CITATION: R. v. Krol, 2026 ONSC 3775

COURT FILE NO.: CR-25-20000107

DATE: 20260626

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

EVAN KROL

Sara Samet and James Mencel, for the Crown

Mayleah Quenneville, for Mr. Krol

HEARD at Toronto: May 22 and 29, 2029

DAVIES J.

A. Overview

1Evan Krol pleaded guilty to 72 counts arising out of a lengthy investigation into firearms and drug trafficking in Toronto. Mr. Krol admits that between July 17, 2023 and February 13, 2024, he sold 60 firearms, numerous prohibited magazines, and 23kg of methamphetamine to two undercover officers. And when Mr. Krol was finally arrested, he was in possession of a loaded firearm.

2It is now my job to determine the appropriate sentence for Mr. Krol.

3The Crown argued that a global sentence of 16 years is appropriate. The Crown took the position that but for the totality principle Mr. Krol’s offences would attract a much longer sentence.

4Counsel for Mr. Krol argued that a global sentence of 10 years is appropriate.

5The parties agree that Mr. Krol is entitled to have 1298 days deducted from his sentence as credit for the 865 days he has already spent in custody. The parties do not agree on whether Mr. Krol’s sentence should be further reduced because of the conditions in which he has been detained. Mr. Krol argued that his sentence should be reduced by another 865 days because the conditions at the Toronto South Detention Centre (“TSDC”) are deplorable and have had a profound impact on him. The Crown agreed that the conditions at the TSDC are unusually harsh and should be considered a mitigating factor. But, the Crown argued that a 16-year sentence is appropriate after taking that factor into account.

6If Mr. Krol had not experienced oppressive conditions at the TSDC, I would have imposed a global sentence of 14 years. However, when I factor in the conditions of his detention, I am satisfied that a global sentence of 13 years is just and proportionate. After the 1298 days of credit are deducted from the sentence, Mr. Krol is required to serve 9 years and 162 days in custody.

B. Sentencing Range

7Trafficking firearms and large-scale drug trafficking are extremely serious offences that attract very lengthy sentences.

8Each count of trafficking a firearm carries a mandatory minimum sentence of three years. The maximum sentence for trafficking a firearm increased from 10 years to 14 years on December 15, 2023: An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), S.C. 2023 c.-32, s. 1.1(2). So, for the firearms Mr. Krol trafficked between July and November 2023, the maximum sentence is 10 years. Mr. Krol sold 14 firearms to the undercover officers in two transactions after the maximum sentence changed. For those two transactions, the maximum sentence is 14 years. The maximum sentence for trafficking methamphetamine is life imprisonment: Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, s. 5(3)(a).

9In cases involving the trafficking of multiple firearms, sentences range from 7 years at the low end to 18 years at the high end: R. v. Benjamin, 2024 ONSC 4781; R. v. Reid, 2016 ONCA 524, 132 O.R. (3d) 26, leave to appeal refused [2017] S.C.C.A. No. 432; R. v. Winchester, 2014 ONSC 2591; R. v. Dubajic, 2023 ONSC 516, R. v. Balatoni, [2004] O.J. No. 5311 (S.C.); R. v. Allison and Cunningham, 2021 ONSC 2455, aff’d 2024 ONCA 512; R. v. Marakah, 2015 ONSC 1576, aff’d 2016 ONCA 542, 131 O.R. (3d) 561; rev’d on other grounds 2017 SCC 59, [2017] 2 S.C.R. 608. The sentencing range for trafficking methamphetamine depends on the amount involved and the circumstances in which the drug was trafficked. Sentences in the range of 8 or 9 years are common in cases involving multiple kilograms. But longer sentences – in the range of 12 to 16 years – have been imposed where the drugs were trafficked together with firearms or in association with organized crime: R. v. Chanmany, 2016 ONCA 576, 338 C.C.C. (3d) 578, leave to appeal refused [2017] S.C.C.A. No. 88; R. v. Oraha, 2012 ONSC 1439; R. v. Macias and Popovich, 2025 ONSC 5456.

10The sentences imposed in other cases are helpful, but sentencing is always a highly individualized exercise. Where Mr. Krol’s sentence should fall within the range depends on the seriousness of his offences and his level of culpability considering the unique constellation of aggravating and mitigation circumstances in his case: R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, 159 O.R. (3d) 641, at para. 56; Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 718, 718.1 and 718.2, R. v. Lacasse; 2015 SCC 64, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 1089, at para. 58.

C. Circumstances of the Offences

11Over a seven-month period, Mr. Krol brokered the sale of 60 firearms and more than 30 prohibited magazines to two undercover officers for more than $275,000. Some of the firearms were loaded and operable when they were delivered.

12The number of firearms Mr. Krol sourced and sold increased over time. The first four transactions (in July and August 2023) each involved a single firearm. In early September, Mr. Krol sold the undercover officer 9 firearms in two transactions. On October 5, 2023, Mr. Krol sold the officer 9 firearms in a single transaction. All the transactions after October 5, 2023 involved multiple firearms. The last transaction on February 2, 2024 involved eight restricted or prohibited firearms.

13Mr. Krol also brokered five drug transactions involving a total of 23 kg of methamphetamine for more than $120,000. Some of the drugs Mr. Krol sold were tested by Health Canada and determined to have a very high level of purity. Courts in Ontario have repeatedly found that methamphetamine is as destructive as cocaine: R. v. Villanueva, 2007 ONCJ 87, 46 C.R. (6th) 129, at para. 27, R. v. Copeland, 2007 CanLII 37232 (Ont. S.C.), at para 33; R. v. Nguyen, 2011 ONSC 6229, at para. 16. During one of the transactions, Mr. Krol also gave the undercover officer a small sample of carfentanil, which is an extremely lethal drug even in very small doses.

14Mr. Krol’s offences created a very serious risk to public safety. Gun violence and drug addiction are pervasive and persistent problems in Toronto that devastate families and communities. Trafficking illegal firearms fuels gun violence. Trafficking drugs, like methamphetamine, contributes to addiction and drug-related deaths. Trafficking firearms and drugs is a particularly deadly combination.

15Given the seriousness of Mr. Krol’s offences, the most important principles of sentencing are denunciation and deterrence. Mr. Krol’s sentence must clearly and emphatically condemn his conduct. But Mr. Krol’s sentence must not be any longer or any more restrictive than necessary: Criminal Code, s. 718.2(d); R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 433 at para. 37; R. v. Hamilton (2004), 2004 CanLII 5549 (ON CA), 72 O.R. (3d) 1 (C.A.) at paras. 95-96, R. v. L.R., 2023 ONSC 6762 at para. 24.

D. Aggravating Factors

16In addition to the inherent seriousness of Mr. Krol’s offences, there are three other aggravating factors.

17First, Mr. Krol has a criminal record that includes weapons and drug offences. His first conviction was in 2014 for assault. In 2015, he was convicted of possessing a restricted weapon – a switchblade – in violation of a weapons prohibition order.¹ In 2016, Mr. Krol was convicted of possessing a Schedule I drug for the purpose of trafficking, breaching his bail, breaching his probation, failing to attend court and assault. Mr. Krol was convicted of breaching his probation again in 2017 and in 2019. Mr. Krol’s last conviction before these charges was in 2019 for possessing a Schedule 1 substance for the purpose of trafficking for which he received a 6-month sentence.

18Second, Mr. Krol was subject to two weapons prohibition orders at the time of these offences. Mr. Krol received a 10-year weapons prohibition in April 2014 when he was convicted of assault. He received a 15-year weapons prohibition in July 2015 when he was convicted of possessing the illegal switchblade. Both of those orders were still valid when Mr. Krol sold the firearms to the undercover officers.

19Third, Mr. Krol was involved in a well-organized, profit-driven operation. Mr. Krol admitted he sourced the firearms and drugs from eight different people, which suggests he was fully immersed in the criminal subculture in Toronto. Mr. Krol also admitted he got involved in selling guns and drugs for financial gain.

E. Mitigating Factors

20There are three mitigating factors that I must also consider when crafting a proportionate sentence.

a. Guilty plea

21Mr. Krol pleaded guilty, which is a very significant mitigating factor.

22Mr. Krol has taken full responsibility and expressed remorse for his conduct. When asked if he had anything to say during his sentencing hearing, Mr. Krol said he regrets his actions. Mr. Krol said that at the time he was only thinking about his own financial gain but he now understands how his actions created a significant risk of harm to lots of people.

23I appreciate that Mr. Krol pleaded guilty late in the proceedings. His trial was scheduled to start a few weeks after his plea. Nevertheless, Mr. Krol’s guilty plea has saved some court resources as well.

b. Rehabilitative Prospectives

24Denunciation and deterrence are the most important sentencing principles because of the seriousness of Mr. Krol’s offences. But rehabilitation is still relevant and I am satisfied that Mr. Krol has good rehabilitative prospects.

25Mr. Krol is still relatively young. He was 28 years old when he started selling firearms and drugs to the undercover officers.

26Counsel for Mr. Krol gave me information about his background and his childhood experiences, which I accept as true. Mr. Krol faced several significant challenges growing up. Mr. Krol experienced mental health and cognitive issues as a child, which made school very difficult for him. Mr. Krol was removed from his parents’ care when he was 14 years old. He lived in group homes until he was 17 years old. Mr. Krol was physically and emotionally abused in the group homes, which lead to more mental health issues including post-traumatic stress disorder. Because of the upheaval and trauma in his life, Mr. Krol did not finish high school and started using drugs.

27When Mr. Krol left the group home, he had no supports in the community and experienced periods of homelessness. He worked temporary and seasonal jobs. But he found it difficult to maintain employment especially once he had a criminal record.

28Before Mr. Krol’s arrest on these charges, his life was becoming more stable. He was in a relationship with the mother of his youngest child. He reconnected with his own mother. He started a methadone program to address his drug use. And he was trying to re-establish contact with his three older children through the family court.

29Mr. Krol has continued to work on his own rehabilitation while in custody. He has taken full advantage of the educational opportunities at the TSDC. When Mr. Krol was admitted to the TSDC in February 2024, he had completed only four and a half high school credits. Mr. Krol has been working, largely independently, on other high school courses while in custody. Now, Mr. Krol needs only two more courses to complete his high school diploma, which is a very significant achievement.

30Mr. Krol has also completed several life skills programs in custody. Mr. Krol participated in 17 workshops offered at the TSDC. Mr. Krol completed the 21-week NorthStar program, which focused on discipline, personal responsibility, behavioural self-regulation and preparation for reintegration. Mr. Krol also finished a 16-week life skills and employment readiness program through Urban Rez Solutions Social Enterprise. The goal of that program is to strengthen social-emotional intelligence, restorative practices, mental wellness and financial literacy. A Case Manager with the Urban Rez program wrote a letter of support for Mr. Krol in which he said that Mr. Krol displayed a positive attitude throughout the program and participated in a respectful manner.

31I also accept that Mr. Krol is devoted father to his youngest child. Mr. Krol still has a very positive relationship with the mother of his youngest child. She continues to support Mr. Krol, and she facilitates regular contact between Mr. Krol and their child.

32The work Mr. Krol has done in custody is impressive and gives me confidence that he is committed to turning his life around. I, therefore, find that Mr. Krol has demonstrated he has good rehabilitative prospects.

c. Conditions of Detention

33Mr. Krol argued that his sentence should be reduced by 865 days (or 1 day for each day he has been in custody) because the conditions at the TSDC are so deplorable. Mr. Krol argued that judges have been condemning the conditions at the TSDC for years but nothing has changed. Mr. Krol urged me to quantifying the credit he receives so the public understands that the government’s inaction is the reason he is receiving what might otherwise be considered a lenient sentence.

34The Crown agreed that Mr. Krol has experienced unusually harsh conditions at the TSDC and that those conditions are a mitigating factor. But the Crown argued that a global sentence of 16 years is appropriate after accounting for the conditions in which Mr. Krol has been detained.

35I have discretion to consider the conditions of detention as a mitigating factor if the conditions are more restrictive or more difficult or more punitive than the normal restrictions associated with pretrial custody. Quantifying the extent to which the conditions of detention mitigate a sentence is not necessarily inappropriate so long as this factor is not given undue weight. The conditions of detention are simply one of many factors to be considered when fixing the appropriate sentence. And the conditions of detention can never justify an otherwise unfit sentence: R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344, at paras. 50-53.

36Judges of this Court continue to quantify the extent to which harsh conditions of pre-sentence detention impacted their sentence calculation despite the caution from the Court of Appeal in Marshall: R. v. Stephens, 2026 ONSC 1950; R. v. Reid, 2026 ONSC 136; R. v. Shaikh and Tanoli, 2024 ONSC 774. Two reasons have been given for why it is useful to quantify the impact of harsh pre-sentence detention: transparency and consistency. In Shaikh and Tanoli, Justice Molloy explained that quantifying the impact of the conditions of detention (a) ensures the public understand the scope of the problem in our correctional institutions and (b) creates an incentive for the government to improve the conditions. Justice Molloy also explained that quantifying the impact of the conditions of detention reduces the risk that some judges will award substantial “credit” while other judges will give very little or no “credit” for the same deplorable conditions.

37Mr. Krol has been at the TSDC since shortly after his arrest on February 13, 2024. Mr. Krol filed two affidavits which describe the conditions he has endured and the impact of those conditions on him.² The Crown did not cross-examine Mr. Krol on his affidavits.

38I accept that Mr. Krol has experienced very harsh conditions at the TSDC. He experienced frequent lockdowns, overcrowding, regular strip searches, and unhygienic conditions. He has had difficulty assessing proper medical care. The restrictions on family visits made it difficult for him to maintain contact with his former partner and their child. I accept Mr. Krol’s evidence that these conditions have had a profound impact on his physical and mental health, and I find that the extremely harsh conditions at the TSDC are a very significant mitigating factor.

a. Lockdowns

39The TSDC produced three different documents that purport to record the number of lockdowns Mr. Krol has experienced. There are minor inconsistencies between those three documents. Mr. Krol also kept track of the number of lockdowns he experienced on a small calendar he had in his cell. Based on all the records, I am satisfied that Mr. Krol experienced approximately 250 lockdowns between February 18, 2024 and April 16, 2026. In other words, Mr. Krol has experienced a full or partial lockdown on approximately 30 percent of the days he has been at the TSDC.

40I accept Mr. Krol’s evidence that lockdowns make the conditions of detention worse. During lockdowns, inmates have to spend hours or days in their cell with very little to do. Programs are cancelled. Access to the showers is limited. Inmates cannot access the phones or the exercise yard. All of the restrictions during lockdowns cause inmates to become agitated and restless, which leads to more conflict and violence on the range.

41I accept Mr. Krol’s evidence that the frequent lockdowns have exacerbated his mental health problems. He experiences depression, anxiety, claustrophobia, and post-traumatic stress symptoms when he is locked in his cell for lengthy periods of time. Mr. Krol’s said that lockdowns leave him feeling like he is not even human.

42The records from the TSDC identify the reason for each lockdown. The reason for some lockdowns has been redacted from the record. For all the other lockdowns, “staff shortage” is the stated reason. It is unconscionable that inadequate staffing continues to be the most common reason for lockdowns at the TSDC. Staffing of correctional institutions is entirely within the government’s control. But staff shortages have been a persistent problem at the TSDC for many years. The government’s failure to address this problem despite repeated commentary by the judiciary reveals a shocking lack of respect and concern for the basic human rights of people facing criminal charges in this province.

b. Triple-bunking

43“Triple bunking” refers to when three people are housed in a cell designed for two people. When that happens, one person has to sleep and eat on the floor.

44The records produced by the TSDC state that Mr. Krol was never “triple bunked.” Mr. Krol swears in his affidavit that the TSDC records are not accurate. Mr. Krol wrote, and I accept, that he was “triple bunked” for four months in 2025 and for a few days in 2026. Mr. Krol wrote that he never slept on the floor but he still found it very difficult to be in a cell with two other people.

45I accept Mr. Krol’s evidence that lockdowns are particularly difficult when there are three people in a cell. Mr. Krol wrote, “It makes it hard to avoid conflict with cell mates, and it creates a lack of dignity that we are required to live with on a constant basis.”

c. Institutional Searches

46Mr. Krol provided extensive evidence about the number and nature of searches he has been subjected to at the TSDC.

47Mr. Krol says his cell has been searched every two to three months. Mr. Krol explained that the Corrections Officers sometimes search every cell on a range. At other times, the Correctional Officers search a single cell or a group of cells. Mr. Krol says that his cell was almost always searched when there was a search of any sort on his range. During one search of his cell, Correctional Officers seized documents that contained privileged information. The Officers put the documents with Mr. Krol’s disclosure. Nevertheless, Mr. Krol worried that staff read the privileged documents and would use the information in those documents to further target him. After Mr. Krol’s lawyer intervened, the privileged documents were eventually returned to her. During another search in August or September 2025, Mr. Krol and his cellmate were moved into a cell with dried feces and blood on the walls, which they had to clean themselves.

48I accept Mr. Krol’s evidence that during his first 13 months in custody he was strip searched any time his cell was searched. Mr. Krol described that some of the strip searches were done in the shower facility on the range. There are no cameras in the shower rooms but Mr. Krol and his cellmate would be strip searched at the same time. Mr. Krol was also subject to some strip searches in his cell. On those occasions, the cameras on the range would capture the strip searches.

49The routine strip searches abruptly stopped in early 2025. Now, inmates are subject to a frisk search and full-body imaging in a scanner when they are removed from their cells. It is only if an inmate fails the scan that a more intrusive strip search is conducted. Mr. Krol states, and I accept, that he has never failed a body scan and has not been subject to a strip search since the procedure changed.

50Searches are an inevitable part of being detained in a correctional facility. I accept that searches are disruptive and unsettling. But those in charge of the institution are required to ensure the safety of the institution, which requires regular searches for weapons and contraband. I have no basis to find that Mr. Krol was unfairly singled out for searches. Nor do I have a basis to find that the decision to conduct any particular search of Mr. Krol or his cell was unjustified or contrary to institutional policy.

51I am, however, concerned about Mr. Krol’s description about how strip searches are being carried out. Strip searches are highly invasive. They have a profound impact on a person’s dignity and security of the person. It is a positive development that the TSDC is using body-scanning technology to reduce the number of strip searches. But to the extent strip searches are still authorized, they must be carried out in a way that protects the detainees’ dignity and privacy as much as possible. The fact that some strip searches are carried out in view of surveillance cameras or other inmates is very troubling.

d. Other difficulties in the institution

52Mr. Krol describes other difficulties he has had at the TSDC.

53For example, he has had difficulty accessing medical care. Mr. Krol states in his affidavit that he waited months to see a doctor to address physical health concerns. He also waited six months to see a psychiatrist to address his worsening mental health. Mr. Krol’s lawyer had to intervene to get him necessary dental care. Mr. Krol’s lawyer also intervened to get him medical attention for his addiction issues.

54Mr. Krol described challenges he had accessing the Crown disclosure. He says that he could only access his disclosure for a few hours a week at most.

55Mr. Krol’s family has also had a hard time visiting him because of restrictive visiting times and facilities at the TSDC. Mr. Krol’s youngest son has been diagnosed with autism and cannot sit still for any length of time, which makes visits in the communal visiting area very challenging. Mr. Krol’s partner asked the TSDC to allow them to visit Mr. Krol in an individual room as an accommodation so their son could move around without disturbing other people. The TSDC arranged one visit in an individual room but has not allowed any others.

e. Impact of the conditions of detention on Mr. Krol

56Mr. Krol says that his inability to exercise any control over his living conditions and the cleanliness of his cell has been extremely demoralizing. I accept Mr. Krol’s evidence that the conditions of his detention have been oppressive and have negatively impacted his physical and mental health. While I am not satisfied that the conditions Mr. Krol has experienced justify an 865-day reduction in his sentence, I am satisfied this is a very significant mitigating factor.

F. Appropriate Sentence

57Counsel referred me to several cases involving large-scale trafficking of firearms and drugs. Three cases were most helpful to me in situating Mr. Krol’s case within the established sentencing ranges: Allison and Cunningham, Marakah and Dubajic.

58In Allison and Cunningham, Mr. Cunningham pleaded guilty to trafficking firearms and participating in the activities of a criminal organization. Mr. Cunningham admitted that he transported 29 firearms (which had been imported from the US) from Cornwall to Toronto. Mr. Cunningham also admitted that he sold 19 of the firearms within a 48-hour period. The Court imposed a 9-year sentence. The Court found that the fact Mr. Cunningham was able to quickly sell 19 firearms shows the extent of his connection to the criminal world. Like Mr. Krol, Mr. Cunningham pleaded guilty and took responsibility for his conduct. There is one important aggravating factor in Allison and Cunningham that is not present in this case: Mr. Cunningham admitted he committed the offences at the behest of a criminal organization. There is also one important mitigating factor present in Allison and Cunningham that is not present here: Mr. Cunningham had no criminal record.

59Even though Mr. Krol has not been found guilty of participating in the activities of a criminal organization or committing the offences for the benefit of a criminal organization, I am satisfied his offences are more serious than in Allison and Cunningham for two reasons. First, Mr. Krol trafficked twice as many firearms as Mr. Cunningham. Second, Mr. Krol played a central role in every aspect of every transaction by negotiating the price, sourcing the firearms and arranging for delivery.

60In Marakah, the court also imposed a 9-year sentence. Mr. Marakah was found guilty after a trial of trafficking or conspiring to traffic 13 firearms and ammunition. The Court found that Mr. Marakah directed his co-accused to purchase 13 firearms. Mr. Marakah kept one of the firearms for himself and trafficked the other 12 to an unidentified third party. I appreciate that the Supreme Court of Canada overturned Mr. Marakah’s conviction and acquitted him. Nonetheless, the sentencing judge’s reasons are still helpful in assessing the appropriate sentence for Mr. Krol. There are several similarities between the circumstances in Marakah and Mr. Krol’s circumstances. Like Mr. Krol, Mr. Marakah was a central player in the trafficking. The sentence judge found that Mr. Marakah was instrumental in the distribution chain for the firearms. And like Mr. Krol, Mr. Marakah had a criminal record. The most important difference, however, is that Mr. Marakah sold only 12 firearms while Mr. Krol sold 60 firearms and dozens of magazines, which makes Mr. Krol’s offences significantly more serious.

61Because Mr. Krol’s offences are much more serious than in either Allison and Cunningham and Marakah, I find that a 9-year sentence for the firearms offences, as proposed by Mr. Krol’s counsel, would be disproportionately low.

62The Court in Allison and Cunningham described in detail the sentence imposed on the person who imported the 29 firearms into Canada, Mr. Poyser. Mr. Poyser pleaded guilty to trafficking firearms for the benefit of a criminal organization, importing firearms, and three counts of possessing a restricted or prohibited firearm. Mr. Poyser admitted that he was involved in importing into Canada the 29 firearms that Mr. Cunningham transported to Toronto. He also admitted that he made plans to import another 100 firearms into Canada in two separate shipments. Mr. Poyser was arrested shortly after he took possession of the first shipment. When the police searched Mr. Poyser’s car, they found 60 handguns and 108 magazines (54 of which were high-capacity magazines). Mr. Poyser was given a 15-year sentence.

63There are several similarities between the circumstances in Mr. Krol’s case and the circumstances in Mr. Poyser’s case. Both pleaded guilty and took responsibility for their conduct. Both were the central player in a sophisticated operation involving several transactions. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that Mr. Krol’s offences are less serious than Mr. Poyser’s for several reasons. First, Mr. Krol trafficked fewer firearms and magazines than Mr. Poyser. Second, Mr. Krol was not involved in illegally importing firearms into Canada. Third, Mr. Krol did not admit he was trafficking firearms for the benefit of a criminal organization. I, therefore, find that a 16-year sentence as proposed by the Crown would be disproportionately long.

64My conclusion that a 16-year sentence would be disproportionately long is supported by the Court’s decision in Dubajic. Mr. Dubajic was convicted after trial of possessing 57 handguns, 8 long guns, and 15,000 rounds of ammunition for the purpose of trafficking. He was also convicted of possessing 106kg of cocaine, 30kg of crystal methamphetamine, 5kg of fentanyl, and 4kg of MDMA for the purpose of trafficking. The Court imposed a global sentence of 16 years and 11 months even though Mr. Dubajic did not have a criminal record. The Court held that the appropriate sentence would have been 18 years were it not for the harsh conditions of presentence detention. In other words, the Court reduced the sentence by 13 months to account for conditions of detention.

65I find that Mr. Krol’s total sentence should be shorter than Mr. Dubajic’s. Mr. Dubajic’s offences are, collectively, more serious than Mr. Krol’s offences. Although the number of firearms Mr. Krol trafficked is comparable to Mr. Dubajic, Mr. Dubajic trafficked significantly more drugs, including 106kg of cocaine and 5kg of fentanyl. There was one important mitigating factor in Dubajic that is not present here: Mr. Dubajic had no criminal record. But there are several mitigating factors here that were not present in Dubajic. First, Mr. Krol pleaded guilty. Second, Mr. Krol has expressed remorse for his conduct. Third, Mr. Krol has engaged in significant rehabilitative efforts since his arrest. The Court in Dubajic found that Mr. Dubajic had shown no remorse and had not engaged in any rehabilitative efforts.

66While the sentences imposed in other cases are helpful, Mr. Krol’s sentence must be crafted to reflect the seriousness of his offence considering all aggravating and mitigating factors. Were it not for the harsh conditions Mr. Krol has endured at the TSDC and the impact of those conditions on his health and dignity, I would have imposed a global sentence of 14 years. After factoring in the conditions of detention, I find that a global sentence of 13 years is just and proportionate. The 13-year sentence shall be apportioned as follows:

i. On each count of trafficking a firearm committed in 2024 (counts 60 to 66 and 68 to 75), Mr. Krol shall be sentenced to 11 years.

ii. On each count of trafficking a firearm committed in 2023 (counts 1 to 7, 9 to 23, 25 to 37, 40 to 43, 47 to 49, 53 to 58), Mr. Krol shall be sentenced to 9 years, which he shall serve concurrent to the sentences on the other firearms offences.

iii. On each count of tampering with the serial number of a firearm (counts 8 and 24), Mr. Krol shall be sentenced to 4 years, which he shall serve concurrent to the sentences on the other firearms.

iv. On the one count of trafficking methamphetamine (count 38), Mr. Krol shall be sentenced to 8 years, which he shall serve concurrent to the sentences on the firearms offences.

v. On the one count of trafficking a substance held out to be carfentanil (count 39), Mr. Krol shall be sentenced to 4 years, which he shall serve concurrent to the sentences on the firearm offences.

vi. On the count of possessing a loaded firearm (count 77), Mr. Krol shall be sentenced to 4 years, which shall be served concurrent to the sentences on the firearms and drug offences.

vii. On each count of breaching a weapons prohibition order (counts 83 to 86), Mr. Krol shall be sentenced to 2 years, which shall be served concurrent to each other but consecutive to all the other sentences.

67Mr. Krol is entitled to one and a half days credit for each of the 865 days he has spent in custody so far, which amounts to 1298 days of credit. Mr. Krol’s remaining sentence is 3447 days or 9 years and 162 days.

G. Ancillary Orders

68The Crown sought two ancillary orders.

69First, the Crown sought an order requiring Mr. Krol to provide a sample of his bodily substances for the purpose of DNA analysis. Mr. Krol has been convicted of a secondary designated offence. I, therefore, have the discretion to make a DNA order if I am satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to do so: Criminal Code, s. 487.051(3)(b). I appreciate that making a DNA order will infringe Mr. Krol’s privacy and security of the person. However, given the nature and seriousness of his offences, I am satisfied it is in the interests of justice to require Mr. Krol to provide a sample of his bodily substances for the purpose of DNA analysis.

70Second, the Crown seeks an order prohibiting Mr. Krol from owning any weapon for the rest of his life. Because Mr. Krol has been convicted of trafficking a firearm and possessing a prohibited firearm, I am required to make a weapons prohibition order. Because Mr. Krol has already been subject to a weapons prohibition order, the order I make must be a lifetime ban. Mr. Krol is, therefore, prohibited from possessing any firearm, crossbow, restricted weapon, ammunition and explosive substance for the rest of his life.

71Mr. Krol asked me to waive the requirement that he pay the applicable victim fine surcharges. The Crown took no position on this issue. I am satisfied that requiring Mr. Krol to pay the victim fine surcharges would cause undue financial hardship: Criminal Code, s. 737(2.1)(a). Mr. Krol has been found guilty of 72 offences. The victim fine surcharge is $200 for each indictable offence. If I were to order Mr. Krol to pay the applicable victim surcharge for each offence, the total would be $14,400. Mr. Krol has already been in custody for more than 3 years. He will be serving a sentence for the next 9 years. Mr. Krol has no ability to pay the victim fine surcharges now and will have no ability to pay for many years to come. When Mr. Krol is released, he will likely have difficulty finding work because of his criminal record. Mr. Krol is, therefore, not required to pay the victim fine surcharges.

___________________________ Davies J.

Released: June 26, 2026

CITATION: R. v. Krol, 2026 ONSC 3775

Footnotes

1. 1The CPIC printout filed as Exhibit 2 on sentencing says that Mr. Krol was convicted in July 2015 of possession of “firearm or ammunition” contrary to the weapons prohibition order. The Crown confirmed that entry is wrong. Mr. Krol was convicted of violating his weapons prohibition order because he was in possession of a switchblade, which is a prohibited weapon: Criminal Code, s. 84(1).
2. 2One of Mr. Krol’s affidavits was filed in support of an application for a stay of proceedings on the basis that the conditions of his pre-sentence detention violated his rights under s. 7 of the Charter. Mr. Krol abandoned that application when he pleaded guilty but asked that I consider his affidavits when I decide the extent to which the conditions of his detention are a mitigating factor on sentence.