CITATION: R. v. Geddes, 2026 ONSC 3574

COURT FILE NO.: CR-23-70000168

DATE: 20260619

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

His Majesty the King

– and –

John Geddes

Defendant

Peter Hamm, for the Crown

Alison Craig, for the Defendant

HEARD: May 4, 2026

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

NISHIKAWA J.

Overview and Background

1This proceeding has a lengthy procedural history that I detailed in my reasons for judgment dismissing Mr. Geddes’ application for a stay of proceedings under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms based on his treatment during pretrial custody at the Toronto South Detention Centre (“TSDC”): R. v. Geddes, 2025 ONSC 5581 (“Reasons for Judgment”). While I found that Mr. Geddes’ Charter rights had been breached, I declined to order a stay.

2At an earlier stage in the proceeding, on May 24, 2024, I dismissed Mr. Geddes’ application to exclude evidence under the Charter: R. v. Geddes, 2024 ONSC 4430 (the “First Charter Application”). Mr. Geddes then discharged his counsel and a lengthy delay ensued before he was able to retain new counsel.

3The trial continued on April 2, 2025, where the defence contested Count 1 only, the charge for aggravated assault, and conceded that if the second Charter Application was dismissed, Mr. Geddes would be found guilty of the offences charged. Mr. Geddes was found guilty of the following offences:

(a) Aggravated assault;

(b) Possession of a prohibited device, an 18-bullet cartridge magazine, while knowingly not being the holder of a licence permitting such possession;

(c) Possession of a restricted firearm without a licence;

(d) Possession of a loaded, restricted firearm without a licence;

(e) Possession of a firearm while prohibited from doing so;

(f) Possession of cocaine (100.75 grams) for the purposes of trafficking; and

(g) Possession of crack cocaine (35.73 grams) for the purposes of trafficking.

Analysis

The Parties’ Positions

4The Crown seeks a global sentence of 14 years in the penitentiary, before subtracting credit for presentence custody. This consists of:

• seven years for the firearm offences, to be served concurrently to each other;

• four years for the aggravated assault, to be served consecutively to the firearm offences;

• two years for each count of possession for the purposes of trafficking to be served concurrently to each other, but consecutively to the other offences; and

• one year for breach of a prohibition order, to be served consecutively to the other offences.

5The Crown takes the position that each offence that Mr. Geddes has been convicted of warrants a sentence at the higher range, but that 14 years takes into account the principle of totality and is reflective of the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case.

6The defence’s position is that a sentence of eight years, before subtracting pre-sentence custody, is appropriate. The defence does not disagree with the ranges of sentences for the offences put forward by the Crown but argues that Mr. Geddes should receive substantial credit for the harsh conditions at the TSDC and the Charter breach that he suffered there. The defence argues that the Impact of Race and Cultural Assessment (“IRCA”) shows how Mr. Geddes has been negatively impacted by systemic racism at all stages of his life. The defence submits that despite the current offences and Mr. Geddes’ criminal record, his rehabilitative potential is strong.

The Circumstances of the Offences

7The circumstances of the offences are described in detail in my Reasons for Judgment. I will reiterate only the most salient aspects here, as they pertain to determining the appropriate sentence.

8The circumstances of the offences are very serious. Mr. Geddes gained entry into the apartment of the victim, Jason Bartley, with the assistance of a woman he was with. He went to collect a drug debt. He slashed Mr. Bartley, who was seated, across the forehead and eye. When Mr. Geddes was arrested the following day, in the common area of a public housing complex, he was in possession of a loaded, restricted handgun with a bullet in the chamber and an extended magazine. In addition to the knife, he had 35 grams of crack cocaine and 100 grams of powder cocaine in his bag. He was on two separate lifetime weapons prohibition orders at the time. At trial, Mr. Geddes testified that because he had just woken up from an overdose, there were items in his bag of which he was not aware.

9Mr. Bartley received 20 stitches around his eye and has a permanent scar. Mr. Bartley did not provide a victim impact statement. At trial, Mr. Bartley testified that Mr. Geddes was a “good kid” and went out of his way not to incriminate him. He denied that the assault or injury had any ongoing impact on his mental health.

The Circumstances of the Offender

Criminal Record

10Mr. Geddes was 27 years old at the time of the offences. He is currently 32 years old. Mr. Geddes’ criminal record includes two previous convictions as an adult for possession of a firearm in 2014 and 2018.

The Impact of Race and Cultural Assessment

11The defence submitted an Impact of Race and Cultural Assessment Report (the “IRCA Report”) prepared by Julet Allen and Keith Cunningham.

12Mr. Geddes identifies as both Indigenous and Black. He was primarily raised by his mother, who was 17 when Mr. Geddes was born, with some support from his grandmothers. He was born in the Jane and Finch community. His father was serving time in prison during much of his childhood. Mr. Geddes described learning of his father’s imprisonment as “the day my world came crashing down.” When he was present, his father was abusive toward his mother, causing Mr. Geddes significant stress.

13Mr. Geddes’ early life was largely devoid of male role models. The IRCA notes that Mr. Geddes became aware of a pattern of “intergenerational fatherlessness” in his family: his grandfather was absent from his father’s life, his father was absent from his, and now he was absent from his daughter’s life. This pattern informed Mr. Geddes’s sense of identity and self-worth. A biracial man, Mr. Geddes did not have guidance from his family to grow into his Black identity and manhood.

14By the time he was around ten years old, Mr. Geddes was “running with the wrong crowd” and engaging in risky behaviour. Mr. Geddes explained that this was linked to his family’s socioeconomic background, which limited his access to adequate nutrition and clothing, and led to bullying and social exclusion from his peers.

15The IRCA outlines how the absence of his father meant that Mr. Geddes “assumed responsibilities beyond his developmental capacity, including providing financial and practical support to his single mother.” Mr. Geddes believed he needed to contribute to household expenses, which the IRCA linked to his pursuit of precarious employment.

16Mr. Geddes left home when he was only 14, spending time in what the IRCA describes as “some of downtown Toronto’s most challenging neigbourhoods, including the then-Regent Park.” He has lived in a number of areas with high concentrations of poverty and high levels of policing. In his youth, he was often perceived as older and more threatening than his age, which the IRCA links to increased scrutiny from others, in line with research on the adultification of Black boys.

17Mr. Geddes was often accused of wrongdoing in childhood, which the IRCA describes as “contributing to an internalized belief that he was inherently guilty.” He has repeatedly been involved in the criminal justice system and described receiving harsher punishments than his White peers.

18Mr. Geddes described experiencing discrimination in many spheres: in employment, public spaces, restaurants, and relationships with his family and peers.

19These experiences began when Mr. Geddes was young. He recalled a teacher saying, when he was in grade two, “I do not like you because you are mixed and I do not believe in interracial children.” The IRCA describes how this remark stayed with Mr. Geddes, contributing to a lack of trust in the education system.

20At the school Mr. Geddes attended between grades four and six, he described also experiencing prejudice based on his biracial identity: he felt social exclusion based on his inability to fit in with peers who saw him as neither “White enough” nor “Black enough.” The IRCA describes how this is consistent with research on biracial youth, and linked to Mr. Geddes lower self-esteem, confusion with identity, and increased vulnerability to negative influence from his peers.

21These experiences culminated in Mr. Geddes’s disengagement with education in high school. He entered high school as an “advanced student”, and had been in an enriched program in middle school, but his attendance became sporadic and he ultimately disengaged after about a year, following experiences of racial bias and racist behaviour, including a teacher telling Mr. Geddes that he would “never amount to anything” because of a “chemical imbalance” linked to his racial identity.

22Mr. Geddes’ account of his employment history was also marked by experiences of racism. Mr. Geddes worked weekends at a flea market beginning when he was 13, and worked for a moving company until he was about 15. The latter job was cut short by Mr. Geddes’s involvement with the justice system. In 2021, Mr. Geddes began working at a construction company but was fired without explanation in early 2022. At the construction company, Mr. Geddes and his peers were called “boys from the hood”, were paid less than their White co-workers, and were the subject of jokes and belittling remarks. Mr. Geddes believes his questioning of these inequities contributed to his dismissal.

23Mr. Geddes has described experiencing harassment from police officers. The IRCA describes Mr. Geddes being detained and assaulted by police for no clear reason. For instance, as a child, he was detained while he was waiting for a friend outside of his building. The reason Mr. Geddes recalled for this detention was the length of his hair. Mr. Geddes has also described numerous experiences of stop-and-search practices without clear reasons, which led to frisking and temporary detention. The IRCA links this to heavy policing in the Driftwood neighbourhood. Mr. Geddes described seeing disparate levels of policing between White and Black boys, which would carry through to custodial settings, and his belief that police treated him and his Black peers “as if we were criminals based on our race.”

24Mr. Geddes has experienced mental health difficulties. The IRCA attributes them to the impact of systemic barriers, along with Mr. Geddes’ experiences of anti-Black racism, bullying, police harassment, and witnessing the death of friends to substance abuse (the IRCA notes the deaths of more than 15 friends and acquaintances). Mr. Geddes has specifically reported hypervigilance, anxiety, depression, and antisocial behaviours.

25The IRCA links Mr. Geddes’ substance use to grief, and notes that he described limited access to any sort of psychotherapeutic intervention as he grew up. The IRCA describes how Mr. Geddes’ “experiences are consistent with conceptualizations of complex trauma” arising from repeated severe disruptive events, compounded by losses over time. The nature of Mr. Geddes’ experiences “reflect patterns of racial trauma and intergenerational harm linked to colonial violence, anti-Black racism, systemic surveillance, and structural marginalization.” The IRCA characterizes these patterns as intersecting forms of trauma, linked to higher risks of early justice system involvement, substance use, emotional dysregulation, and barriers to accessing support.

26Mr. Geddes’ substance use was varied and often taken to the point of overdose reflecting, the IRCA describes, a pattern of high-risk self-medication consistent with the higher risk of such use for Black adolescent males who experience marginalization. The IRCA outlines how, for Black adolescents with backgrounds like Mr. Geddes’, substance use can be a way of regulating emotional distress and asserting control. Structural inequalities can exacerbate vulnerability to substance misuse.

27Members of Mr. Geddes’s family spoke to his positive characteristics despite difficulties he faced in his youth. Mr. Geddes’ mother described his early academic success and social involvement; she also described racism he experienced at school, noting a teacher failing to meet her despite her requests based on Mr. Geddes being persistently singled out for failing to complete homework. She also spoke about Mr. Geddes’ close bond with his younger sister. Mr. Geddes’ girlfriend described his growth and self-awareness, as well as his efforts to remain close to their young daughter. His father expressed remorse for not having been present for much of Mr. Geddes’ childhood. Mr. Geddes’ paternal grandmother noted that his involvement in concerning activities as a teenager may have been a function of unmet emotional needs. His maternal grandmother described Mr. Geddes as a gentle and respectful child and noted that his size led others to perceive him as older, informing his vulnerability to mistreatment by authority figures.

Letters of Support

28The defence submitted a letter of support from Mr. Geddes’s partner, Sara Moretto. Ms. Moretto advises that they have been in a relationship for 10 years and have a young daughter together. Ms. Moretto wrote that she has seen personal growth in Mr. Geddes and a shift in his priorities. Mr. Geddes is determined to build a stable and responsible life and to be an active and positive role model for his family. Ms. Moretto wrote of how Mr. Geddes encouraged her to pursue her education. Ms. Moretto is committed to providing Mr. Geddes with a strong support system that includes herself and her family. They have discussed plans for reintegration, including employment and focussing on family responsibilities.

29Ms. Moretto’s mother, Norma Moretto, also provided a letter of support. Ms. Moretto describes Mr. Geddes’ commitment to Sara and their daughter and his desire to be a good father. She pledges that Mr. Geddes will have the full support of her family when he is released.

30Mr. Geddes also provided a letter of support from Tara Muldoon, the Director of the Forgiveness Project. Ms. Muldoon writes that Mr. Geddes has been an active participant in the program and that she and her team have worked closely with him while he has been in custody. She reports that Mr. Geddes has demonstrated meaningful growth and a willingness to make positive changes in his life. He has participated consistently, taken responsibility for his actions, and been receptive to guidance. Ms. Muldoon believes that Mr. Geddes has a strong chance of continuing on a positive path.

31Mr. Geddes submitted a letter from a prospective employer, an auto body shop, that is prepared to offer him employment upon his release and to provide a stable environment to help him get back on his feet.

Analysis

The Principles of Sentencing

32In determining an appropriate sentence, I must consider the sentencing objectives in s. 718 of the Criminal Code, which provides as follows:

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;

(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;

(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.

33Pursuant to s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code, “A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender”. Imposing a proportionate sentence is a highly individualized exercise, tailored to the gravity of the offence and the blameworthiness of the offender: R. v. M. (C.A.), 1996 CanLII 230 (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500, at para. 40.

34The sentencing judge must also have regard to the following:

• any aggravating and mitigating factors, including those listed in s. 718.2(a)(i) to (iv) of the Criminal Code;

• the principle of parity, in that a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances (s. 718.2(b));

• the principle of totality, meaning that where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh (s. 718.2(c)); and

• the principle that courts should exercise restraint in imposing imprisonment (ss. 718.2(d) and (e)).

35The principles of parity and individualization mandate that a sentence must both be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences and highly individualized: see s. 718.2(b) of the Code; R. v. Pham, 2013 SCC 15, [2013] 1 S.C.R. 739, at paras. 8-9.

Aggravated Assault

36The maximum sentence for aggravated assault is 14 years. In R. v. Tourville, 2011 ONSC 1677, Code J. summarized the range of sentences for aggravated assault and identified three ranges for this type of offence: (i) the low range, which he described as “exceptional”; (ii) the mid-range between 18 months and two years less a day, involving first offenders and fights that suggested some element of consent but where the accused used excessive force; and (iii) the high range, consisting of penitentiary sentences of four to six years involving recidivists with serious criminal records or unprovoked or premeditated assaults with no element of consent or self-defence.

37This circumstances of the offence would place the aggravated assault committed by Mr. Geddes in the high range. The attack was unprovoked and Mr. Geddes was the aggressor. He slashed Mr. Bartley, who was seated, with a knife across his face to enforce a drug debt. Mr. Bartley required hospitalization and was permanently disfigured.

Firearm Offences

38The courts have repeatedly condemned the menace that the criminal possession of handguns poses to society and the need for sentences to further the goals of denunciation, deterrence and protection of the public: R. v. Burke-Whittaker, 2025 ONCA 142, 175 O.R. (3d) 726, at paras. 37 and 100, aff’d by SCC with reasons to follow, 2026 CanlII 46920, citing R. v. Brown, 2010 ONCA 745, 277 O.A.C. 233, at para. 14. As Campbell J. observed in R. v. Browne, 2014 ONSC 4217, at para. 25:

[t]he criminal possession of handguns in such circumstances remains an all too prevalent threat to the people of Toronto, and to others living in the Greater Toronto Area. These firearms are almost invariably tools employed in some other criminal activity, and their possession and use, on occasion, tragically results in serious bodily harm or death.

That threat has only grown since Campbell J. made those comments.

39The Supreme Court of Canada has observed that s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code “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”: R. v. Nur, 2015 SCC 15, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 773, at para. 82, aff’g 2013 ONCA 677, 117 O.R. (3d) 401.

40The Court of Appeal for Ontario has affirmed that possession of a loaded handgun is a very serious offence that will normally attract a penitentiary term of imprisonment: R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, 159 O.R. (3d) 641, at para. 151. Most s. 95 offences will attract a penitentiary term even for first offenders: R. v. Smickle, 2014 ONCA 49, 306 C.C.C. (3d) 351, at para. 19. The exception to a penitentiary term of imprisonment is where there are “strong mitigating factors”: Morris, at para. 151. In R. v. Smith, 2023 ONCA 620, the Court of Appeal set aside a conditional sentence on the basis that the sentencing judge erred in finding that the conduct at issue did not fall within the “true crime” characterization: paras. 5-6. The Court of Appeal further held that mitigating factors did not warrant a departure from the presumptive penalty of a penitentiary term, given the seriousness of the offences and the aggravating factors: Smith, at paras. 7-9.

41For recidivist gun offenders in breach of prohibition orders, the case law supports a range of six to ten years imprisonment: R. v. Slack, 2015 ONCA 94; R. v. Graham, 2018 ONSC 6817, at paras. 39-42, aff’d 2020 ONCA 692; R. v. McNichols, 2020 ONSC 6499. For individuals who bring guns into public spaces, a sentence of greater than three years is commonly imposed: R. v. Mohiadin, 2021 ONCA 122; R. v. Camara, 2019 ONSC 115, aff’d 2021 ONCA 79, 400 C.C.C. (3d) 490. This Mr. Geddes’ third conviction for a gun offence as an adult.

Breach of Prohibition Orders

42Sentences for breaches of prohibition orders are to be served consecutively to any substantive offences. The imposition of consecutive sentences is intended to ensure that disregard of firearm prohibition orders, imposed in the interest of public safety, does not go unpunished. It also acknowledges that the breach of a prohibition order is different behaviour than the associated offences, engaging different social interests: R. v. Claros, 2019 ONCA 626, at paras. 51-52.

43Breach of one prohibition order will typically result in a one-year sentence, whereas breach of more than one prohibition order may warrant a sentence of 18 months: R. v. Carrol, 2014 ONSC 2063, at para. 30.

Drug Offences

44The fundamental purpose of sentencing for offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is set out in s. 10: “to contribute to the respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society while encouraging rehabilitation, and treatment in appropriate circumstances, of offenders and acknowledging the harm done to victims and to the community.”

45Many courts have spoken to the societal harm of drug trafficking, and on the connection between cocaine trafficking and violent crime. All agree that deterrence and denunciation are the paramount sentencing principles to be applied where convictions for trafficking are registered. Further, the case law establishes that sentences longer than three years are imposed on offenders who use or possess firearms in association with other criminal activity such as drug trafficking: R. v. Marong, 2020 ONCA 598; R. v Crevier, 2015 ONCA 619.

46A police expert testified that the amount and types of drugs located, in combination with its packaging and the presence of a knife and gun on Mr. Geddes, supported that he was a mid-level drug dealer.

47Where a person is convicted of a substance-related offence, s. 10(2) of the CDSA asks the court to take into account certain aggravating factors, including whether in relation to the commission of the offence, the accused carried, used or threatened to use a weapon, or used or threatened to use violence. Both aggravating factors are present in this case.

48The Crown submits that the trafficking Mr. Geddes was engaged in is similar to that found in: (i) R. v. Ovid, 2016 ONSC 2974, where the accused received a sentence of 4.5 years for trafficking in relation to 305 grams of crack and powder cocaine; and (ii) R. v. Scharf, 2017 ONCA 794, where the Court of Appeal did not disturb a sentence of five years for trafficking where the accused was found in possession of 236 grams of cocaine.

49As noted earlier, the defence does not dispute the applicable ranges proposed by the Crown.

The Principle of Totality

50Under the principle of totality, where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not exceed the overall culpability of the offender: R. v. M.(C.A.), 1996 CanLII 230 (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500, at para. 42. An unduly harsh or excessive sentence may frustrate the goals of the sentencing process and cause confidence in the fairness and rationality of the sentencing process to deteriorate: R. v. Johnson, 2012 ONCA 339, 285 C.C.C. (3d) 120, at para. 20. At the same time, a sentence should not be overly lenient or unresponsive to other principles underlying the sentencing regime and an offender “ought not to be seen to be reaping benefits from his previous serious criminal misconduct”: Johnson, at para. 23.

51The court must balance the need to protect the integrity of the sentencing process against the recognition that “there will be situations where, globally speaking, a combined sentence will simply be too harsh and excessive.”: Johnson, at para. 24.

52The correct approach is for the trial judge to first identify the gravamen of the conduct giving rise to all the criminal offences and next determine the total sentence to be imposed: R. v. Ahmed, 2017 ONCA 76, 136 O.R. (3d) 403, at para. 85, citing R. v. Jewell (1995), 1995 CanLII 1897 (ON CA), 100 C.C.C. (3d) 270, 83 O.A.C. 81, at p. 279. Once the appropriate total sentence is determined, the trial judge should then impose sentences with respect to each offence which result in the total sentence and which appropriately reflect the gravamen of the overall criminal conduct.

53The defence argues that this court ought to take into consideration that 14 years is significantly longer than any previous sentence Mr. Geddes has served. In 2014, Mr. Geddes was sentenced to five years for firearm offences. In 2018, he was sentenced to 37 months for firearm offences. The “jump” principle, however, has little application where, as here, the severity of the offender’s crimes shows a dramatic increase in violence and seriousness or where previous sanctions have been ineffective in deterring the offender: R. v. Green, 2021 ONCA 932, at para. 11.

The Principles Applied

Aggravating Factors

54In this case, there are a number of aggravating factors, which the defence did not dispute:

• The unprovoked nature of the assault on Mr. Bartley;

• The firearm was a restricted handgun outfitted with an extended magazine;

• The firearm was loaded with 11 rounds in the magazine and one round in the chamber;

• There is no lawful use for the firearm in question;

• Mr. Geddes was carrying the firearm in a public place;

• The firearm was carelessly stored in that it was not secured in any way;

• At the time, Mr. Geddes was subject to lifetime weapons prohibition orders; and

• The prevalence of gun crime in the community.

Mitigating Factors

Rehabilitation

55There are a number of mitigating factors in this case. Mr. Geddes rehabilitative potential is relatively high. His partner and family describe Mr. Geddes as a bright individual who is committed to changing the trajectory of his life.

56Mr. Geddes continues to receive strong support and encouragement from Ms. Moretto and her mother. His mother and grandmothers have expressed a desire to provide him with stability and support to help him reintegrate. He maintains contact with his two sisters, especially a younger sister with whom he has a close bond. The letters of support speak to Mr. Geddes’ supportive, caring and loyal nature, as well as his continued growth and development. The IRCA reports that Mr. Geddes has discontinued substance use and has developed alternative coping strategies, such as quiet reflection and other self-regulation practices.

57During his time in custody, Mr. Geddes has participated in multiple programs to improve his circumstances and self-awareness. Mr. Geddes has completed several college level business courses with Centennial College and two OCAD University courses. Numerous certificates were submitted showing all the programs that Mr. Geddes has participated in, demonstrating his commitment to turning his life around and getting on a different path. Ms. Moretto reports that it was Mr. Geddes who encouraged her to continue her education and that she has now in fact completed teacher’s college.

58Moreover, the birth of Mr. Geddes’ daughter in 2022, while he was in custody, appears to have been a turning point for Mr. Geddes. He reports having gained clarity about his values and future goals and has been learning self-control. Mr. Geddes tries to call his daughter twice daily, when phone calls are not precluded by lockdowns. He has a strong desire to be present and involved in her life, and to breaking the familial pattern of intergenerational fatherlessness.

59The IRCA reports Mr. Geddes’ efforts reflect active planning and self-discipline to pursue a prosocial identity. Mr. Geddes has not only expressed a clear commitment to pursuing a different life path, but has taken concrete steps toward personal change as evidenced through the programs he has participated in and his consistent commitment to his family while in custody.

Remorse

60While Mr. Geddes did not plead guilty, he was justified in pursuing both Charter applications. Once the trial continued, Mr. Geddes admitted that he would be found guilty on all but the aggravated assault charge.

61Mr. Geddes has not specifically expressed remorse for the assault on Mr. Bartley. However, a lack of remorse is not an aggravating factor, but simply the absence of a mitigating factor. In my view, Mr. Geddes has demonstrated insight into the causes and consequences of his conduct. He accepts responsibility for his choices.

Systemic Factors

62In Morris, at para. 102, the Court of Appeal confirmed that social context relating to the offender’s life experiences may be used where relevant to mitigate the offender’s degree of responsibility for the offence and/or to assist in the blending of the principles and objectives of sentencing to achieve a sentence which best serves the purposes of sentencing. Where past hardship including the impact of anti-Black racism is connected to the criminal activity, that is a relevant mitigating factor to be taken into account. While a direct causal link is not required, there must be some connection between the overt and systemic racism identified in the community and the circumstances that are said to explain or mitigate the criminal conduct in issue: Morris, at paras. 96-97.

63As the Court of Appeal pronounced in Morris, at para. 76, “[e]vidence that an offender’s choices were limited or influenced by his disadvantaged circumstances, however, speaks to the offender’s moral responsibility for his acts and not to the seriousness of the crimes.” Further, in Morris, at para. 81, “the social context evidence was found to provide a basis upon which the trial judge could give added weight to the objective of rehabilitation and less weight to the objective of specific deterrence.”

64In this case, the IRCA provides considerable insight into the significant impact of anti-Black racism on Mr. Geddes and the connection between his experiences with systemic racism, his lack of options, and some of the offences at issue in this case. Although Mr. Geddes also identifies as Indigenous, the IRCA does not address this aspect of his identity and how it has impacted him. Mr. Geddes has had to contend with systemic, anti-Black racism throughout his life. The IRCA summarizes the compounding impact of fatherlessness; adverse childhood experiences, including domestic violence; economic disadvantage; growing up in a marginalized, over-policed neighbourhood characterized by violence; erosion of trust in the education system; and repeated interactions with law enforcement from a young age.

The Appropriate Range

65Based on the foregoing case law, and the aggravating and mitigating factors further described below, I find that the appropriate sentencing range for the offences at issue in this case is from 11 to 14 years.

Summary of the Application of the Sentencing Principles

66The most significant principles engaged in this case are denunciation, deterrence and the separation of the offender from society. Higher courts have consistently held that the overarching sentencing principle in firearms cases is denunciation and deterrence by the imposition of exemplary sentences: Nur, at para. 5; Brown, at para. 14.

67The circumstances of this case are at the higher end of the seriousness spectrum. The assault on Mr. Bartley was unprovoked and done with the purpose of enforcing a drug debt. The firearm was loaded and ready for use. The quantity of drugs reflects that Mr. Geddes was a mid-level drug dealer.

68The significant degree of anti-Black racism that Mr. Geddes has experienced throughout his life can be taken into account in blending the principles and objectives of sentencing. Mr. Geddes’ experiences, as detailed above, played a role in limiting his opportunities and contributing to the circumstances that led him to engage in the criminal conduct at issue here. To be clear, the effects of anti-Black racism do not excuse Mr. Geddes or lessen the seriousness of the offence. However, I am satisfied that there is a connection between Mr. Geddes’ life experience, anti-Black racism, and his commission of the offences such that it mitigates somewhat his degree of responsibility. While I recognize the primacy of denunciation and deterrence in relation to these offences, rehabilitation should also be an important sentencing objective in the circumstances: see Morris, at paras. 80-81.

69Mr. Geddes’s prospects for rehabilitation are strong. He is relatively young, has solid support from Ms. Moretto and her mother, and members of his family. He is highly motivated to work and improve his situation to be a role model and engaged father to his daughter. In addition, Mr. Geddes statements in the IRCA reflect that he has reflected about his past, developed insight into his circumstances and has a genuine desire to embark on a stable and healthy course.

70Based on all of the circumstances, taking into consideration the gravamen of the offences, as well as the aggravating and mitigating factors detailed above, and applying the principles of totality and restraint, I find that an appropriate global sentence is 12 years, which I apportion as follows:

(a) 3.5 years for the aggravated assault, to be served consecutively to the other offences;

(b) 5.5 years for the firearm offences, to be served concurrently to each other and consecutively to the other offences;

(c) two years for each count of possession for the purposes of trafficking to be served concurrently to each other, but consecutively to the other offences; and

(d) one year for breach of a prohibition orders, to be served consecutively to the other offences.

Summers Credit

71Under s. 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code, Mr. Geddes is entitled to credit for pre-sentence custody at a rate of 1.5:1: R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 575.

72Mr. Geddes has been in custody for 1597 days between his arrest and June 19, 2026. The total Summers credit is therefore 2,396 days.

Breach of Mr. Geddes’s Charter Rights

73In my Reasons for Judgment, I found that Mr. Geddes’ Charter rights were breached by correctional officers who strip-searched him and required that he sit on a toilet for 45 minutes while they observed him and called him names.

74In R. v. Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 206, at paras. 47-48, the Supreme Court of Canada held that where state misconduct relates to the circumstances of the offence or the offender, a sentencing judge may take the relevant facts into account in determining a fit and proportionate sentence. In doing so, it is not necessary to invoke the court’s remedial power under s. 24(1) of the Charter to effect an appropriate reduction of sentence to account for the misconduct.

75Similarly, in Morris, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s reduction of sentence by three months on account of the breach of the defendant’s ss. 7 and 10(b) Charter rights. In doing so, the Court noted, at para. 174, that “[e]xcessive use of force in the course of detaining or arresting an individual, even if the arrest or detention is for a different offence than the offence ultimately prosecuted, can constitute state misconduct relating to the circumstances of the offence or offender.” The effects of state interference are to be assessed objectively: R. v. Donnelly, 2016 ONCA 988, 135 O.R. (3d) 336, at para. 120.

76The defence, relying on R. v. Ritchie, 2025 ONSC 5581, seeks a reduction in sentence of two years for the breach of Mr. Geddes’s Charter rights.

77The Crown agrees that the Charter breach in the institution was serious and that it had a significant impact on Mr. Geddes. The Crown recognizes that a sentence reduction may be appropriate, but proposes that because the breach is unrelated to the offences for which Mr. Geddes has been convicted, other than the fact that it occurred during pretrial custody, that public censure of the TSDC would be an effective remedy for the Charter breach. The Crown’s position is that if this court is inclined to grant a reduction in sentence, six months would be sufficient in the circumstances.

78In my view, in the circumstances of this case, it is necessary to signal the court’s disapproval of the conduct of correctional officers beyond a public censure. Mr. Geddes was deeply humiliated by the treatment he suffered at the hands of correctional officers who were tasked to ensure his safety and wellbeing. He refused to eat or speak to anyone for days after it occurred. The state misconduct resulting in breaches of Mr. Geddes’ Charter rights relate to the circumstances of the offender and can be taken into consideration as a mitigating factor in determining the appropriate sentence.

79While Mr. Geddes’ treatment was humiliating and degrading, in Ritchie, the treatment of inmates was egregious and systemic. The ICIT was deployed and inmates were made to sit on the floor in their boxers for 37 hours, with their wrists zip-tied, while the temperature of the facility was turned down. In Ritchie, the defendant received a reduction of two years in his period of parole ineligibility, which is different from a reduction in sentence.

80Moreover, I recognize that the sentence must remain proportionate to the gravity of the offences. In my view, mitigation in the amount of six months would be in keeping with the facts of the Charter breach, the sentencing principles, and the case law.

Duncan Consideration

81Mitigation can also be given on account of particularly difficult and punitive presentence custody conditions, including extended time spent on lockdown and a lack of access to facilities. In determining whether any enhanced mitigation should be given, the court will consider both the conditions of the presentence incarceration and the impact of those conditions on the accused: R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754, at paras. 6-7.

82The defence submits that Mr. Geddes should be given enhanced credit for a portion of his time in presentence custody because of the harsh conditions in which he was held, including lockdowns and restrictions at the TSDC, and the impact on him. During Mr. Geddes’ time in custody, the total number of lockdown days is 484, or one-third of the time. The defence proposes a credit of two or three to one.

83The Crown does not dispute the number of lockdown days or that the conditions at the TSDC have been harsh. The Crown notes, however, that Mr. Geddes should receive somewhat less credit than he might otherwise be entitled to because much of the delay in this proceeding was occasioned by him. After dismissing his counsel, there was a lengthy delay before Mr. Geddes retained new counsel. The Crown argues that fairness dictates that where someone causes his own trial to be delayed as long as Mr. Geddes has, there is some question as to whether he should receive enhanced credit for the entire time on the basis of the conditions of pretrial custody.

84The defence argues that Mr. Geddes has not been benefitting from his time in custody. In his affidavit, Mr. Geddes describes in detail the impact of his time at the TSDC. He states that the constant lockdowns have taken a toll not only on his mental health, because he is unable to speak to family members to seek support. Mr. Geddes’ affidavit details multiple instances of mistreatment by correctional officers, including being beaten and pepper sprayed, having his personal belongings destroyed, and being verbally insulted on a regular basis. Issues with his physical health, such as repeated infections, injuries and dental issues have gone unaddressed. The conditions have been so difficult that he has at time refused to eat. Mr. Geddes has sought assistance for his circumstances, including by contacting the ombudsperson for Ontario and human rights organizations.

85In R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344, at para. 52, the Court of Appeal held that “‘Duncan’ credit is not a deduction from the otherwise appropriate sentence, but is one of the factors to be taken into account in determining the appropriate sentence.” The Court of Appeal has stated that quantifying the Duncan credit in the same manner as the “Summers” credit for presentence custody might improperly skew the calculation of the ultimate sentence: Marshall, at para. 53.

86In the circumstances of this case, I find that Duncan consideration is warranted. The conditions at the TSDC have repeatedly been described by the courts as intolerable, deplorable and excessively harsh. In addition to regular lockdowns, which limit the ability of inmates to use the facilities or to contact friends and family, among other things, Mr. Geddes describes unsanitary conditions, undercooked food, and insect and mice infestations. The question is not whether some credit should be given, but rather the extent of it: R. v. Shaikh and Tanoli, 2024 ONSC 774, at para. 15.

87I am mindful of Doherty J.A.’s caution in Marshall that the quantification of Duncan credit could improperly skew the calculation of the ultimate sentence, in the sense that it could lead to a sentence that is disproportionately or artificially low. In my view, quantification does not lead to such a result in this case. Moreover, quantifying Duncan credit lends to greater transparency and consistency in the sentencing process. It also serves the secondary goal of shining a light on the extremely harsh circumstances that accused persons encounter at the TSDC, before there is a finding of guilt: Shaikh, at paras. 23-30.

88In the circumstances of this case, I find that a credit of one year is appropriate. In calculating credit for Duncan consideration, I have taken into account that some of Mr. Geddes’ time in pre-sentence custody is related to the lengthy delay occasioned by his dismissal of counsel. I have also excluded the reduction in sentence for the Charter violation.

Disposition

89After subtracting Summers credit, six months for the Charter breach, and one year for Duncan consideration, the sentence that remains to be served is 47 months and 28 days. Mr. Geddes is therefore sentenced to a global sentence of 47 months and 28 days, apportioned as follows:

• 16 months for aggravated assault, contrary to s. 268(2) of the Code;

• 24 months for the following firearm offences: two counts of unlawful possession of a prohibited device, while knowingly not being the holder of a licence permitting such possession, contrary to s. 92(2) of the Code; and one count of possession of a loaded, restricted firearm, without being the holder of an authorization or licence permitting such possession, contrary to s. 95(1) of the Code; all concurrent to each other but consecutive to the other offences;

• Six months for possession for the two counts of purposes of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the CDSA, concurrent to each other but consecutive to the other offences;

• One month and 28 days for the offence of possessing a firearm while being prohibited from doing so by reason of an order made under s. 110(1)(b) of the Code, contrary to s. 117.01(1) of the Code; consecutive to the other offences.

Ancillary Orders

90The following ancillary orders shall be made: a DNA order under s. 487.051(3) of the Code; a weapons prohibition order for life under s. 109 of the Code; and a forfeiture order for all items and drugs seized under s. 491 of the Code.

“Nishikawa J.”

Released: June 19, 2026

CITATION: R. v. Geddes, 2026 ONSC 3574