CITATION: R. v. Wright, 2026 ONSC 4482
COURT FILE NO.: CR-24-340
DATE: 2026/08/11
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
– and –
EMERSON WRIGHT
Defendant
Vanessa Decker, for the Crown
Craig Zeeh, for the Defendant
HEARD: February 2, May 26, 2026
TRANQUILLI j:
[1] Emerson Wright is one of nine individuals charged for their role in a covert scheme to traffic handguns from the United States of America into Canada.
[2] Mr. Wright is charged with one count of conspiring with his childhood school friend, Dylan Crawford, to traffic firearms and one count of possessing a firearm for the purpose of transferring it while knowingly not being authorized to do so, contrary to ss. 465(1)(c) and 100(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.
[3] Mr. Wright pleaded guilty to conspiracy to traffic in a firearm to Mr. Crawford on his first day of trial. The matter was adjourned for sentencing submissions. He appears today for sentencing.
[4] Mr. Wright asks the court to impose a sentence of two years less a day to be served in the community subject to conditions including house arrest. He notes there is no longer a mandatory minimum sentence of three years for this offence. He submits that a conditional sentence order is proportionate because of his guilty plea, lack of prior record, the limited nature of his involvement in the criminal enterprise and his drug addiction that influenced his poor judgment. Moreover, he has made significant gains in rehabilitation since his arrest. He is in recovery from his addiction, gainfully employed and is pursuing retraining, all with the close support and guidance of his family and friends. He submits a conditional sentence order is therefore fit and appropriate because it achieves both punitive and restorative sentencing objectives.
[5] The Crown acknowledges that the three-year mandatory minimum sentence set out in the Code for firearm trafficking does not apply. The Crown also agrees Mr. Wright’s sentence should benefit from the mitigating factors arising from his personal circumstances. However, the Crown submits a fit sentence remains at a penitentiary range of three years custody. Notwithstanding Mr. Wright’s limited involvement in the criminal enterprise, the Crown contends the evidence shows Mr. Wright knew he was assisting in a scheme involving the movement of multiple firearms for profit—a violent criminal activity that endangers this community. The Crown submits the principles of denunciation and deterrence therefore require a lengthy and severe sentence to address his moral blameworthiness and the gravity of the offence.
[6] At issue is whether a sentence of two years less a day for conspiracy to traffic firearms, is an appropriate sentence because of the circumstances of this offender and this offence. If a sentence in the reformatory range is fit, the question is then whether that sentence should be served in the community or in custody. The fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing as set out in the Code inform this court’s difficult decision about the duration of Mr. Wright’s sentence and where that sentence is to be served.
Circumstances of the Offence
[7] An agreed statement of fact entered as an exhibit on this hearing outlines Mr. Wright’s involvement in the trafficking scheme.
[8] Police discovered the trafficking scheme upon the arrest of Dylan Crawford on an outstanding warrant inside a Circle K store in London on February 2, 2023. Police allege Mr. Crawford discarded a loaded handgun into a display of bagged pistachios in the convenience store just before his arrest. Upon search of the trunk of Mr. Crawford’s car, police also found 8 other handguns inside a knapsack and launched “Project Pistachio” to discover the origin of these nine guns.
[9] The investigation started with data extraction from cell phones seized from Mr. Crawford upon his arrest. This information led to evidence of a complex criminal conspiracy amongst nine individuals to smuggle guns purchased in the United States into Canada for profit.
[10] Police identified Emerson Wright’s involvement in the conspiracy from a series of text messages between Mr. Crawford and Mr. Wright on the morning of February 2, 2023, before Mr. Crawford’s arrest.
[11] Data extraction from Dylan Crawford’s cellphone produced several text messages between Mr. Crawford and a person known as “Em” over the course of several hours before Mr. Crawford’s arrest later that same day. Records show this number was associated with Emerson Wright. The text conversation was argumentative and used street slang to refer to firearms and drugs. The dispute revolved around Mr. Wright storing firearms for Mr. Crawford and that Mr. Crawford wanted their immediate return, at one point threatening bodily harm if Mr. Wright did not immediately comply. The texts show that Mr. Wright acknowledged that he had been paid with cash and drugs for holding firearms, or “sticks” and that he knew Mr. Crawford was selling the weapons for profit.
[12] Dylan Crawford also happened to be under police surveillance on the day of his arrest. Police saw Mr. Crawford’s vehicle stop in front of Mr. Wright’s family home for an unknown reason, on February 2, 2023 at 10:38 am, before police had knowledge of Mr. Wright’s involvement. The vehicle stop and activity coincided with the text messages and were consistent with Mr. Crawford’s demand for the return of the firearms. Police later arrested Mr. Crawford inside the Circle K at 1:10 pm that day and found firearms in the trunk of his car.
[13] Police arrested Mr. Wright on August 29, 2023. Mr. Wright made a voluntary statement following his arrest. He identified himself in the text message conversation and explained he had known Mr. Crawford since childhood.
Circumstances of the Offender
[14] The court does not have the benefit of a pre-sentence report. However, Mr. Wright has provided an affidavit, employment information and character letters that provide useful and relevant information about his circumstances.
[15] I would typically encourage the provision of a pre-sentence report because it usually is the primary, if not only means by which relevant and helpful information about the offender’s circumstances is available to assist the court in determining a fit sentence. However, this information is comprehensive and of material assistance in considering the issues engaged in this matter.
Affidavit
[16] Mr. Wright is 29 years old, his date of birth being March 4, 1997. He and his older brother were raised in London by their parents. He graduated high school and began a full-time job with Purolator. However, he began cocaine use, fell into drug addiction and eventually lost his job.
[17] He was detained in custody for one month after his arrest in August 2023 and was released on bail to his parents as sureties in September 2023. He has been on interim release with his parents without incident.
[18] Mr. Emerson described that his arrest was a “slap in the face” or turning point from his previous unproductive life. He ended all contact with his previous social circle who were a negative influence. He has surrounded himself with supportive family and friends. He completed an addictions counselling program and receives ongoing support from his aunt, who works in addiction counselling and harm reduction.
[19] Since being on bail, he has found work through a temporary agency and completed an eight-week training program through the Labourers’ International Union of North America (LiUNA) in construction work. His goal is to obtain a red seal designation. As of April 2026, he found full-time work on a 12-month contract as a material handler at a local auto parts warehouse. Mr. Wright hopes to enroll at Fanshawe College for either welding or concrete finishing. He has deferred on this plan pending the court’s decision on this sentence.
[20] Mr. Emerson is grateful to his family and friends for their encouragement and support since his arrest. His time on bail has been extremely positive. He now has hope for his future because of their support. He regrets that his legal problems have caused great anguish and worry for his family.
Character Letters
[21] The court also has the benefit of several employment and character letters from Mr. Wright’s family and friends. This information uniformly confirms the sincerity of Mr. Wright’s advice about his work on his rehabilitation since his arrest.
[22] A report from LiUNA confirms Mr. Wright’s engagement and that he is seeking to upgrade and develop his skills for a career in the skilled construction trades. A letter from Liberty Staffing supports Mr. Wright’s report of seeking temporary labourer jobs in the meantime since his arrest. An employment contract also confirms his full-time contract work as of April 2026 for the next year as a warehouse material handler.
[23] His father writes of how sad it was to witness his son struggle with a substance addiction that influenced his choices, including the company he kept, where his son allowed himself to be exploited from a misguided sense of loyalty. His father speaks of witnessing a very real change in his son over the past year, with remorse and regret for his past choices. He stayed committed to his rehabilitation and to finding full time employment in a challenging job market. His father urges this is an opportunity for his son’s true rehabilitation, with continued drug and alcohol counselling. He is aware this could be a lifelong struggle for his son, and he tells the court Mr. Wright will have the full support of his family on that ongoing journey.
[24] Mr. Wright’s mother tells the court her son was diagnosed with attention deficit anxiety disorder and anxiety at a young age. They worked closely with his school and health care professionals when Mr. Wright was young, but his social circle became problematic in his senior high school years, where his struggles with alcohol and drugs became a challenge for him and his family. His mother’s view is that her son’s misguided loyalty and people pleasing character contributed to his poor choices. She has seen him use this time on bail to reflect deeply on his actions. He has strong support from his family as he continues his rehabilitation, and she believes her son is committed to remaining accountable.
[25] Mr. Wright’s brother has seen a significant shift in Mr. Wright’s attitude, behaviour and priorities. His life has structure and Mr. Wright finally seems healthy and confident. He has distanced himself from negative influences. He has shown commitment to his rehabilitation and growth through steps like asking his brother for help with his resume and in taking him to multiple job interviews. Mr. Wright is not the same person who made the mistakes that brings him before this court.
[26] Mr. Wright’s aunt is an important mentor to her nephew because of their shared history of addiction leading to legal problems. She candidly shares that she now works in mental health and acute addictions because of her own legal setback a decade ago that led to her serving time. She urges the court to give her nephew the opportunity to continue to make amends for his behaviour, give back to his community and become a productive and contributing member of society. She is concerned that a custodial sentence will end the work he has accomplished to date with his rehabilitation.
[27] Five family friends have also come forward to vouch for Mr. Wright’s rehabilitation prospects. Like his family, the information from Mr. Wright’s friends tells the story of someone from a stable and hardworking family, with great potential until he became involved with negative influences. These friends also see an important change in Mr. Wright and an opportunity for him to transform.
[28] One friend describes him as very charismatic, who wears his heart on his sleeve. He and his wife consider him to be like a little brother, and they look forward to him being an uncle to their child. They see he is motivated to stay on a successful path. Another friend Mr. Wright has known since high school writes of how she knew him to be motivated and disciplined during school, with a passion for competitive BMX biking. She believes the stability and foundation of his family have encouraged him to grow and move in a positive direction. Another tells of Mr. Wright’s unwavering empathy for his friends and how he shows up for the people in his life regardless of the circumstances. He is universally described as kind, hardworking and motivated to rebuild his life.
Mr. Wright’s Apology
[29] Mr. Wright apologized to the court. He said he takes responsibility for his serious actions. He deeply regrets his choices and the effect on his family. He has used this time since being charged for a lot of reflection and is committed to continuing to make positive changes and to build his future. He tells me he wants to serve his sentence in the community to continue this work and will follow any requirements as this court sees fit.
Sentencing Principles
[30] The Code establishes several purposes, principles and objectives that governs this court’s discretion in determining a fit sentence for Mr. Wright for the crime of conspiring to commit the indictable offence of firearms trafficking. Sentencing is a demanding exercise that remains one of the most delicate stages in the criminal justice process. The process requires this court to balance all the relevant factors to meet the sentencing objectives being pursued: R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64 at para. 1.
[31] The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful, and safe society by imposing sanctions that have objectives to denounce the unlawful conduct and harm, deter the offender and others from committing the offence, rehabilitate the offender, separate the offender from society where necessary, provide reparations and promote a sense of responsibility in the offender for the harm done: s. 718.
[32] All sentencing starts with the fundamental principle that sentences must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender: s. 718.1 Proportionality is the organizing principle in reaching the goal of a fair, fit and principled sanction: R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46 at para. 10.
[33] The Code identifies additional principles that give expression to meaning of a proportionate sentence. A sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances: s. 718.2(a). The sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances: s. 718.2(b). An offender should not be deprived of his liberty if less restrictive measures may be appropriate in the circumstances: s. 718.2(d). All available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to the victim or to the community should be considered: s. 718.2(e).
[34] It generally falls to the court to determine which of these sentencing objectives are to be prioritized in an individual case in fashioning a sentence that is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender: R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5, at para. 82. I note the Code does not statutorily require this court to give higher priority to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence over that of rehabilitation or restraint in the circumstances of this offence.
Analysis
[35] Mr. Wright asks this court to impose a sentence of imprisonment to be served in the community under supervision, requiring this court to determine that a sentence of two years less a day for the offence of conspiring to traffic guns is fit. The Crown seeks a penitentiary sentence in the range of three years.
[36] Crown and defence each filed several decisions in support of their submissions which I have reviewed but will not refer to in detail in these reasons. These decisions were helpful to the court’s analysis, but it remains that sentencing is an individualized and fact-driven process, in which the trial judge has considerable discretion in fashioning a fit sentence. This stems from the fundamental principle of proportionality, which requires an examination of the specific circumstances of both the offender and the offence. There will be inevitable variation in sentences imposed for particular crimes because of this approach: Proulx, at para. 82.
[37] The Code lists four criteria that a court must consider before deciding to impose a conditional sentence: 1. The court must impose a sentence of imprisonment of less than two years; 2. There can be no minimum term of imprisonment; 3. The court must be satisfied a conditional sentence would not endanger the safety of the community; 4. The conditional sentence must be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing: s. 742.1.
[38] The parties’ positions require me to first determine the appropriate range of sentence for this offence before considering if Mr. Wright qualifies for a conditional sentence: R. v. Nusrat, 2009 ONCA 31 at para. 53.
1. What is the fit and appropriate sentence?
[39] Trafficking in a firearm carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison and a mandatory minimum sentence of three years for a first offence: ss. 465(1)(c), 99(2). However, this mandatory minimum sentence has been declared unconstitutional: R. v. Hussain, 2015 ONSC 7115; R. v. Harriott, 2017 ONSC 3393; R. v. Sauve, 2018 ONSC 7375; R. v. De Vos, 2018 ONSC 6813; R. v. Wetelainen, 2019 ONSC 869.
[40] The Crown does not ask this court to find those decisions were plainly wrong but instead submits that a three-year custodial sentence remains as the fit and appropriate sentence for this first-time offence. The Crown states Mr. Wright was involved in a serious crime that promoted violent criminal activity and put the community at risk. His decisions were deliberate and motivated by personal gain. The Crown contends the circumstances of Mr. Wright’s offence are a grave reality for this community, where there were 31 shooting incidents in London last year.
[41] Mr. Wright acknowledges that notwithstanding that courts have struck the mandatory minimum, that a three-year sentence has remained as the starting range for this offence. He also agrees this is the expected sentence for the harm and damage caused by the offence. However, he reminds the court that three years is not a minimum sentence to be bluntly applied to Mr. Wright’s circumstances without regard to the fundamental principle of proportionality. While Mr. Wright’s conduct with Mr. Crawford was a conspiracy in law, they were not partners in a joint criminal enterprise. He was entirely peripheral to the scheme amongst several other of the co-accused who were involved in planning and carrying out the cross-border trafficking scheme. He remains responsible for his decisions, but the demeaning tone of the text messages show Mr. Crawford was exploiting Mr. Wright’s drug addiction to use him to store firearms for Mr. Crawford in exchange for cocaine or small amounts of cash.
[42] Trafficking in firearms is an extremely serious offence. Mr. Wright acknowledges the offence requires an exemplary sentence. Indeed, while rehabilitation is relevant, a conviction for trafficking in firearms will attract a substantial sentence that demands emphasis on denunciation, specific and general deterrence and protection of the public: R. v. Edwards, 2023 ONSC 5003 at para. 27; R. v. Bajwa, 2020 ONSC 185 at para. 23. Those who transfer firearms to those who are not entitled to possess them bear responsibility for any criminal act that the gun is used for, whether to kill, injure, intimidate or aid in the commission of another offence: Bajwa, at para. 35.
[43] I first consider the aggravating circumstances of this case which highlight the gravity of the offence and Mr. Wright’s responsibility for his actions.
[44] Mr. Wright was not central to the trafficking conspiracy in terms of the planning, procuring, smuggling or transfers of the weapons. There is no evidence he had communications or dealings with any of the other defendants except for Mr. Crawford. However, his agreement to store or hold an unknown number of firearms in exchange for drugs or cash on at least one occasion remains at the “true crime” spectrum of conduct captured by this offence, as opposed to being a regulatory oversight or momentary lapse of judgment. The content of the text messages shows he knew he was keeping “sticks” or firearms for Mr. Crawford as part of a larger criminal enterprise where the lethal weapons were being sold for profit.
[45] Also aggravating was that this involved the trafficking of handguns, which is noted as “particularly malignant” because they serve no lawful purpose in our society: R. v. Cass, 2019 ONSC 7313 at para. 24.
[46] There are several mitigating factors to considered as well.
[47] Mr. Wright is a relatively youthful first-time offender, with no prior criminal record. But for his association with Mr. Crawford, a connection from his elementary school years, he is not involved in the criminal subculture.
[48] Mr. Wright pleaded guilty. Although this was on the first day of trial, he nevertheless saved the court time and resources. He accepts responsibility for his behaviour and shows remorse for his conduct. The sincerity of his apology was apparent to this court in his words and demeanour in this court but more importantly, his actions outside this courtroom. The authenticity of his statements of personal responsibility is demonstrated through his comprehensive efforts and the strong show of support for his rehabilitation from his family and friends.
[49] I accept that Mr. Wright’s cocaine addiction had a role in his poor judgment in storing the weapons for his school acquaintance. His underlying mental health problem does not excuse his poor decisions, but it reduces or attenuates his moral blameworthiness: R. v. Hillbach, 2023 SCC 3, at para. 92.
[50] Mr. Wright has spent three years on bail without incident.
[51] Mr. Wright has been productive and proactive in those three years, directing remediation efforts towards his addictions, his relationships, his education and his employment. I find the evidence demonstrates he is sincerely engaged and has used what he describes as his “darkest moment” as his opportunity to become a productive and contributing member of our community.
[52] Mr. Wright has a strong rehabilitation plan to address that past behaviour and has made remarkable achievements to date. He lives with his immediate family, who have surrounded him and support his recovery. He also has the wider support of his extended family and friends who also know of his challenges and this offence. In sum, he has an excellent support network, who have a realistic appreciation of the strengths and weaknesses of his character. While a cynic could argue Mr. Wright’s rehabilitation has all been a performance for this exercise, Mr. Wright has fully participated in his own self-directed recovery. He has moved beyond promises to do better and has accomplished significant milestones in his sobriety, retraining and education. The vouch of support from so many friends and family, all contributing members of our community, is compelling.
[53] The case briefs filed by both Crown and defence amply illustrate that a sentence under two years less a day for gun trafficking or conspiracy to traffic firearms does not follow in the normal course and that three years is observed as the starting range for even a youthful first offender, irrespective of a mandatory minimum: R. v. Hewitt, 2018 ONCA 561; R. v. Hussain, 2018 ONCA 147.
[54] That said, departing from a range is appropriate to achieve proportionality. It does not require exceptional circumstances: Parranto, at para. 40. Ranges reflect the principles and objectives of sentencing but are used mainly to achieve sentencing parity. Ranges are not strait jackets on the sentencing judge’s discretion. The determination of a just and appropriate sentence is a highly individualized exercise that goes beyond a purely mathematical calculation. Everything depends on the gravity of the offence, the offender’s degree of responsibility and the specific circumstances of each case: Lacasse, at paras. 57-58
[55] Consistent with the individual nature of sentencing, there are cases where sentences in the reformatory range have been imposed for this offence. Irrespective of whether the sentence is to be served in jail or the community, reformatory range sentences have been imposed for this offence in circumstances involving a constellation of factors in various combinations, such as a guilty plea, a first-time offender, a limited or single firearms transaction, and/or strong rehabilitation prospects. The decisions provided by counsel show a range starting from six months up to two years less a day: Wetelainen; De Vos; Sauve; Bajwa; R. v. Roberts, 2019 ONCJ 22; R. v. Quershi, 2019 ONSC 162.
[56] The circumstances in Bajwa and Sauve are not the same as this situation but address similar issues and are instructive in the exercise for this offender.
[57] In Bajwa, the trial judge rejected the offender’s duress defence and found her guilty of multiple firearm offences, including two counts of trafficking. She used her firearm licence to obtain two Glock handguns for her unlicensed fiancé, and the weapons were later implicated in drug trafficking. Although she did not plead guilty, she did not contest the facts, had excellent family support, strong rehabilitation prospects and a new child. There was no evidence she saw a financial gain from the transaction. The court determined a 12-month sentence was appropriate for the first time offender, although it ultimately imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day.
[58] In Sauve, the 19-year-old offender drove a friend from Ottawa to Cornwall to pick up a firearm and was convicted following trial of firearm trafficking and careless storage. The court determined individual deterrence and rehabilitation were primarily engaged. He was a young first-time offender with limited involvement in the transaction and was wilfully blind to the purpose of the trip. He had good social support, strong rehabilitation potential and compliance with strict bail conditions. The court imposed a sentence of nine months to be served in the community.
[59] I must try to contextualize and place Mr. Wright’s moral blameworthiness and the gravity of his conduct on the broad continuum of criminal conduct that this offence captures. My comments should not be construed as either minimizing his responsibility or the impact of gun violence on our community. However, although he chose to be caught up in the conspiracy through his ill-advised association with Mr. Crawford, he did not have any involvement in the planning or execution of the criminal organization’s scheme to traffic handguns from the United States for profit. The evidence is that his role was largely passive and limited to his association with Mr. Crawford, who in turn used Mr. Wright as a “stash house” for the contraband, in exchange for supporting Mr. Wright’s drug habit. The evidence about the number of times Mr. Wright stored firearms for Mr. Crawford or how many firearms were involved in the transaction that was captured in the text messages and observed in surveillance was briefly debated in submissions. No direct evidentiary link was made between the surveillance observations of Mr. Crawford’s brief stop at the offender’s family home on the morning of Mr. Crawford’s arrest and the discovery of the firearms about three hours later in the trunk of Mr. Crawford’s car. The evidence on this sentencing hearing is of one transaction, which likely involved more than one firearm, as evidenced by Mr. Wright’s reference to “sticks” in the plural in his text message. Mr. Wright was engaged in this arrangement for his personal gain, although it was at the street level of supporting his addiction.
[60] The imperatives for denunciation and deterrence are in tension with the principles of rehabilitation and restraint. As a preliminary determination, I conclude that a fit and appropriate sentence is in the range of 15-18 months. This reflects Mr. Wright’s circumstances, the facts of his offence, the aggravating and mitigating factors, the absence of a mandatory minimum sentence, the range of similar sentences and the principals and objectives of sentencing.
[61] Having identified that the range of sentence is a term of imprisonment of less than two years, I now move to consider the duration and venue of the sentence: Proulx, at paras 58-60. In other words, the question is should this sentence be served in the community and if so, under what conditions?
2. Should the sentence be served in the community?
[62] To recap, there are four criteria a court must consider before deciding to impose a conditional sentence. This offence is not punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment, and I have determined that a term of imprisonment of less than two years is fit and appropriate. I now must consider the safety of the community. If that final statutory prerequisite is met, I must then ask whether a conditional sentence would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing as set out in the Code: Proulx, at para. 46.
[63] In considering the safety of our community, I must assess the risk of Mr. Wright re-offending and the gravity of the damage that could ensue in the event of re-offence: Proulx, at para. 69. The reality is that there is always some risk that an offender may re-offend. Mr. Wright was not directly involved in violent activity itself, but his conduct in facilitating gun trafficking undeniably raises a concern about the risk of a harmful future crime. However, I consider the risk that Mr. Wright will re-offend to be minimal. In reaching this conclusion, I refer to his peripheral or remote participation in the offence, the role of his drug addiction in his participation, his lack of a prior criminal record, his bail compliance and his compelling work towards his rehabilitation in the three years since his arrest.
[64] If I find that community supervision of Mr. Wright is consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing, I am satisfied the risk of re-offence can be further addressed with conditions attached to the sentence.
[65] A conditional sentence is available in principle for all offences in which the statutory prerequisites are satisfied. It is an error in principle not to consider the possibility of a conditional sentence where the prerequisites are met: Proulx, at paras. 79, 90.
[66] Parliament specifically enacted the conditional sentence as a meaningful alternative to incarceration for less serious and non-dangerous offenders. It is recognized as being generally more effective than incarceration at achieving the restorative sentencing objectives of rehabilitation, reparations to the victim and community and the promotion of a sense of responsibility in the offender. However, it still restricts the offender’s liberty and has a punitive quality as it entails strict surveillance in the community, stigma, and the threat of incarceration in the event of non-compliance with those strict conditions: Proulx, at paras. 21-22.
[67] Although the gravity of this offence highlights the need for punishment, it is not so pressing as to make incarceration the only option. The court should remain mindful of the principle of restraint for a first-time, relatively youthful offender with an established rehabilitation plan. The court should explore all other dispositions before imposing a custodial sentence: R. v. Priest (1996), 1996 CanLII 1381 (ON CA), 110 C.C.C. (3d) 289 at 294. Here, I am satisfied the objectives of denunciation and deterrence can be balanced with restraint, rehabilitation, reparation to the community and promotion of a sense of responsibility in this offender.
[68] We have an opportunity to achieve both punitive and restorative objectives with a conditional sentence order. The seriousness of this dangerous offence cannot be understated; however, the court should also not lose sight of the compelling evidence of prosocial behaviour in a young offender with no prior record. A conditional sentence may be imposed even where aggravating circumstances are present: Proulx, at para. 115. The objectives of rehabilitation, reparation and promotion of a sense of responsibility are not aspirational with this offender—they are real. There is therefore also a real risk that those pro-social gains would be squandered with incarceration and exposure to the penal institution culture: Proulx, at para. 110.
[69] Given the seriousness of the offence and his responsibility for his conduct, I find the conditional sentence should be longer and more onerous than a period of incarceration. While I found a sentence of 15-18 months was appropriate, that sentence served in the community would not be sufficient to denounce and condemn his behaviour. A conditional sentence of two years less a day with terms of house arrest subject to limited exceptions is sufficient denunciation and deterrence in these circumstances. While on house arrest you will be permitted to continue to work, attend to your education and ongoing rehabilitation as needed. You will also be required to undertake community service. I note the character letters speak of your sense of responsibility, what you have learned from this shameful episode in your life and your willingness to help others. It may promote your sense of responsibility and acknowledge the harm caused by your conduct if you were to engage in public speaking about the consequences of your drug addiction and antisocial lifestyle. I defer to the knowledge and discretion of your conditional sentence supervisor. The conditional sentence shall also be followed by probation of two years.
[70] I find support for the proportionality of this sentence when I consider the sentences handed down thus far to other offenders on this indictment. Of the nine accused, six including Mr. Wright have now entered guilty pleas to various of the offences on this 18-count indictment. To date, five of those six have been sentenced pursuant to joint submissions on various of the counts. None serve as a direct comparison to Mr. Wright’s situation given the circumstances of each offender, the level of their participation in the trafficking operation and the elements of the offences on which the convictions were entered. The court has some general knowledge and understanding of the Crown’s theory as against all defendants on this indictment but is not privy to the specific admitted facts underlying each sentence. Nevertheless, the dispositions provide some illustration of where Mr. Wright’s offending conduct sits in this constellation of illicit gun trafficking activity.
[71] Co-accused Elias Akhi was sentenced to 14 years for instructing the commission of a criminal offence for a criminal organization contrary to s. 467.13, with concurrent sentences of 10 years each for importation of prohibited and/or restricted firearms and conspiracy to traffic firearms with co-accused, William McDonald contrary to ss. 103(1)(a) and 465(1)(c). Co-accused McDonald received a three-year sentence for conspiracy to traffic in firearms with Akhi contrary to s. 465(1)(c), to run consecutively to a penitentiary sentence currently being served for other offences. Co-accused Shanoel Williams was sentenced to 11 years for participation in criminal organization activities and importing prohibited and/or restricted firearms contrary to ss. 467.11 and 103(1)(a). Co-accused Sheldon Hyatt received a four and ½ year sentence for participation in criminal organization activities, with concurrent three-year sentences for each of firearms trafficking and money laundering contrary to ss. 467.11, 100(1) and 462.31(1)(a).
[72] Finally, co-accused Kiara Joseph-Ince received a conditional sentence of two years less a day for laundering the proceeds of gun trafficking contrary to s. 462.31(1)(a). The circumstances of her plea and joint submission were not available to the court. However, the Crown fairly shared with the court that the offender’s conduct involved making seven international money transfers over the course of five weeks to a co-accused to assist in the purchase of firearms in the United States. On this continuum of criminal behaviour, I find that the gravity of Mr. Wright’s offence and his moral blameworthiness sits more closely on the spectrum to that of his co-accused who also received a conditional sentence for her peripheral involvement, than with those offenders who were intimately involved in planning, importing and the execution the trafficking operation itself.
Disposition
Conditional Sentence Order
[73] Mr. Wright, on Count 11 of this indictment, you are sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two (2) years less one day, less credit for one month pre-sentence custody, to be served in the community upon the mandatory terms set out in s. 742.3(1) of the Code, and which shall be served in the community, followed by two years probation.
[74] In addition to the statutory terms of your conditional sentence, you will be bound by the following conditions:
[75] Remain in your residence at all times, subject to the following exceptions and the travel related to those exceptions:
a. attendance for employment;
b. attendance for education or training;
c. scheduled meetings with your conditional sentence supervisor;
d. attendance at your place of worship, arranged in advance to the supervisor;
e. medical appointments for yourself, or immediate family member, reported in advance to the supervisor OR for medical emergencies for yourself or an immediate family member;
f. attendance for treatment and/or counselling services;
g. performance of 200 hours of community service as approved and coordinated by your conditional sentence supervisor, to be completed within 18 months;
h. On Saturdays between 10:00 am and 3:00 pm to attend for personal needs and necessaries of life or on such other day and other time as approved by your supervisor in advance; and
i. In relation to any other matter as may be pre-approved in writing by the conditional sentence supervisor.
[76] You shall carry the conditional sentence order with you whenever you are outside of your residence.
[77] You shall reside at a location approved by your conditional sentence supervisor and advise your supervisor of any change in address.
[78] You shall attend counselling and/or treatment as directed by your conditional sentence supervisor and provide proof of attendance as may be required by your supervisor.
Probation
[79] After completion of your conditional sentence, you shall serve a period of probation of two years. In addition to the statutory terms and conditions, I impose the following additional terms:
a. You shall within two business days after completing your conditional sentence, report in person to your probation officer and thereafter continue to report as directed by your probation officer;
b. You shall notify your probation officer in advance of any change of name or address and promptly notify the court or your probation officer of any change in employment or occupation;
c. You shall reside where approved by your probation officer;
d. You shall attend counselling, and/or treatment as directed by your probation officer and provide proof of attendance as may be required by your probation officer.
Non-Communication Order
[80] You shall not contact or communicate, directly or indirectly with the following individuals pursuant to s. 743.21: Dylan Crawford, Tyreese Cumberbatch and Brian Hamilton-Hyatt.
Ancillary Orders
[81] The following ancillary orders shall issue, on Mr. Wright’s consent:
a. A weapons prohibition pursuant to s. 109 for 10 years;
b. A secondary DNA order shall issue; and
c. A victim surcharge fine, to be paid within six (6) months.
[82] On application of the Crown, Count 12 is withdrawn.
Justice K. Tranquilli
NOTE: As noted in court, on the record, this decision in writing is to be considered the official version of the Reasons for Sentence and takes precedence over the oral Reasons read into the record.
Released: August 11, 2026
CITATION: R. v. Wright, 2026 ONSC 4482
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
– and –
EMERSON WRIGHT
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Justice K. Tranquilli
Released: August 11, 2026