CITATION: R. v. Richards, 2026 ONSC 3813

COURT FILE NO.: CR-23-90000441-0000

DATE: 20260629

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

ANDRE RICHARDS

Jacqueline Porter, for the Crown

Luka Rados, for Andre Richards

HEARD: June 10, 2026

R.F. GOLDSTEIN J.

1. Overview

1On October 6, 2022, Andre Richards was stopped at a RIDE (“Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere”) checkpoint in Toronto. The police arrested and searched him. They found him in possession of a significant quantity of drugs, including over 350 grams of fentanyl. Mr. Richards brought an application to exclude the drugs based on a violation of his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Justice Shin dismissed the application: R. v. Richards, 2025 ONSC 1812. Mr. Richards was tried before me based on an agreed statement of facts. He did not contest the Crown’s facts. As a result, I found him guilty of one count of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking. He now comes before the court for sentencing.

2. Facts

2The facts are set out in detail in Shin J.’s Charter judgment. For the purpose of the uncontested trial, the agreed admissions pursuant to s. 655 of the Criminal Code are as follows:

1. Just after midnight on October 6, 2022, officers with the Toronto Highway Safety Division of the Ontario Provincial Police set up a RIDE checkpoint on Blackcreek Drive just south of Jane Street in the City of Toronto. The RIDE checkpoint was located in the two northbound lanes, just before they become Highway 400.

2. At 1:31 a.m., the accused, Andre Richards, drove up to the checkpoint in his vehicle, a 2017 silver Honda Accord.

3. He had 356.4 grams of fentanyl and 19.9 grams of cocaine in his jacket and pants pockets.

4. The accused specifically admits the continuity of all exhibits from point of seizure to point of analysis.

5. The accused admits that he possessed these drugs for the purpose of trafficking them.

6. Fentanyl is commonly consumed by the point (0.1 grams). This may vary depending on purity and user tolerance. 356.4 grams of fentanyl could represent approximately 3,564 individual doses of fentanyl.

3. Circumstances Of The Offender

3An Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report was prepared for Mr. Richards. He is a 34-year-old Black man who was born and raised in Toronto. He is a first offender, and this was his first brush with the law. What is apparent to me is that up until he decided to get into the business of trafficking drugs, which seems to have come late and as result of financial circumstances, he had led a pro-social life. While he did have encounters with law enforcement, he had never been arrested or charged with an offence prior to this one.

4Mr. Richards’ mother, Lana Richards, worked as a nurse in Jamaica. She came to Canada as a visitor but overstayed her visa. Eventually she obtained permanent residence and citizenship, but she was never able to transfer her nursing credentials. She worked as a cleaner for over 20 years. She has since retired. Ms. Richards described her son as a quiet young man. She raised him and her other children in triplex at Keele and Eglinton in Toronto, beginning when Mr. Richards was about 4 years old. They were not rich, but it appears that Ms. Richards was able to provide stable housing and financial stability. Mr. Richards completed elementary and high school, where he played sports and was described as a “class clown”. He was diagnosed with ADHD and placed in an applied stream, but otherwise he seems to have exhibited no behavioural problems or criminality. In other words, he seems to have been a normal kid from a pro-social background in the sense that his home life was stable (notwithstanding the lack of a father) and he had an involved and employed mother. This stability was demonstrated when Mr. Richards left high school (he left before graduating) and modelled pro-social behaviour through consistent employment and a stable and consistent relationship with his partner. He and his partner continued to live with his mother, in the house where he was raised.

5Mr. Richards has been with his partner since they were 14 years old. They have two children together and he is a family man who always provided for his partner and children. I don’t want to become involved with amateur psychology, but I infer that Mr. Richards is one of those men whose father was not part of his life, and, as a result, tried to be a good father to his own children. The only evidence I have, and I have no reason to doubt it, is that he is an active, loving, and involved father.

6Mr. Richards worked steadily until 2021, when he was laid off as a result of the COVID epidemic. He had a series of jobs, including a long stint working for Boys and Girls Club. He received CERB but found himself in a financial crunch. He told the EPSR writer that he was not managing financially. He had a friend who was selling fentanyl, and while initially reluctant, he became involved. He intended simply to sell drugs as a temporary fix. He was concerned about providing for his family. When he was arrested and his partner discovered he had been selling drugs, she was incredibly upset and angry with him. So was his mother. These and other people around him were surprised, because he had never been in trouble and it appeared to be out of character for him.

7I am aware that Mr. Richards and his common law partner together face new drug trafficking charges. He now finds himself in custody as a result. I accept what is in the Morris report, of course, but this turn of events is unfortunate, especially as his partner also faces charges arising out of the same alleged transaction. Having said that, Mr. Rados, on behalf of Mr. Richards, correctly takes the position that the presumption of innocence applies to both individuals in relation to these other charges. Under the circumstances I give no weight to the mere fact that they have been charged: Criminal Code, s. 725(1); R. v. Heron, 2017 ONCA 441; R. v. Heath, 2019 NSSC 309.

8Mr. Richards described encounters with the police, which the EPSR writer described as being consistent with research showing the over-policing of Black communities. In school, he felt that some teachers made racist comments. His streaming into non-academic subjects is also consistent with research showing poorer educational outcomes for Black students.

9The evidence suggests strongly that Mr. Richards was not open about his financial situation with his partner and his mother. The EPSR writer’s view is that had he been more forthcoming, his turn to drug trafficking might have been avoided. She suggests, without directly saying so, that his pride was wounded by his unemployment. He felt that he had to solve the problem and provide for his family no matter what. And that, unfortunately, led him to the path of drug trafficking.

4. Impact on The Victim or Community

10Former Supreme Court Justice Moldaver has been quoted many times (including by me) for his statement in R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46 at para. 98 regarding the scourge of fentanyl:

The time has thus come for our perception of the gravity of large scale trafficking in fentanyl to accord with the gravity of the crisis it has caused. Large scale 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. In many ways, “[t]rafficking in fentanyl is almost the equivalent of putting multiple bullets in the chambers of a revolver and playing Russian roulette. It is the most efficient killer of drug users on the market today” (R. v. Frazer, 2017 ABPC 116, 58 Alta. L.R. (6th) 185, at para. 11). Put simply, it is a crime that can be expected to not only destroy lives, but to undermine the very foundations of our society.

11Fentanyl is now widely recognized as the worst of all the harmful drugs. It is well known that it leads the league tables for addiction, overdose deaths, and the destruction of communities. Those who traffic in this most noxious of substances should understand that the hurt and the harm to people around him. Mr. Richards, as a person who has known others who have died violently, should have known better. I will have more to say about the need to denounce this behaviour later in these reasons.

5. Legal Parameters

12Possession of a schedule I drug for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

6. Mitigating and Aggravating Factors

13There are mitigating and aggravating factors in this case, as there are in every case. The one factor that Mr. Richards does not enjoy is the mitigation that goes along with a guilty plea. Mr. Richards decided to make an application to exclude the seized drugs and lost that application. Mr. Richards was unable to establish a breach of the Charter: R. v. Richards at paras. 158 and 162.

14That said, litigating the Charter breach was a reasonable strategy and while it was unsuccessful, nothing in Justice Shin’s lengthy analysis suggests that the application was frivolous. Indeed, Ms. Porter, very fairly, does not suggest that it was frivolous and acknowledges that the application was not without merit. I do accept that Mr. Richards has shown remorse and taken responsibility, as expressed in the EPSR. He did not require the Crown to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt through an extensive and expensive trial process. He has saved some court time, although I note that he has not saved nearly as much as he would have by simply pleading guilty at the outset. I agree with Mr. Rados who argued that an uncontested trial after an unsuccessful Charter motion lies closer on the spectrum to a guilty plea than to a contested trial, although it is still not a guilty plea.

15It is also mitigating that up until the point where he chose to deal drugs Mr. Richards led a pro-social life. There is no evidence that he had ever been in trouble. He had steady employment with a reputable charitable organization and was raising his children with his partner. Indeed, it is unusual for someone of Mr. Richards’ age and station to be a first offender – and given his family situation, it is also tragic.

16The harsh conditions of custody are also mitigating. Mr. Richards has been housed at Maplehurst Detention Centre. He has had no misconducts while in custody. According to the Maplehurst records, as of June 10 he was subject to 65 full lockdowns and 19 partial lockdowns. During a full lockdown the inmate is confined to his cell for the 6.5 hours he would normally be out in the dayroom. During a partial lockdown the inmate is confined to his cell for some part of the 6.5 hours he would normally be out in the dayroom. According to the jail records, as of June 10 Mr. Richards:

… had full access to all privileges (Showers, Dayroom, Phone, and Television Access) unless on Full Lock-Down due to extenuating circumstances. A twenty (20) minute fresh-air yard is offered to offenders daily unless on full lock down.

17In addition to the lockdowns, Mr. Richards was triple-bunked for 14 days at Maplehurst. When a cell is triple-bunked it means that one inmate is in each of the two bunks, and one inmate sleeps on the floor on a mattress.

18I take the harsh conditions of custody into account as a mitigating factor. I turn to the aggravating factors.

19It is highly aggravating that Mr. Richards had a very significant quantity of a very significantly dangerous drug. There is no getting around it: 356 grams of fentanyl had the potential to destroy many lives, cause many overdoses, and possibly even cause many deaths. That is why our courts treat it as such a terrible substance. The worst of the crack cocaine epidemic in the 1990’s and ruined lives and communities. This drug is even worse. In saying that, I am saying nothing different from the observations made by Justice Moldaver in Parranto.

20It is also aggravating that Mr. Richards was also in possession of just under 20 grams of cocaine. There is no evidence that Mr. Richards has a drug problem. I have no difficulty finding beyond a reasonable doubt, given the quantity, that Mr. Richards was in the business of selling cocaine as well as fentanyl. I treat that as an aggravating factor.

7. Positions Of The Parties, Principles of Sentencing, and Sentence Imposed

21Ms. Porter, Crown counsel, argues that Mr. Richards should be sentenced to 9 years in the penitentiary, less pre-sentence custody. This is a serious case involving a large amount of a terrible drug. As such the key sentencing principles are denunciation and deterrence. I will briefly summarize some of the cases that the Crown points to:

• R. v. Disher, 2017 ONCA 710: a four-year sentence for a 22 year old first offender who was party to possession for the purpose of 42.6 grams of heroin adulterated with cocaine, fentanyl, and carfentanyl.

• R. v. Lynch, 2022 ONCA 109: a 6-year sentence (raised on appeal from four years) for a 29 year old with a limited criminal record who pleaded guilty to trafficking 572 grams of cocaine and 149 grams of MDMA; and possession for the purpose of trafficking of 965 grams cocaine, 41 grams of fentanyl, and 149 grams of MDMA.

• R. v. Sutherland, 2026 ONCA 12: a youthful first offender was found guilty after trial of possession of 93.5 grams of cocaine and 42.5 grams of fentanyl. His sentence of 6 years was upheld on appeal.

• R. v. Achilles, 2022 ONCA 382: The offender was found guilty after trial of possession of 135 grams of fentanyl and 730 grams of methamphetamine as well as a weapon. His sentence of 8 years was slightly reduced in relation to the weapon but not the drugs.

• R. v. Hudson, 2019 ONSC 290: The first offender was found guilty after trial of importing and possession for the purpose of 323 grams of fentanyl and sentenced to 8 years concurrent on each count.

• R. v. Seguin, 2023 ONCA 514: the offender had a significant criminal record. He was found in possession of 466 grams of fentanyl and 10 pills of methamphetamine. After trial he was sentenced to 12 years.

• R. v. Olvedi, 2021 ONCA 518: the first offender accepted a package as part of an importing scheme and was found in possession of 499 grams of 100% pure fentanyl. He was cooperative with police and remorseful. He was sentenced to concurrent sentences of 15 years for importing fentanyl, and 12 years for possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking. The sentence was upheld on appeal.

22Mr. Rados argues that Mr. Richards should be sentenced to 7 years less Duncan and Summers Credit, or 6 ½ years as a final sentence less Summers credit. Duncan refers to R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754, and deals with harsh conditions of custody; Summers refers to R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26, and s. 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code. That section of the Criminal Code routinely allocates 1.5 days of credit for every day spent in custody, to account for the fact that pre-sentence custody does not count towards parole or earned remission. Mr. Rados has referred me to the following cases (again, I need not summarize all of them):

• R. v. Leite, 2019 ONCA 121: 6 year sentence for a relatively youthful first offender after trial who possessed 147.9 grams of fentanyl, 1.234 kg of cocaine, and 371.1 grams of methamphetamine.

• R. v. Griffith, 2022 ONSC 6406: 5 year sentence on an uncontested trial after a Charter application was dismissed. The offender possessed 58 grams of fentanyl and 71 grams of cocaine. He had a very dated record but was trafficking in public in the presence of his young child.

• R. v. Aden: 2021 ONSC 2370: The offender had a criminal record and was on probation when he possessed 113 grams of fentanyl and 9.3 grams of crack cocaine. He was convicted after a trial. He was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment.

• R. v. Quast, 2020 ONSC 6870: The youthful first offender pleaded guilty to possession of 517 grams of fentanyl, 2.5 kilograms of cocaine, 143 grams of heroin, and 103 grams of crystal methamphetamine. The offender had rented the storage locker containing the drugs but was not the directing mind. The Crown could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew the total amounts or nature of all the drugs. He had a serious drug addiction. He was sentenced to four years imprisonment.

23As can be seen, a 9-year sentence for the possession of over 344 grams of fentanyl is well within the range, especially considering the 12-year sentence (on possession for the purpose) relating to 499 grams of fentanyl in the case of Olivdedi – which was only 142.6 grams less than Mr. Richards possessed. I use the word “only” to show that this offence also involved a very significant amount of fentanyl. I have already mentioned the almost 20 grams of cocaine, which I treat as an aggravating factor. The cases with sentences in the lower range – Disher, Sutherland, Leite, Griffith, and Aden for example – involved smaller amounts of fentanyl than the amount possessed by Mr. Richards. In contrast, larger amounts – Segin, Olivedi, Hudson – received higher sentences. Quast is something of an outlier, based on an unusual set of facts where the Crown could not prove the full amounts or the nature of the substances.

24There are many sentencing principles that a judge must consider when sentencing an individual. A fit sentence for one individual with 356.4 grams of fentanyl and 19.9 grams of cocaine may be different for another individual with 356.4 grams of fentanyl and 19.9 grams of cocaine. In a case of this nature, involving a significant amount of very dangerous drugs, denunciation and deterrence are the most important sentencing principles. Those who would traffic large amounts of these dangerous drugs must understand that doing so will attract significant sentences. The courts, as representatives and protectors of the community, must denounce the trafficking of large amounts of these most destructive substances.

25I must not, however, ignore Mr. Richards’ prospects for rehabilitation. He does have reasonable prospects for rehabilitation. He has led a pro-social life until he became involved in drug trafficking. He has had steady employment in the past. There is no reason he cannot do so again.

26As mentioned, the harsh conditions of custody are mitigating. The proper approach, as set out in R. v. Smith, 2023 ONCA 500 at para. 52, and R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344, is to treat credit for harsh conditions of custody (so-called Duncan Credit: R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754) as mitigating rather than as part of a mathematical calculation. Fairburn A.C.J.O. in Smith called it: “a factor in the course of determining the fit and proper sentence.” Mr. Richards was under full or partial lockdown for about 28% of the days he was in custody. Obviously, the lack of showers, access to fresh air, and ability to move about the institution is a hardship. The triple bunking is also deeply problematic. It is certainly not the worst case of lockdowns or triple bunking that we regularly see in the courts, but it is still inhumane enough that it merits mitigation of the overall sentence.

27I thus come to the proper sentence to impose. This is a very unfortunate case. Mr. Richards is a man who up until he began dealing drugs, led a pro-social life, supported his family (including his mother) and was in the process of raising his children. I accept that Mr. Richards felt financial pressure and that is why he became involved drug trafficking. That explains it but does not excuse it. Moreover, once Mr. Richards became involved in dealing drugs, he seems to have found that it improved his lifestyle. He moved out, with his partner and children, into his own apartment. He continued to maintain two cars. I take Mr. Rados’s point about the necessity of transportation for people who are working poor, but there is no evidence that Mr. Richards and his partner needed two cars to get to and from employment or for ferrying children around. Financial hardship may have enticed him into dealing drugs, but it did not keep him there. The financial rewards did. It must also be said that, like millions of other Canadians, he received government assistance to get through the pandemic – and those millions generally did not choose to traffic in fentanyl to supplement their government assistance. As a result, I find that his moral blameworthiness is high. I accept that there has been structural racism in Mr. Richards’ life, as set out in the EPSER, and as there has been for many Black Canadians, but I do not see the link in this case between those barriers and Mr. Richards’ moral blameworthiness.

28When I take all the principles of sentencing into account, including denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and the mitigating factor of the harsh conditions of custody, I find that a sentence of 8 years is fit. I realize that some will assume that I simply split the difference between the Crown and the defence, but that is not how I arrived at a fit sentence. The 9-year sentence might have been fit but for the mitigation of the harsh conditions of custody and Mr. Richards’ prospects for rehabilitation. The 7-year sentence might have been fit but for the nature and amount of the drugs, and the aggravating factor of the presence of the cocaine.

29I understand that there may be collateral consequences in this case, given that Mr. Richards had been providing for his partner and children, but collateral consequences cannot be permitted to overcome a fit sentence: R. v. Habib, 2024 ONCA 830.

30Mr. Richards has been in custody since August 29, 2025. He has therefore been in custody for 305 days as of today. On an enhanced basis that is 457.5 days, which I will round up to 458 days, or approximately 15 ½ months. My understanding is that this pre-sentence custody is available for Mr. Richards to use in this matter.

31The warrant of committal will thus read as follows: 8 years in custody or 2920 days less 458 days credit, leaving 2462 days left to serve.

32There will also be a DNA order and a s. 109 order for 10 years. The victim-fine surcharge is waived.

R.F. Goldstein J.

Released: June 29, 2026

CITATION: R. v. Richards, 2026 ONSC 3813