simply on the existence of overt or institutional racism in the community becomes a discount based on the offender’s colour. Everyone agrees there can be no such discount. [Citations omitted.]

25Anti-Black racism is also relevant in considering the restraint principle. Courts should bear in mind the well-established over-incarceration of Black offenders, and particularly young male offenders. However, in sentencing for serious crimes, some term of imprisonment will usually be required to reflect the seriousness of the crime. If the court determines that a sentence of less than two years imprisonment is appropriate, the restraint principle favours conditional sentences over incarceration, if a conditional sentence is consistent with the proportionality principle: Morris, at paras. 123-125.

3. analysis

26I find the following to be aggravating circumstances:

(a) The conspiracy involved street level trafficking for personal profit. Mr. Masters-George is not a user himself and not involved in trafficking to fuel any addiction issue. He had other legal options readily available to supplement his legitimate employment income but consciously chose illegality and to take the risk of criminal sanction because it was an easy way to make money.

While this is an aggravating factor, I disagree with the Crown that the Mr. Masters-George was purely motivated by greed and profit. While certainly Mr. Masters-George was motivated by profit, he was working full-time and appeared to be trafficking to supplement his income to support himself and his family rather than to live an extravagant lifestyle. I accept defence counsel’s submission that Mr. Masters-George’s number one concern is providing for his children and that this was his main motivation.

(b) This offence did not involve an isolated incident. As revealed in the intercepted communications, Mr. Masters-George had an established client-base which Mr. Smith serviced for him while he away on vacation for a week. Moreover, the defence does not dispute that the evidence establishes that this one week conspiracy was not the only time Mr. Masters-George was involved with trafficking.

(c) There was a level of sophistication and planning involved in this conspiracy to traffic cocaine. Planning was involved in ensuring someone Mr. Master-George could trust would cover his illicit business while he was on vacation. Moreover, Mr. Masters-George made efforts to avoid police detection by using multiple phones and by the guarded nature of his communications.

27I find there are many mitigating circumstances. They are:

(a) His lack of a criminal record.

(b) His difficult upbringing and his efforts to overcome them.

(c) His gainful full-time employment for over a decade and the fact that he is an excellent worker. He performs an essential service, often working on emergencies with our city’s water system such as a water main break.

(d) The support of his family, friends and supervisor, all of whom speak very highly of him.

(e) His community involvement.

(f) His participation in counselling to deal with his trauma and get at the root cause of his offending and his plans to continue with therapy.

(g) His long-standing pattern of caring and providing for his family members. His ongoing care and financial support of his children is particularly mitigating.

(h) His remorse and accountability.

(i) I also find some limited mitigation on account of the principles from Morris. Mr. Masters-George has experienced overt and system anti-Black racism as noted above. Despite the challenges he has faced, through his own determination and actions, he overcame these difficulties, obtained a diploma and maintained steady good employment. While no direct causal link between the offence and the negative effects of anti-Black racism on Mr. Masters-George has been established, I find there is some, albeit tenuous, connection. Overt and systemic anti-Black racism may have contributed to Mr. Masters-George’s exposure to criminal elements involved in drug trafficking which, later in his life, may have made the option of trafficking both readily available and an attractive way to supplement his income despite the availability of other legal means to do so and his otherwise prosocial life.

28The gravity of this offence is high and denunciation and deterrence are the primary sentencing considerations. Mr. Masters-George trafficked cocaine for profit. Planning was involved in this conspiracy. The havoc illicit drugs has on our community is all too well known. As explained by Code J. in R. v. Graham, 2018 ONSC 6817, at para. 44: “cocaine is a hard drug because it is addictive and because it causes significant direct and indirect damage to users, to their families, and to the safety and security of society.” Also well known is the association between cocaine trafficking and violence: Graham, at para. 45. See also R. v. Woolcock, [2002] O.J. No. 4927 (C.A.) at para. 8; and R. v. DiPasquale, 2023 ONSC 758, at paras. 23, 33 and 38.

29With respect to parity, the parties agree that sentencing cases for trafficking or possession for the purposes of trafficking cocaine in smaller amounts are relevant. The range of sentence for these types of cases is six months to two years less a day depending on the quantity of the drug involve and the circumstances of the offence and the offender: Woolcock, at para. 15 (6.3 grams – 15 months); R. v. Butters, 2017 ONCA 973, at para. 6 (0.20 grams – six months); R. v. Ahmed, 2016 ONCA 831, at para. 4 (28 grams – two years); R. v. Barreira, 2024 ONSC 4682, at para. 41 (16.5 grams – 11 months).

30Sentencing ranges are guidelines and not straight-jackets. Moreover, while carceral sentences are the norm for trafficking and conspiracy to traffic cocaine after a trial, a sentence must be individualized and rehabilitation and restraint takes on some prominence in this case.

31I have no trouble finding that Mr. Masters-George has excellent rehabilitative potential. He has expressed remorse. It is to Mr. Masters-George’s great credit, that he overcame the difficulties he faced when he was a youth, including his experiences with racism, earned a diploma and maintained full-time employment for over a decade where he has excelled. He has put himself on an employment path that offers job security and the opportunity for professional growth. He has a strong network of support in the community. Moreover, he has taken positive steps to rehabilitate himself by started therapy to deal with his past trauma and get at the root cause of his offending.

32Prior to receiving the defence sentencing materials, the Crown intended to seek incarceration in the Woolcock range. In recognition of the significant mitigating factors, the Crown now seeks an 18 month conditional sentence with 12 months served on house arrest with exceptions, including for work and child care.

33I agree with the Crown and defence counsel that incarceration is not warranted as it would not be proportional in the unique attenuating circumstances of this case. In particular, given the following:

the compelling mitigating circumstances, in particular his ongoing employment and responsibilities to his children;
Mr. Master’s-George’s high prospects for rehabilitation and the related lower need for specific deterrence;
the collateral consequence of family separation that would result from a jail sentence given his care, responsibilities and financial support of his children: R. v. Habib, 2024 ONCA 830, at paras 41-48; and
the over-incarceration of Black offenders: Morris, at paras. 123-125.

34The defence seeks a suspended sentence and probation or alternatively a conditional sentence. If a conditional sentence is ordered, the defence seeks that a third be served on house arrest; a third on a curfew; and a third without a curfew.

35The defence relies on several cases where a suspended sentence and probation were imposed for drug trafficking that pre-date 2022. However, between 2012 and 2022, conditional sentences were not available for drug trafficking offences. Defence counsel candidly acknowledged he was unable to find a case where a suspended sentence was imposed post-2022 when conditional sentences became available again. This is not to say that a suspended sentence is necessarily unavailable in this case or that a suspended sentence would not have been imposed if conditional sentences were available in the pre-2022 cases filed by the defence.

36Cases after 2022 involving the trafficking of cocaine have imposed conditional sentences where exceptional mitigating factors or unique circumstances existed, for example circumstances that involve guilty pleas, the lack of a criminal record, positive circumstances of the offender and strong rehabilitative efforts and potential of the offender: R. v. Banks, 2025 ONSC 4909 at para. 34. Cases where conditional sentences were imposed include: R. v. DiPasquale, 2023 ONSC 758, at para. 24 and 31 to 40 (200 grams – 12 month CSO); R. v. Banks, at paras. 30, 41-45 and 48 (682 grams – 2 year CSO); R. v. Daniel, 2024 O.J. No. 2200 (O.C.J.), at paras. 8-9 and 12-14 (6 grams trafficked and 58 grams found – 12 month CSO). I note that these cases also endorse the six month to two year less a day range.

37I agree with the Crown and defence that the most relevant sentencing decision on parity is R. v. Kluke, an unreported oral decision of Bawden J. from this court, delivered on March 6, 2024. Kluke is a related case as it, like this case, arises out Project Venom, a large scale wiretap investigation by the Toronto Police. Mr. Kluke pleaded guilty to possession of 10.5 grams of cocaine for the purposes of trafficking. The Crown sought a conditional sentence and the defence sought a suspended sentence and probation. Bawden J. imposed a 15 month conditional sentence.

38Defence counsel highlighted some distinctions between Mr. Kluke and Mr. Masters‑George. I accept that differences exist; however, viewed as a whole, the circumstances of the offences and the offenders in the two cases are, in my assessment, remarkably similar. I also accept the defence position that Justice Bawden’s decision does not, in itself, preclude the imposition of a suspended sentence in this case, and I do not approach it on that basis. Nonetheless, I find his reasoning on proportionality and parity to be cogent and apt.

39I recognize that sentencing is a highly individualized process and I must tailor my sentence to the circumstances of Mr. Masters-George and to the circumstances of this case. I must balance the multiplicity of factors present before me and determine a fair, fit and principled sentence.

40I agree with the defence that a suspended sentence and probation would account for the mitigating circumstances, collateral consequences, Mr. Masters-George’s rehabilitative potential and the need for restraint. However, I cannot ignore the gravity of the offence and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

41As the Supreme Court explained in R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5, at paras. 22 and 23 [emphasis in original]:

22 The conditional sentence incorporates some elements of non-custodial measures and some others of incarceration. Because it is served in the community, it will generally be more effective than incarceration at achieving the restorative objectives of rehabilitation, reparations to the victim and community, and the promotion of a sense of responsibility in the offender. However, it is also a punitive sanction capable of achieving the objectives of denunciation and deterrence. It is this punitive aspect that distinguishes the conditional sentence from probation, and it is to this issue that I now turn.

(1) Comparing Conditional Sentences with Probation

23 There has been some confusion among members of the judiciary and the public alike about the difference between a conditional sentence and a suspended sentence with probation. This confusion is understandable, as the statutory provisions regarding conditions to be attached to conditional sentences (s. 742.3) and probation orders (s. 732.1) are very similar. Notwithstanding these similarities, there is an important distinction between the two. While a suspended sentence with probation is primarily a rehabilitative sentencing tool, the evidence suggests that Parliament intended a conditional sentence to address both punitive and rehabilitative objectives.

See also paras. 32-37 and 127; and R. v. Wu, 2003 SCC 73, at paras. 25-26.

42Most of the mitigating circumstances – including Mr. Masters-George’s employment, his supportive family and friends, his care and responsibility for his children – were all present over the extended period of time he was trafficking substances and during this conspiracy. The potential for criminal consequences from his offending were known to him at the time of the conspiracy. Yet he chose to offend and put his future and that of his children at risk. There were clearly other legal ways for Mr. Masters-George to earn extra income, for example, by working more overtime as he has done since his arrest. Moreover, unlike in Kluke, there is no evidence that granting a conditional sentence rather than a suspended sentence would have any impact on Mr. Masters-George’s employment and also Mr. Kluke pleaded guilty.

43I find that a suspended sentence and probation is contrary to the public interest and it would not be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and Mr. Masters-George’s degree of culpability. It would also not sufficiently reflect the need for denunciation and general deterrence.

44When I consider all of the circumstances present, I find that a term of imprisonment is warranted, one that is served in the community. I find that a conditional sentence more appropriately reflects the balancing of all the principles and objectives of sentencing and achieves both the punitive and restorative objectives present in this case.

4. CONCLUSION

45In all the circumstances, I find a fair, fit and proportional sentence to be an 18 month conditional sentence. In addition to the statutory terms, Mr. Masters-George will comply with the following conditions:

(a) For the first 6 months: House arrest with exceptions for work; to take his children to and from school or child care; medical emergencies involving Mr. Masters-George or his children; attendance at counselling as approved by his supervisor; and four hours per week for necessities as scheduled with his supervisor.

(b) For the next six month: a curfew, the details of which are to be discussed with counsel.

I will hear submissions from counsel on any other terms required.

46In addition, there will be the following orders:

(a) a s. 109 weapons prohibition order for 10 years.

(b) a forfeiture order for the property seized (cocaine, Percocet, Canadian and American currency and drug trafficking paraphernalia).

47The Crown also seeks a DNA order for this secondary designated offence. In all the circumstances, I agree with the defence that a DNA order is not necessary given the nature of the offence and Mr. Masters-George’s rehabilitative potential.

The Honourable Justice L. Shin

Released: February 13, 2026

CITATION: CITATION: R. v. Masters-George, 2026 ONSC 3365

COURT FILE NO.: CR-25-20000146-0000

DATE: 20260213

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE