R. v. Pope, 2026 ONSC 3424

CITATION: R. v. Pope, 2026 ONSC 3424

COURT FILE NO.: CR: 24-1467

DATE: 2026-06-11

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

C. Sweeny, for the Crown Attorney, A. DiSimoni, for the Public Prosecution Service of Canada

• and -

JOSEPH POPE

M. Salih, on behalf of the offender

HEARD: May 29, 2026

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

A.J. GOODMAN J.:

1On May 5, 2026, the offender, Joseph Pope (“Pope”), plead guilty to several offences including possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to the provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19 (“CDSA”). The offender also plead guilty to firearm-related charges, including possession of a loaded restricted firearm and three breaches of firearm prohibition orders, contrary to their respective provisions in the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985 c. C-46. Convictions were registered on the indictment.

2The offences are alleged to have occurred on April 10, 2025 in the City of Hamilton. An Agreed Statement of Facts was filed.

3Ms. Sweeny, for the Provincial Crown, seeks a sentence of four to five years for the possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, pursuant to s. 95 of the Criminal Code, and six to eight months consecutive for each of the weapons prohibitions breaches for a total of five and a half to seven years, along with ancillary orders.

4The Crown attorney’s position with respect to the firearm-related charges is consecutive to the sentence sought by the Federal Crown. The Crown says that this results in a global sentence of 12-14 years. The prosecution submits that the principle of totality has already been considered by both Crowns in reaching this global position.

5Ms. DiSimoni for the Federal Prosecution Service seeks a jail sentence of eight to nine years for the fentanyl-related count, less pre-sentence custody, along with ancillary orders. The Federal Crown submits that the large amount of drugs implicated in this case, approximately 609.09 grams of fentanyl, along with a significant quantity of cocaine and other illicit drugs, warrants a substantial penitentiary sentence to reflect the principles of denunciation and deterrence.

6Ms. Salih, on behalf of her client, requests a net sentence of between eight and 10 years, taking into account the principles of totality and any Duncan mitigation. While it is conceded that the offender may be a mid-level trafficker, the defence submits that the range of sentence suggested by the Crown is somewhat excessive.

7The defence submits that mitigating factors include that Pope was 24 years old at the time of the offence. He entered a guilty plea, which saves valuable court resources and demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his actions. Pope had a difficult upbringing including harsh socio-economic conditions and a host of cognitive and behavioural struggles that lead to difficulties completing school. He has completed further high school education at 23 years old and enrolled in the Toronto Film School. He has a supportive family, demonstrated genuine remorse, and a desire to live pro-social life upon release. He successfully completed 29 programs while in custody. He has recently become a father – a strong motivating factor.

8The defence says that Pope has endured harsh conditions in pre-sentence custody, including lockdowns and triple bunking. When reduced for the requisite mitigation and other credits, counsel submits that the remaining time to serve ought to be reduced to a range of between 75.5 to 99.5 months to reflect the guilty plea and aforementioned considerations. There is essentially no issue with respect to the ancillary orders requested by the Crown.

Circumstances of the offence:

9The circumstances of the convictions are outlined in the Agreed Statement of Facts filed by the Crown. Briefly, the salient facts include:

On April 10th, 2025, a CDSA search warrant was executed at 63-580 Limeridge Rd. E. in Hamilton. Joseph Pope resided in the basement of that residence with his girlfriend Aliyah Calabrese.

Throughout this area, several medications were located in the name of Joseph Pope as well as tax documents and a passport in Joseph Pope’s name.

The following items were located and seized from the basement, and were in the possession of Joseph Pope at the time the search warrant was executed: Located inside a computer desk was a loaded Glock 23 firearm containing 4 rounds of .40 caliber ammunition; 609.09 g of Fentanyl; 56.85 g of MDMA; 75.12 g of Cocaine; 81 pills of Hydromorphone; 29 pills of Buprenorphine; 100 pills of Codeine; 538.69 g of Dimethylsulphone (cutting agent; Approximately 200 unused plastic dime bags with a red stripe; Three operating scales with residue; and $4315.00 CAD

In a search incident to arrest, police located the following items on Joseph Pope’s person: A white iPhone in his right pant pocket; A silver iPhone in his front left jacket pocket; Two rounds of .40 caliber ammunition in his front left jacket pocket.

The seized firearm is a semi-automatic handgun. It is a prohibited firearm as defined by the Criminal Code. It was test-fired and functioned as designed. Joseph Pope knowingly certificate for the firearm.

The substances seized were confirmed by Health Canada Certificates of Analyst.

Joseph Pope was bound by three separate prohibition orders: • A s.110 weapons prohibition order signed by Justice Zivolak on July 12th, 2023, valid for a period of ten years; A s.109 weapons prohibition order signed by Justice Camara on February 2nd 2022, valid for a period of 10 years; A s.109 weapons prohibition order signed by Justice Gage on November 1st, 2019, valid for a period of 10 years. Joseph Pope was also bound by a probation order signed by Justice Zivolak on July 12th, with relevant terms that he keep the peace and be of good behaviour and not to possess any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code.

Circumstances of the offender:

10Ms. Salih filed voluminous materials in support of her client. Counsel’s efforts in presenting these comprehensive materials are very helpful to the court. Included in the materials are affidavits and other information related to his character and time in custody pending disposition.

11In his affidavit, Pope writes inter alia:

My mother stayed home alone to raise us. Growing up, our family always struggled financially. We sometimes relied on foodbanks and meals provided by the church to feed our family.

Several of the neighbourhoods I grew up in where low-income, including areas I lived in in north Hamilton. There was a lot of crime and drug activity and a strong police presence.

Between grades 1 and 3, I was diagnosed with: A learning disability, Obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), Oppositional defiance disorder (ODD) and Attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)

My father often used physical violence to discipline me when growing up.

I took medication to manage my conditions, but I still found it difficult to apply myself in school.

In and around November of 2023, I was in a car accident while a passenger. Ever since then, I have experienced ongoing pain in my left shoulder and nerve pain in my left leg. I began doing physiotherapy approximately one month after the accident and I take Lyrica for the nerve pain.

12The offender also provided a letter of apology to the Court:

Thank you your honor for giving me the chance to speak. I would just like to start off by saying…I’m sorry I understand this all don’t look good on be behalf with what was found and I know the case against me look’s very strong. I take full responsibility for everything. My sanificant (sic) other has zero responsibility for my action’s, nor do I wasn’t her to have to suffer any consequences for my action’s. I would appreicaite (sic) it if you could let me take full ownership on what was found so my sanificant (sic) other is able to be there for our daughter. I understand the charges I’m facing are very serious and come with a lot of time your asking for.

Like I mentioned before I understand the charge’s I’m facing are very serious and come with a lot of time your asking for but if you could take my new born and my schooling into perspective when your choosing my sentence I would appicaite (sic) that a lot. So that I’m able to help raise my daughter it would be a blessing.

If I got the opportunity to be granted a redused (sic) sentence it would give me the chance to help raise by daughter & get right back to finishing my schooling for a better future for my family. Thanks again your honor (sic) I will respect whatever your desition (sic) is no matter what my outcome is.

13The offender also presented numerous character references from his Bishop and family members, which I have briefly summarized:

Jason Julian writes: I have known Joseph Pope and his immediate family for over ten years now. During that time, I served as Joseph’s Bishop while he attended The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a youth participating in the Young Men’s program.

I also remember Joseph as being very resourceful and motivated from a young age when it came to earning money and pursuing goals.

I came to know and care deeply for his family as well. I recognized that they often struggled financially, but I always admired the heart within their home. Joseph’s mother, in particular, seemed to be the glue that held the family together despite difficult circumstances. Around us, Joseph was consistently well-mannered and appreciative of kindness with still a bit of mischief in him so you had to keep one eye on him or you may end up being pushed in the pool! At the same time, I could also see someone who struggled internally and wanted to do the right thing but often seemed burdened by his past experiences and the pressure to fit in or protect himself.

I visited Joseph while he was incarcerated for the first time, and I remember feeling heartbroken and disappointed by the circumstances he found himself in. during that visit he showed me some of his drawings and sketches, which I found extremely well done. After his release, we continued to stay in contact. Joseph knows that I am disappointed and saddened by the choices he has made and the circumstances he now finds himself in as a result. At the same time, I have encouraged him to use the pain, lessons, and hardships of his experiences as motivation to pursue an honourable and productive life moving forward.

On our most recent call, Joseph spoke to me enthusiastically about his Bible studies. I sincerely believe that if he not only reads but applies the teachings he is studying, faith can become a source of strength, guidance, and stability in his life. In many ways, it is difficult for me to reconcile these allegations with the young man I came to know over the years. Nonetheless, I believe Joseph still has the capacity to rebuild his life.

Edith Christine Pope writes: and I am the mother of Joseph Ryan Samuel Pope. Ryan was born and raised in a difficult environment. Ryan also faced serious medical challenges as a child. At the sage of two he was diagnosed with ADHD, ODD, and OCD. Throughout his youth he attended numerous medical appointments and received treatment and support for these conditions. He was prescribed several medications at different points in his life, and he struggled to manage in school. Despite the challenges he experienced growing up, Ryan has always shown kindness and compassion toward others. In my experience, he is someone who cares deeply about his family and about people who are struggling.

Ryan is now a father to a beautiful baby girl. Even though they have been estranged since her birth, he asks about her every single day. It is clear to me that he loves her very much and wants to be a positive presence in her life. I believe that this time in custody has been a wake-up call for Ryan to change his life around to be there for his daughter.

She continues: I do not excuse the circumstances that have brought Ryan before the Court. I understand the seriousness of these proceedings and the impact that criminal conduct can have on others and on the community. I continue to support Ryan, and I remain hopeful that he can address the issues that have contributed to his current situation. I believe he is capable of rehabilitation of becoming a more stable and productive person with the proper structure, treatment, and support.

Derrick Samuel Pope writes: I am Ryan’s father. I am writing briefly to provide the court with my perspective on Ryan. There were long periods during Ryan’s childhood when I was not consistently present in his life because work. I regret the instability this created for him and for our family. Ryan experienced significant difficulties from a very young age. He struggled in school and was diagnosed early in life with ADHD, ODD, and OCD. Ryan’s mother and I are committed to being there for Ryan and making sure he has the support he needs when it is time for him to transition back into the community.

Derrick Eli Clarence Pope is the offender’s older brother. He writes: I genuinely believe Joseph is an intelligent person with a lot of potential, but in the years before his incarceration he was influenced down the wrong path. He has a way of lifting the energy in any room, and he has always been someone people can turn to when they have no one else. That selfless spirit has had a real impact on my son’s life, and it makes me proud to call him my brother. When Joseph is released from jail, I will reciprocate that same love and support that he has always shown my son and me.

Carmela Taiello is the offender’s sister-in-law. She writes: Throughout the years I have know Joseph, he has always been a loving brother-in-law as well as an amazing uncle. He has always been supportive, dependable, and there for us when we need him. Joseph would always accompany us on outings to spend time with my son, for example, going to Canadas Wonderland, going on hikes, and going to festivals, which my son always looked forward to with Joseph (Uncle Ryan). I know that Joseph feels deep and genuine remorse for his actions. When released, Joseph plans to complete his studies in graphic design and secure employment so he can support his daughter. I truly believe Joseph has a good heart and the ability to make positive change in his life.

Legal Authorities:

14I have been provided with numerous cases from both Crown and defence counsel on the issue of the appropriate sentence to be imposed. Although the law is clear that each case turns on its own specific facts, a careful review of these cases, to the extent I can find similarities to the case before me, does assist me in determining what an appropriate range is for the sentence to be imposed. As some of the cases relied upon by counsel are distinguishable on the facts or the circumstances of the particular offender, my intention is to briefly set out those cases that are somewhat similar to the issues in the case at bar.

15It is not controversial that the Supreme Court of Canada addressed the appropriate sentencing considerations for fentanyl trafficking in the seminal case of R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46, 411 C.C.C. (3d) 1.

16In Parranto, the court affirmed that proportionality is the organizing principle in sentencing, and parity and individualization, while important, are secondary principles which inform the proportionality assessment: at paras. 9-12. Thus, the majority held, “[a]ll sentencing starts with the principle that sentences must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender”: Parranto, at para. 10, citing R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, at para. 30.

17In determining the appropriate sentence, judges are required to balance a multiplicity of factors having regard to the objectives and principles defined in Part XXIII of the Criminal Code. The exercise is discretionary and is “[m]ore of an art than a science”: Parranto, at para. 9.

18At para. 68, the majority in Parranto determined the national range of sentences for trafficking large quantities of fentanyl to be eight to 15 years of custody:

A more accurate range based on a review of reported case law nationally would be in the region of 8 to 15 years. For example, eight-year sentences were imposed in Smith (2019) (1834 pills, as part of an 11-year sentence), as well as R. v. Leach, 2019 BCCA 451 (11,727 pills, as part of a 16-year sentence); R. v. Sinclair, 2016 ONCA 683; R. v. Solano-Santana, 2018 ONSC 3345 (5000 pills); R. v. White, 2020 NSCA 33, 387 C.C.C. (3d) 106 (2086 pills); and R. v. Borris, 2017 NBQB 253 (4200 pills). Other sentences imposed include: an 8-year and two-month sentence in R. v. Sidhu, C.J. Ontario, No. 17-821, June 16, 2017, aff’d 2019 ONCA 880, in which the offender trafficked 89 g of fentanyl and other drugs soon after being released on parole; a 10-year sentence in R. v. Petrowski, 2020 MBCA 78, 393 C.C.C. (3d) 102, for trafficking 51 g [of] fentanyl where the offender used a co-accused to insulate himself from detection; 11 years for trafficking 204.5 g of a fentanyl blend in R. v. Vezina, 2017 ONCJ 775; 13 years for trafficking 232 g [of] fentanyl and large quantities of other drugs as part of a sophisticated drug trafficking operation in R. v. Mai, [2017] O.J. No. 7248 (Ont. S.C.J.); and 15 years for a profit-motivated offender who was the directing mind of a “large-scale drug trafficking operation involving an enormous amount of fentanyl” in R. v. Fuller, 2019 ONCJ 643 (the offender possessed about 3 kg of fentanyl in the course of the conspiracy).

9Moldaver J. wrote an authoritative concurring judgment in Parranto, in which he recognized that fentanyl “has altered the landscape of the substance abuse crisis in Canada” such that the gravity of harm caused by fentanyl trafficking now far exceeds that of trafficking heroin and cocaine: at paras. 86-87, 93, 96. As such, sentencing for fentanyl trafficking should reflect this increased understanding, as Moldaver J. explained at para. 101:

Ultimately, largescale trafficking in fentanyl is a crime that preys disproportionally on the misery of others — the marginalized and those whose lives are marked by hopelessness and despair. It is a crime motivated by greed and by a callous disregard for the untold grief and suffering it leaves in its wake. Above all, it is a crime that kills — often and indiscriminately. It follows, in my view, that what matters most is that those individuals who choose to prey on the vulnerable and profit from the misery of the Canadian public for personal gain are sentenced in accordance with the severity of the harms they have caused. Fentanyl trafficking, and largescale trafficking in particular, are a source of unspeakable harm. Accordingly, while the range of sentences currently imposed for the directing minds of largescale fentanyl operations straddles the upper single digits and lower double digits, sentencing judges should feel justified, where circumstances warrant, in applying a higher range, consisting of mid-level double digit sentences and, in particularly aggravating circumstances, potential sentences of life imprisonment.

20R. v. England, 2024 ONCA 360, was a case where there was 95.5 grams of fentanyl, 909.1 grams of crystal meth, 151.3 grams of cocaine and firearm offences. The offender was sentenced to 10 years for the drugs and seven and a half years for the firearm offences. The 17.5 years was reduced to 15.5 years on the principle of totality. There was a further 21 months for custodial conditions.

21In R. v. Lynch, 2022 ONCA 109, the court heard an appeal of a case involving 965 grams of cocaine with 149 grams of MDMA. The offender had plead guilty and was a first time offender for trafficking. He had a very limited criminal record and was 29 years old at the time of offence. The Court of Appeal confirmed that the appropriate range for mid-level traffickers in fentanyl is six to eight years.

22In the case of R. v. Séguin 2023 ONCA 514, the offender was convicted of 466 grams of fentanyl along with a quantity of Methamphetamine. The Court of Appeal upheld a 12 year sentence.

23The impact of the fentanyl crisis in the Hamilton region was noted in R. v. Ribble, 2019 ONCJ 640, aff’d 2021 ONCA 897, a decision from the Ontario Court of Justice in this jurisdiction. At paras. 52-53, Agro J. stated:

More recently, fentanyl powder has flooded the illicit drug market and the number of fentanyl powder cases is rapidly increasing across the province and notably in this jurisdiction.

In Hamilton, I see fentanyl abuse regularly identified as underlying many of the offences committed in this jurisdiction; possession of fentanyl charges have increased in plea court and fentanyl users are the new norm in drug treatment court. Sadly, our detention centre is notorious for drug overdoses, including fentanyl.

24The offender in Ribble had 15.9 grams and was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment, inclusive of a 1 year consecutive term for prohibition breaches.

25Cases including Ribble that have imposed sentences in the upper single digits tend to involve lesser amounts of fentanyl. The offender in R v. Sidhu, 2019 ONCA 880, who had a prior related record, trafficked 89 grams of fentanyl and was sentenced to eight years. In R v. Disher, 2020 ONCA 710, the case involved 42.6 grams of fentanyl and carfentanil, with the offender having an extensive criminal record spanning 15 years including prior offences for trafficking. On appeal, the original 12 year sentence was reduced to eight years.

26In R. v. Fuller, 2019 ONCJ 643, Latimer J. (as he then was) discussed the “overwhelming” harm caused by fentanyl and the need for courts to bring denunciation and deterrence to the forefront in response: at paras. 30, 53. The offender in Fuller was the “directing mind” of a fentanyl, cocaine, and methamphetamine trafficking ring, and had three kilograms of fentanyl in his possession (one of which was returned to his supplier due to poor quality).

27Considering the nature of fentanyl and the general direction in R. v. Loor, 2017 ONCA 696 (that “offenders – even first offenders – who traffic significant amounts of fentanyl should expect to receive significant penitentiary sentences”), Latimer J. imposed a 15-year sentence for the fentanyl-related count. While the offender was remorseful and pleaded guilty at an early opportunity, the amount of fentanyl and other schedule narcotics was “enormous,” and he was a repeat drug offender who acted “solely for personal profit”: at paras. 51-52. The co-accused, on the other hand, received a 13-year sentence following a joint submission. The admitted facts in her case included her co-conspirator possessing three kilograms of poor quality fentanyl. Relative to her co-accused, her lesser sentence was reflective of her “subordinate role” in the trafficking ring and her extra early guilty plea which was entered before a preliminary inquiry was set.

28R. v. Lu, 2022 ONSC 1918 also dealt with a commercial-level drug offender with no prior record. He was convicted of trafficking in 0.5 kilograms of cocaine, 0.5 kilograms of fentanyl, and 0.5 kilograms of fentanyl and heroin, amongst other counts. The Crown sought an eight to 12 year jail sentence arguing the offender was the main player in the trafficking scheme, while the defence sought a sentence of three to four years. Di Luca J. found that while the offender was not the main player of the scheme himself, he was a “high-level trusted associate”: at para. 71. He imposed a global sentence of nine and a half years.

General Principles in Firearms Sentencing:

29The gravity of gun crimes cannot be overexaggerated. Guns kill and maim, terrorize and intimidate. For well over a decade, judges have emphasized the plague represented by firearms and the profound consequences that firearms have on the safety of our communities. Such concerns have been elevated in recent times with the proliferation of gun crime in Hamilton. I am entitled to take judicial notice of the impact of increased gun related crimes and wanton violence as a result of shootings in the community.

30In R. v. Brown, 2010 ONCA 745 at para. 14, the court held:

…[H]andguns are an all too prevalent menace in the Greater Toronto Area. First and foremost, the sentences imposed for firearms offences must further the sentencing goals of denunciation, deterrence and protection of the public.

31In the leading case of R. v. Nur, 2015 SCC 15 (Moldaver, J. in dissent) opined, at paras. 131 and 136:

131 Gun crime is a matter of grave and growing public concern. Successive Parliaments have responded by enacting laws designed to denounce and deter such crime…

136 Section 95 targets the simple possession of guns that are frequently used in gang-related and other criminal activity. Parliament has concentrated on simple possession for a reason: firearms – and particularly the firearms caught by s. 95 – are inherently dangerous. In R. v. Felawka, the Court recognized that “[a] firearm is expressly designed to kill or wound” and that “[n]o matter what the intention may be of the person carrying a gun, the firearm itself presents the ultimate threat of death to those in its presence” (p. 211). As the Attorney General of Canada observes in his factum, this sober reality resonates all the more for “restricted firearms (principally handguns) and prohibited firearms (principally machine guns and sawed-off rifles or shotguns).” These firearms are “the most strictly regulated because they are either easily concealable or generally do not serve a legitimate hunting or target shooting purpose.” Outside of law enforcement, these guns are primarily found in the hands of criminals who use them to intimidate, wound, maim, and kill. (Citations omitted).

32In R. v. St. Clair, 2018 ONSC 7028, at para 47, the court stated:

The courts have repeatedly noted that the possession of loaded handguns remains an all too prevalent threat to the people of Toronto, and to others in the Greater Toronto Area. Such firearms are frequently employed in connection with other kinds of serious criminal activity. Often, as illustrated by the facts in the present case, individuals engaged in the business of drug trafficking have loaded firearms as one of the tools of their illicit trade. In any event, the possession and use of loaded firearms tragically results, all too frequently, in serious bodily harm or death to others. The unlawful possession of firearms remains a menace to society. To combat this serious social problem, these offences must be met with exemplary custodial sentences that proportionally reflect the sheer gravity of the crime, and which appropriately stress the need to denounce and deter such crimes. In the absence of such sentences, these offences and their disastrous consequences will only continue unabated. The public must be adequately protected. This can only be accomplished by sentences that ensure that potential offenders know that their illegal possession of loaded handguns will almost invariably be accompanied by serious penal consequences…

33In R. v. Kawal, 2018 ONSC 7531 at para. 11, the judge affirmed:

Handguns are a social evil. The Supreme Court has said and there can be no possible argument against it, “Gun-related crime poses grave danger to Canadians.” The primary purpose of handguns is to maim and to kill. Lawyers and judges see first-hand the destruction wrought by handguns. They are a disease, a plague on our communities. We have the means at our disposal to eradicate or at least to drastically curtail them. It is difficult to understand why our society would not do everything in its power to ensure that handguns are not available for criminal purposes.

34In R. v. Chizanga and Meredith, 2020 ONSC 4647, Harris J. related the following, at para. 7:

The primary purpose of illegal guns is to threaten, to maim and to kill. Lawyers and judges see first-hand the destruction wrought by guns. They are a disease, a plague on our communities. We have the means at our disposal to eradicate or at least to drastically curtail them. It is difficult to understand why our society would not do everything in its power to ensure that guns are not available for criminal purposes.

35Recall that in affirming the Ontario Court of Appeal’s ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada in Nur, at para. 82, agreed with Doherty J.A. that cases within the spectrum may warrant sentences of three years or more:

Section 95(1) casts its net over a wide range of potential conduct. Most cases within the range may well merit a sentence of three years or more, but conduct at the far end of the range may not. At one end of the range, as Doherty J.A. observed, “stands the outlaw who carries a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm in public places as a tool of his or her criminal trade…. [T]his person is engaged in truly criminal conduct and poses a real and immediate danger to the public”: para. 51. At this end of the range — indeed for the vast majority of offences — a three-year sentence may be appropriate. A little further along the spectrum stands the person whose conduct is less serious and poses less danger; for these offenders three years’ imprisonment may be disproportionate, but not grossly so. At the far end of the range, stands the licensed and responsible gun owner who stores his unloaded firearm safely with ammunition nearby, but makes a mistake as to where it can be stored. For this offender, a three-year sentence is grossly disproportionate to the sentence the conduct would otherwise merit under the sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code.

36Since Nur, the maximum sentence for a s.95 conviction was increased from 10 to 14 years through Bill C-21, which came into force on December 15, 2023.

37Generally, I accept that the consensus for “true crime” possession of a loaded restricted or prohibited firearm is a starting point of three years imprisonment, even for first offenders. This remains true even following the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Nur striking down the mandatory minimum sentence of 3 years imprisonment under s. 95(2)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code in the case of a first offence.

Combination of firearms and other criminal activity:

38The jurisprudence is replete with cases that adopt sentences longer than three years imprisonment to be imposed on offenders who use or possess firearms in association with other criminal activity, such as drug trafficking.

39For example, in R. v. Marong, 2020 ONCA 598, the Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of 48 months imprisonment imposed on an offender who drove his co-accused to the location of a drug deal with a loaded firearm in the console of his vehicle.

40In R. v. Mansingh, 2017 ONCA 68, the Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of 43 months imprisonment imposed on an offender who was found in possession of a loaded gun while on his way to deliver marijuana to a friend and who attempted to discard the firearm while fleeing from the police.

41In R. v. Crevier, 2015 ONCA 619, the Court of Appeal declined to interfere with a four year jail sentence for a s. 95 conviction involving a semi-automatic handgun with an over-capacity magazine discovered alongside $10,000 worth of drugs. Importantly, the court clarified that the sentencing judge did not engage in “double counting” by relying on the combination of guns and drugs as an aggravating factor while also imposing a consecutive sentence for the drug offences. Rather, “he imposed a consecutive sentence for the cocaine conviction because it constituted a different legally-protected interest from the gun offences”: at para. 129.

42In R. v. Marshall, 2015 ONCA 692, the Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of three and a half years imprisonment for a youthful first offender who brought a loaded prohibited handgun to a drug deal. The court commented that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was “well within the range of sentences upheld by this court for weapons offences committed in association with drug crimes”: at para. 56.

43In R. v. Morias, 2025 ONSC 2978, J.A. Fowler Byrne J. considered a case wherein a 29 year old offender (23 at the time) hid a loaded 9mm handgun and 116.26 grams of fentanyl inside his great-grandmother’s basement. He also possessed an overcapacity magazine and cocaine. The aggravating factors were the lethal drugs and a loaded firearm in a vulnerable elderly relative’s home, and operated solely for financial gain without addiction issues. The mitigating factors were: a relatively young first-time offender with steady employment, and some experience with systemic-racism. A global sentence of eight years was imposed. The sentence was reduced from 10 years for totality.

44In R. v. Celenk, 2026 ONCA 60, the court overturned a sentence of 13 years. This case involved a 23 year old offender constructively possessed 1.35 kilograms of fentanyl hidden in an unlocked tow truck parked near his residence. The offender was also convicted of possessing a loaded restricted/prohibited Smith & Wesson handgun found in the truck. The aggravating factors were: trafficking a significant quantity and high value ($270,000) of fentanyl combined with possessing a loaded firearm. The mitigating factors were: a youthful first-time offender, strong rehabilitative potential (family support, pursued college courses), and an expression of remorse. A total sentence of 10 years was substituted.

45In R. v. Musa, 2022 ONSC 3734, R. Charney J. considered a case involving a 20 year old mid-level street trafficker was arrested in his vehicle on a residential street. Police seized a loaded Glock handgun, 130g of fentanyl, 39g of meth, 59g of cocaine, and 36g of crack. The offender was convicted of possession for purpose x3 and possession of a loaded firearm. The aggravating factors were: the offender was motivated by profit and greed, combined dangerous drugs with a loaded overcapacity firearm in a public place, committed the offences while on bail under a weapons prohibition, convicted post arrest of assault bodily harm, and the drug transactions occurred on a residential street near a public park. The mitigating factors included: youthful age (20 years old), first penitentiary sentence, faced harsh pandemic lockdown conditions in pre-trial custody. A global sentence of 9.75 years (117 months), (seven years for fentanyl, 33 months consecutive for the loaded firearm). The sentence was reduced from 11.5 years for totality.

46In R. v. Eggleton, 2023 ONSC 5724; R.J. Harper J. decided a matter involving a 37 year old offender who was found guilty of 17 counts, including trafficking 13.6g of fentanyl, 47.2g of meth, and 1.2g of cocaine. He was also found possessing a loaded sawed-off shotgun, 82 shotgun shells, and pellet guns while under a lifetime weapons prohibition. The aggravating factors were: unlawful; possession of a loaded sawed-off shotgun with significant ammunition, trafficking dangerous drugs, a lengthy criminal record spanning 22 years, including related offences, breaching multiple court orders, and absconded by cutting off his ankle monitor before sentencing. The mitigating factors included that the offender had a dysfunctional upbringing with physical and psychological abuse and significant instability and trauma, Indigenous intergenerational substance abuse, mental health issues and trauma, experienced several deaths, including pregnant girlfriend who overdosed, however, all mitigating factors were found to be negated by the fact of Eggleton absconding before sentencing. A sentence of 10 years imprisonment, five years for weapons, one year consecutive for the breach, and four years consecutive for fentanyl was imposed.

47R. v. McPherson, 2023 ONCJ 160, is a case where police observed drug users briefly visiting the offender’s residence. He was arrested after leaving in a taxi with a suitcase and backpack. He wore a satchel containing a loaded 9mm handgun with an overcapacity magazine. His suitcase contained 301.9g of fentanyl, 35.3g of cocaine, 34.7g of meth, scales, and dime bags. Another 15.6g of fentanyl was found in a safe at his residence. Aggravating factors included the offender was armed with a deadly loaded weapon equipped with an overcapacity magazine, he possessed a large quantity and variety of highly addictive/lethal drugs (fentanyl, meth, cocaine), done for profit, operated a mobile trafficking operation, he had prior convictions for violence, and committed the offences while bound by a weapons prohibition and probation order. The mitigating factors were: an early plea of guilt, expressed genuine remorse and insight into his crimes, had a 10 year gap in his related criminal record, struggled with addiction and depression following his father’s death, faced harsh pre-trial custody conditions, and had ambitions to upgrade his education/career training. A total sentence of 13 years (eight years for fentanyl, six years and three months concurrent for meth, three years consecutive for the firearm, and one year consecutive each for possession while prohibited and possessing a prohibited device was imposed. The sentence was reduced to 12 years for totality.

48In R. v. Bejamin, 2024 ONSC 4781; M.D. Forestell J. decided a case implicating a 20 year old first time offender was involved in 34 transactions trafficking 27 firearms, 12 overcapacity magazines, two selector switches, over half a kilogram of fentanyl, and cocaine. Upon arrest, he possessed a loaded handgun and additional drugs. The aggravating factors were: trafficked in a deadly combination of large quantities of lethal drugs and lethal firearms (including assault rifles), and assumed a leadership role in the enterprise. The mitigating factors were: a very young first time offender, he had entered an early guilty plea, he suffered from functional illiteracy and ADD/ADHD, had a very difficult background including the recent tragic death of his stepfather, and faced harsh pretrial custody. A global sentence of 13 years, 10 years for fentanyl, eight years consecutive for firearms trafficking was imposed. The sentence was reduced from 18 years.

49The case of R. v. George, 2024 ONSC 6016, was a matter where a 23 year old offender (20 at the time of the offences) fled from police during a raid on his apartment, where police seized 85g of fentanyl, 41g of meth, 202g of cocaine, 242g of meth, and a semi-automatic loaded firearm. Weeks later, he was arrested in a public store with a loaded Glock handgun and an additional large 92g of fentanyl, 232g of meth, 101g of cocaine, and 13g of crack. The aggravating factors were: a mid-level commercial drug trafficking, carrying a loaded firearm in public, possessing a defaced firearm, reoffending while on bail, two sets of serious charges involving a large amount of deadly substances and two different loaded firearms. The mitigating factors included: the offender endured severe childhood trauma (physical abuse poverty, racism, sexual abuse), he witnessed severe abuse suffered by his mother at lands of his father, was in foster care and experienced firsthand gun and drug crime. He had inadequate educational support and learning disability, pleaded guilty, showed remorse, youthful, and in a stable relationship with a two-year old daughter. There were immigration consequences, and he experienced onerous pre-sentence custody conditions. A global sentence of 14 years with 10.5 years remaining after credit for pre-sentence custody was imposed. The sentence was reduced from 19 years for totality.

50These cases only serves to increase the starting point from the 3 years identified in Nur and the aggravating feature when firearms are combined with other criminal activity.

Breach of Prohibition Orders (s.117.01)

51The following cases are instructive when considering breaches of firearm prohibition orders. In R. v. Degraw, 2018 ONCA 51, at para. 11, the court stated:

The legislative intent behind weapons prohibition orders is not simply to keep firearms and other dangerous weapons out of the actual hands of those at whom the orders are directed. People are not randomly targeted for weapons prohibition orders. They find themselves the subject of such orders on account of their prior conduct, conduct that typically suggests a future risk to public safety if weapons are possessed.

52Similarly, in R. v. Jones, 2011 ONSC 5330, [2011] O.J. No. 4026 (S.C.), M.G. Quigley J. held at paras. 50-51:

In my view, the legal principles and balance of the case law support a conclusion that sentence for the breach of the probation order should be imposed consecutively to the firearms offence. The offences do arise from the same transaction, but I fully accept the Crown’s submission that they do not protect the same societal interests. Protection of those differing interests demands that sentences for those differing crimes be served consecutively, not concurrently. In my view, if prohibition and probation orders are going to have any meaning and impact, they must be enforced.

This offender knew perfectly well at the time he agreed to carry and transport a firearm ... that he was subject to a prohibition order. To impose a concurrent sentence would, in many respects, make the offence of violating prohibition and probation orders superfluous. Why bother to have respect for the law when failure to adhere to the order carries no consequence beyond the punishment for the principal offence? In my view a consecutive sentence is required. It is required as part of the exercise of forcing this offender to take responsibility for his actions and knowing that he is serving not only the substantive firearms offence, but also the separate sentence for offences against the administration of justice, and that it is not a mere trifle.

53Sentences for breaches of prohibition orders are generally in the range of six to 18 months jail. In R. v. Carrol, 2014 ONSC 2063, at para. 30, Molloy J. held that breaching one prohibition order will typically warrant a one-year jail sentence, whereas 18 months jail is a fit sentence for multiple breaches.

54Premised on the prevailing jurisprudence form appellate courts, in this regard, I agree with the Crown as to the necessity of imposing consecutive enhanced sentences for flagrant breaches of weapons prohibition orders.

General Principles:

55The court is guided by the principles of sentencing as set out in the CDSA and ss. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code. As directed by s. 718 of the Criminal Code, the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing sanctions that reflect enumerated objectives. Those objectives include denunciation of the unlawful conduct, deterrence and rehabilitation. It is also important to impose a sentence that promotes a sense of responsibility in offenders and an acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and to the community.

56Section 718.2 of the Criminal Code addresses the principles of totality, parity and the principle of restraint among other factors. Section 718.2 also addresses specific aggravating and mitigating factors that shall be taken into consideration based on certain enumerated principles. The sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The circumstances of the offence and of the offender must be analyzed to identify the aggravating and the mitigating factors.

57The primary objectives in cases of this nature are general deterrence and denunciation: see e.g. Fuller, at para. 53; R. v. Olvedi, 2021 ONCA 518, 157 O.R. (3d) 583, at para. 57. General deterrence is an established sentencing objective based on the premise that the sentence imposed on an offender will discourage people who may otherwise consider committing a similar offence: see R. v. Bissonnette, 2022 SCC 23, 469 D.L.R. (4th) 387, at para. 47; R. v. B.W.P., 2006 SCC 27, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 941, at paras. 2-3; R. v. Foster, 2020 QCCA 1172, at para. 26; R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61, at para. 107; R. v. Biancofiore (1997), 1997 CanLII 3420 (ON CA), 119 C.C.C. (3d) 344 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 23. Denunciation requires that a sentence communicate society’s condemnation of the offender’s conduct.

Aggravating factors:

58The aggravating factors in this case include the nature of the drugs and their quantity. The sheer magnitude of the drugs is undisputed. This case can be categorized as the one of the more substantial amounts of fentanyl seized in Hamilton. There were also some elements of preparation and sophistication. Further, the operational firearm with available ammunition is a serious aggravating factor.

59The offender’s criminal record includes dated convictions back to the year 2019. In November 2019: Hamilton - assault with a weapon, theft over $5000 and possession of property obtained by crime, five days time served and suspended sentence with probation 18 months. In February 2022: Hamilton- criminal harassment, fail to comply with order x2, 60 day jail, (credit for the equivalent of 120 days pre-sentence custody) and probation 2 years. In April 2022: Hamilton- failure to comply with order x2, 2 days jail. In January 2023: Hamilton- failure to comply with probation, 2 year jail sentence credit for the equivalent of 8 days pre-sentence custody. July 2023 followed: Hamilton - failure to comply with probation order, 16 day consecutive jail sentence (credit for the equivalent of 14 days pre-sentence custody). Failure to comply with probation order x 2, credit for the equivalent of 300 days pre-sentence custody). Assault with a weapon, 1 day sentence concurrent, probation 2 years (credit for the equivalent of 300 days pre-sentence custody). Assault with a weapon, discretionary weapons prohibition for 10 years.

60The firearm was used in association with a drug crime. The operational firearm was loaded and improperly stored. In this case, there is a level of sophistication as a mid-level trafficker.

61Serious breaches of numerous court orders.

Mitigating factors:

62The offender pleaded guilty. A guilty plea is a significant mitigating factor as it demonstrates remorse, acceptance of responsibility and an acknowledgement of the harm done to the community. Although, it was not an early plea, there is considerable mitigation afforded to the fact that the offender intended to plead and has accepted responsibility for his actions.

63In his letter to the court, Pope expressed some degree of regret for his actions and to his family. He is youthful. He has a new baby daughter. He has the solid backing and support of his family. However, it is not lost on me that his partner and the mother of his child who is co-accused, was pregnant when they jointly committing the offence. Nonetheless, it is not lost on me that his guilty plea also serves to help his partner, and by extension - his daughter, to move on with their lives.

64As will be discussed momentarily, the offender was subject to triple bunking and full and partial lockdowns while in custody. As outlined by the Court of Appeal in R. v. Clarke, this is properly considered as a “mitigating factor to be taken into account together with all other mitigating and aggravating factors in determining the appropriate sentence, and not as a deduction from an otherwise fit sentence”: R. v. Clarke, 2026 ONCA 152 at para. 13. See also R. v. Browne, 2025 ONCA 164 at paras. 3-4.

65Through the materials filed, Pope had expressed some degree of regret and remorse. He has taken numerous courses while incarcerated. He has the backing and support of his family and friends. He had presented favourable character references and has completed numerous programs or sessions while incarcerated awaiting disposition.

Analysis:

66As mentioned, in Parranto, Moldaver J. emphasized fentanyl’s devastating harm in the context of sentencing fentanyl traffickers, at para. 98:

The time has thus come for our perception of the gravity of largescale trafficking in fentanyl to accord with the gravity of the crisis it has caused. Largescale trafficking in fentanyl is not a crime marked merely by the distribution and sale of an illicit substance; rather, it is a crime marked by greed and the pursuit of profit at the expense of violence, death, and the perpetuation of a public health crisis previously unseen in Canadian society….

67While Moldaver J. is referencing largescale commercial trafficking operations in fentanyl rather than “street-level” trafficking, I observe that at para. 96 of Parranto, he refers to the fact that “[b]eyond its mere potential to cause harm, however, fentanyl has had – and continues to have – a real and deadly impact on the lives of Canadians.”

68Indeed, trafficking in fentanyl has been described as a national crisis reflective of the increasing understanding of the gravity of the harm it causes.

69I am mindful that the conclusions in Parranto may be distinguishable by virtue of the largescale operation in that case, and may not necessarily apply to street-level trafficking or those who are motivated by a need to support their own addictions. While recognizing that this case involves significant quantities of fentanyl, it cannot be termed as a commercial or largescale enterprise. However, I accept that Pope was on the scale of a high-end mid-level trafficker (supplier to street-level supplier), in the oft-referred-to five step hierarchy.¹

70There is no doubt that the general principles arising from the Parranto case include the statement that fentanyl has changed the landscape of substance abuse in Canada.

71Of course, the principles of proportionality and totality ought not be lost in the analysis of this offence and circumstances of the offender.

72That being said, there is no doubt that the courts recognize the insidious and detrimental impacts of fentanyl on the community and society at large. Deterrence and denunciation are paramount considerations as there is a continued need for a firm response by the courts for increased sentences for fentanyl-related crimes.

73Possessing fentanyl in amounts found in this case can justify a sentence in the range of eight to 15 years: see e.g. Parranto, at para. 68; Olvedi, at paras. 58-60. As an aside, I observe that possessing multiple kilograms of cocaine similarly often results in high single-digit or even double-digit penitentiary sentences: see e.g. R. v. Maone, 2020 ONCA 461, at paras. 12-13; R. v. Nero, 2008 ONCA 622, at para. 11; R. v. Brissett, 2019 ONCA 11; R. v. Sandhu, 2016 ONSC 7946.

74There does not seem to be much dispute between the parties that Parranto sets a floor at eight years for sentences for high-level distribution of fentanyl. While this case is not a commercial enterprise per se, the parties acknowledge that the appropriate range of sentence in this case is between eight and 12 years, with deductions to address the totality principle.

75In this case, with the quantum of illicit drugs seized, I accept the Crown’s position and will impose a sentence of nine years for the possession for the purpose of trafficking in fentanyl.

The Prevalence of Gun Crime in the Community

76Sentencing judges may properly consider the prevalence of gun crime in sentencing offenders for firearm-related offences. As the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada explained in R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 1089, at para. 89, the prevalence of a crime in a community is a relevant factor insofar as it may signal a need to denounce and deter such conduct:

Even though the Criminal Code applies everywhere in the country, local characteristics in a given region may explain certain differences in the sentences imposed on offenders by the courts. The frequency of a type of offence in a particular region can certainly be a relevant factor for a sentencing judge. In M. (C.A.), Lamer C.J. stated the following:

The determination of a just and appropriate sentence is a delicate art which attempts to balance carefully the societal goals of sentencing against the moral blameworthiness of the offender and the circumstances of the offence, while at all times taking into account the needs and current conditions of and in the community [Emphasis added; para. 91].

77As referenced earlier in these reasons, and notwithstanding the local jurisprudence, the prevalence of gun crime in Hamilton is a serious concern, as outlined from the affidavit of Ryan Rakoczy, filed in this case. This includes both possession and use offences. Since 2021 there have been between 33 and 60 shooting occurrences investigated by Hamilton Police every year. In 2025 there were 33 shooting occurrences, 5 homicides by gunshot, and 78 charges laid for s.95 offences.

78This warrants a denunciatory sentence.

79As I am persuaded that the offender before me is on the very high-end of the “mid-level” hierarchy of traffickers with all of the attendant circumstances, I tend to lean towards the Crown’s stated global position on sentence. I am also entitled to take judicial notice of the insidious impact of fentanyl in the Hamilton and greater community as delineated in Ribble.

80As to the weapons, charges, these are very serious. I impose a sentence of four years for the possession of a prohibited firearm offence along with six months for each of the three weapon breach of prohibition orders, all consecutive and consecutive.

81In my opinion, both prosecutors’ positions reflects the level of sentence suggested by the authorities from superior and appellate courts with respect to offenders who traffic or otherwise distribute significant amounts of fentanyl and with the availability of firearms. Indeed, the Crown’s suggested combined sentence of 12 to 14 years is well-reasoned.

82At this juncture, the total sentence is 14.5 years. However, in applying the principles of totality and restraint, the sentence is reduced for an overall global sentence of 12 years in jail.

83The remaining issue is whether there ought to be any enhanced credit. The Crown says that their position already reflects those considerations.

84While defence counsel’s stated position is within the referred-to range, it is not reflective of the principles of denunciation and deterrence arising in this case when considering the circumstances of this offence. Recall that Pope had in his possession profoundly large amounts of fentanyl, cocaine and other illicit drugs, with a firearm and ammunition, along with all of the known paraphernalia for the purpose of trafficking in these substances. There are some elements of sophistication in the manner or preparation for distribution. Moreover, what is particularly aggravating are his repeated convictions for assaults and weapons related offences.

85However, that being said, I am persuaded by defence counsel that some further mitigation in sentence be contemplated based on her client’s personal circumstances and Duncan considerations.

Pre-Sentence detention:

86There is evidence that Pope spent a significant amount of time in custody subject to lockdowns because of staffing shortages. In addition to this, he was often “triple bunked” and, at times had only sporadic access to fresh air. The unacceptability of such conditions has been the subject of frequent judicial disapproval: see e.g. R. v. Powell, 2020 ONCA 743, at para. 30; R. v. Johnson, 2022 ONSC 5899, at paras. 69-70; R. v. S.H., 2022 ONSC 4900, at paras. 88-90; R. v. Doyle, 2022 ONSC 2489, at paras. 54-59; R. v. T.T., 2022 ONSC 722, at para. 46; R. v. Osman, 2022 ONSC 648, at paras. 41-43, R. v. Fermah, 2019 ONSC 3597.

87Unduly harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody are a relevant factor on sentencing and reductions in sentence to account for them are often referred to as a “Duncan credit” after the decision in R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754.

88As Ms. Salih points out, “Duncan credit” has become a routine part of sentencing in the Toronto and other courts due to the Ministry of the Solicitor General’s steadfast refusal to address the systemic problems that justify it.

89During the sentencing hearing, Pope provided evidence and other documentation related to the various custodial institutions where he spent the past several years. I have already referred to his affidavit wherein he expressed his concerns about this treatment while housed at the Hamilton Wentworth Detention Centre.

90In addition to the offender’s affidavit, there were records filed by the defence. The materials include a letter from the Ministry of Solicitor General Correctional Services dated May 26, 2026 and Lockdown Summary, along with OTIS - Shared Cell and Bed Assignments spreadsheet. Some of the information includes references to dates of confinement, lockdowns, minimal or no yard time, lack of showers and double or triple bunking.

91The Crown did not challenge the veracity of the offender’s records and his testimony in relation to his custodial circumstances.

Analysis: Pre-Sentence Custody:

92The offender will have served 428 real days of pre-sentence custody as of June 11, 2026.

93With regards to the Duncan credit, as a mitigating factor in the overall sentence, and as directed by the Court of Appeal in R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344, I am prepared to consider this additional mitigating feature as a reduction to apply towards the global sentence.

94Unlike the “Summers” credit, which is a deduction from what is determined to be the appropriate sentence, the “Duncan credit” is one of the factors that is taken into account in determining the appropriate sentence. A court may, but is not required to, identify a specific number of days or months as “Duncan credit”: see Marshall, at para. 53.²

95This approach is intended to address and reflect the harsh jail conditions endured by the offender.

96The evidence adduced during the sentencing hearing tends to support Pope’s assertions about “partial” or “full” lockdowns, and the lack of privileges and other issues that befell him while being housed at the detention centre. Pope deposes that:

During almost the entirety of my time at the HWDC, I have been triple bunked. Being in a confined space with two other inmates is stressful. There is almost no room for any physical movement inside the cell. Weekly, tensions boil over into verbal arguments. During lockdowns, we are often confined to our cell for 24-hours a day. The range I am on had 30 inmates. When lockdowns are finally lifted, or during days of partial lockdowns, we are all let out of our cells at the same time. This results in a rush of many frustrated inmates trying to use the limited number of showers and phones at the same time. I have gone consecutive days without being able to shower.

97The institutional records demonstrate that at Hamilton-Wentworth, the offender was in custody from April 11, 2025 to date. There were 82 full lockdown days and 23 partial lockdown days for a total of 105 occurrences. The offender was triple bunked for 375 days in the institution.

98In my consideration of the evidence adduced at this sentencing hearing, including the offender’s affidavit and institution records, I am persuaded by defence counsel that I ought to provide some enhanced credit as a mitigating factor in the imposition of sentence.

99While quantification of any credit at this stage of the analysis is discouraged, in my review of all of the relevant circumstances, including the aforementioned analysis tempered by the institutional reports and records, along with the offender’s personal circumstances, the overall sentence for the fentanyl-related count is further mitigated by six months.

Disposition:

100I impose a s. 109 weapons prohibition order for life. The offender will provide a DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code.

101A forfeiture order is granted.

[102] With respect to the count related to the possession for the purpose of of trafficking in fentanyl, count 11, (s. 5(2) CDSA) the sentence is nine years. For the possession of a prohibited firearm charge, count 1- (s. 95(1), four years consecutive. In respect of the three breaches of prohibition orders, counts 3, 5, and 7 (s. 117.01). six months consecutive and consecutive. The total is 14.5 years. With the imposition of the principles of totality and restraint, the disposition is reduced to reflect a global sentence of 12 years, to be reflected on the warrant of committal.

103The sentence is further mitigated by the evidence related to Pope’s personal circumstances and time in custodial institutions awaiting disposition. In applying these mitigating factors in the overall analysis, the sentence before the reduction for pre-sentence custody is to reflect one of 138 months or 11.5 years.

104The offender has a total of 428 days of pre-sentence custody. With the usual Summers credit at 1.5:1, that is the equivalent of 642 days or 21 months.

105Therefore, the net disposition is as follows: Pope is sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of 117 months or nine (9) years and nine (9) months in a federal penitentiary.

106The victim surcharge is waived.

A.J. Goodman J.

Footnotes

1. 1See e.g. R. v. Barkow, 2008 ONCJ 84; R. v. Haye, [2013] O.J. No. 6493 (S.C.), at para. 11, aff’d [2014] O.J. No. 6575 (C.A.) citing R. v. Okash, 2010 ONCJ 93.
2. 2Where the quantum of “Duncan credit” is specified, the conceptual distinction explained in Marshall will not affect the ultimate sentence the offender will be required to serve. However, it will affect how the Warrant of Committal on Conviction is completed, as it requires the court to identify the term of imprisonment that would have been imposed before credit is granted pursuant to s. 719(3.1). As a result, “Duncan credit” is not specifically identified on the Warrant of Committal.