CITATION: R. v. Dick, 2026 ONSC 3894
COURT FILE NO. CR 16/24
DATE: 2026 01 14
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
v.
DAIJUAN JOSIAH DICK
R E A S O N S F O R S E N T E N C E
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE C. CONLAN
On January 14, 2026, at ORANGEVILLE, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
R. Ghaly Counsel for the Federal Crown
A. Craig Counsel for Daijuan Josiah Dick
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
Legend
[sic] – indicates preceding word has been reproduced verbatim and is not a transcription error.
(ph) – indicates preceding word has been spelled phonetically.
W I T N E S S E S
WITNESSES
Exam
In-Ch.
Cr-
Exam
Re-
Exam
E X H I B I T S
EXHIBIT LETTER
ENTERED ON PAGE
Transcript Ordered: January 22, 2026
Transcript Completed: January 22, 2026
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 14, 2026
R E A S O N S F O R S E N T E N C E
The sentence is as follows, first, the victim fine surcharge is waived on each of the two convictions.
Next, there is a forfeiture order signed in the draft form filed by the Federal Crown for all items seized by the police.
Next, there is a section 109 Criminal Code of Canada firearms and weapons prohibition order issued for 10 years and for life as per the two sub-clauses.
Next, on each of the convictions, there is a secondary DNA order issued.
Finally, in terms of the sentence of
imprisonment, it is as follows: On count number one, Mr. Dick is sentenced to a period of imprisonment of one day deemed already served. Effectively, time served. No further time in custody.
And on count number three, Mr. Dick is sentenced to the exact same disposition, concurrent with the sentence imposed on count number one. That means that the global sentence is one day in custody deemed already served. Or, as it is commonly referred to, time served. No further time in custody for these two convictions.
On each conviction, the time served disposition is calculated in the following way: 900 days in custody, which is approximately 30 months or 2.5 years, less 508 days of pre-sentence custody credited as the equivalent of 900 days, leaving a net sentence of nil.
The equivalent of 900 days pre-sentence custody is calculated as follows: 508 days of real jail time multiplied by 1.5, which is the maximum Summers credit, allowable under the provisions of the Criminal Code, equals 762 days.
The offender is given a further 138 days of credit on account of the 424 days spent on very strict house arrest bail. Seven hundred and sixty-two days plus 138 days equals 900 days.
Mr. Dick is before the court to be sentenced on two charges that he pleaded guilty to today. Namely, count number one on the indictment that he, in April of 2022, did possess a substance namely cocaine, for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
And count number three, that he, at the same time and at the same place, without lawful excuse, possessed a loaded prohibited firearm, namely a Glock handgun, without being the holder of an authorization or licence permitting such possession, contrary to section 95(1) of the Criminal Code.
The facts underlying the two convictions, succinctly put, are that Mr. Dick was under observation or surveillance by the police. And at the time of his arrest, he was found to be in personal possession of 186 grams of cocaine. And he was also found to be in possession of a nine- millimetre Glock handgun that was loaded at the time, with multiple rounds of ammunition in its magazine.
In terms of the circumstances of the offender, Mr. Dick is a black male, 30 years of age today. He has no criminal record of any kind. He entered guilty pleas to the two counts and he has a nine- year old son.
Mr. Dick’s time in pre-sentence custody has been spent exclusively at the Maplehurst Correctional Complex. This court accepts that during that time in pre-sentence custody, the conditions have been overly harsh in that Mr. Dick has been the subject of frequent lockdowns, frequent triple bunking in his cell, a general lack of services and resources, and a general difficulty in communicating with anyone outside of the jail, including his legal counsel.
In terms of the positions of the Crown and the defence, Ms. Ghaly for the Federal Crown requested a global sentence of 3.5 years in the penitentiary, less the appropriate credit for pre-sentence custody, while the defence, Ms. Craig, counsel for Mr. Dick, requested an effective sentence of time served.
In terms of the principles of sentencing, this court agrees with Ms. Ghaly that the paramount principles applicable in this case are denunciation and deterrence, both general deterrence and individual or specific deterrence.
Of secondary importance, but important nonetheless, is the principle of rehabilitation as Mr. Dick is being sentenced by this court as a first-time offender.
In terms of the aggravating factors in this case, I agree with Ms. Ghaly that they include the quantity of cocaine in question. One hundred and eighty-six grams is a sizable amount.
And further aggravating is the fact that this case involves the toxic combination of illicit narcotics and a firearm. I will have more to say about that in a moment.
The mitigating factors in this case include the overly harsh conditions that Mr. Dick has experienced in pre-sentence custody, his guilty pleas, and the fact that he has no prior criminal record.
Mr. Dick’s guilty pleas have been entered in the face of triable issues. His guilty pleas have brought finality to the process. They represent unqualified acceptance of responsibility on the part of Mr. Dick. They also represent what I feel to be genuine expressions of his remorse for having committed these offences.
The guilty pleas were entered well before any trial in this case and in advance of any pre-trial applications being heard at the Superior Court of Justice level.
This is undoubtedly a very serious case. On that point I agree, unreservedly, with the submissions made by Ms. Ghaly.
As this court expressed in its decision in a case called R. v. Mitchell 2015 ONSC 5133, “the toxic combination of drugs and guns is a very real one and it poses a serious threat to public safety.”
The Court of Appeal, in the case of R. v. Wong, 2012 ONCA 767, stated the following at paragraphs 11 through 13:
The courts have repeatedly emphasized that the toxic combination of drugs and guns poses a pernicious and persisting threat to public safety and the welfare of the community. The social ills, including associated criminal conduct fueled by this combination is now well recognized. These offences called out for an exemplary sentence to achieve the important sentencing goals of denunciation and deterrence. Indeed, the firearms
offences, standing alone warranted a significant jail term … The combination of drugs and guns is particularly concerning. This combination is a serious aggravating factor on sentencing.
In all the circumstances of this case, the position advanced by the Federal Crown, that being a sentence of 3.5 years in the penitentiary, was not an unreasonable one.
This court’s decision on sentencing in this case ought not to be interpreted in any way as a criticism of the position advanced ably by Ms. Ghaly.
Rather, the decision of this court ought to be seen as a reflection that sentencing is a highly individualized process and in the particular circumstances of this case, I have decided to impose a sentence somewhat less than what was requested by the Crown, but still a serious penitentiary sentence before consideration of credit for pre-sentence custody.
Nine hundred days in jail, or 30 months or 2.5 years, is not an insignificant sentence for a first-time offender who pleaded guilty at an early opportunity, and who has good prospects for rehabilitation which is the case, in my opinion, for Mr. Dick.
Counsel, those are my oral reasons for the sentence. Before I ask Mr. Dick if he understands all of the aspects of the sentence, is there anything that you want me to clarify, any questions that you have?
R. GHALY: None from the Crown, Your Honour. Thank you.
A. CRAIG: None from the defence either. Thank you.
...WHEREUPON PROCEEDINGS WERE CONCLUDED
FORM 3
ELECTRONIC CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPT (SUBSECTION 5(2))
Evidence Act
I, Marilyn Levine,
(Name of authorized person)
certify that this document is a true and accurate transcript based on the quality recording of
R. v. DICK, Daijuan Josiah
(Name of case) (Name of court)
held at 10 Louisa Street, ORANGEVILLE, Ontario
(Court address)
taken from Recording 0611_203_20260114_075032__10_CONLANC.dcr which has been certified in Form 1.
January 22, 2026
(Date) (Electronic signature of authorized person)
(Authorized court transcriptionist’s identification number –
if applicable)
ONTARIO
_________________________________________________, Canada.
(Province of signing)
A certificate in Form 3 is admissible in evidence and is proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the transcript is a transcript of the certified recording of evidence and proceedings in the proceeding that is identified in the certificate.
Form 3 – Electronic Certificate of Transcript – September 1, 2022