Court File and Parties
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Between: His Majesty the King – and – S.C.
Counsel: H. Donkers and M. Chant, for the Crown M. Muia, for S.C.
Heard: February 11, 2026
Reasons for Sentence
Conlan J.
I. The Facts
1S.C. is before the Court to be sentenced after pleading guilty to, being found guilty of, and being convicted of five criminal offences – counts 3, 5, 8, 9, and 10 on the Indictment dated 04 March 2024: advertising sexual services for consideration contrary to section 286.4 of the Criminal Code; receiving a financial benefit from an offence under subsection 286.1(1) contrary to subsection 286.2(1) of the Criminal Code; and three counts of fraud over $5000.00 (with three different victims) contrary to subsection 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.
2The facts underlying the offences are despicable. They are contained in a very lengthy document that was entered, on consent, as Exhibit 1. They read like a terrible story on some docudrama.
3S.C. lied to and manipulated his victims. He led Ms. B. to think that he was the son of a Russian billionaire mob boss and had numerous connections to the criminal underworld. He created a fantasy portrait chock-full of fictional characters and fake illnesses and made promises to Ms. B., his intimate partner, that he knew could never be realized. By the end of their relationship, Ms. B. was broke, was evicted from her home, and had to declare bankruptcy. But S.C.'s fraudulent scams did not victimize only Ms. B. but also her father, Mr. S. That victim also ended up broke and bankrupt. And so did the third victim of S.C.'s lies and manipulation, Ms. C., a neighbour and friend of Ms. B. Ms. C. ended up broke as well.
4The total estimated losses suffered by all three victims exceeds $670,000.00.
5But S.C. did not simply rip-off his intimate partner, Ms. B. He created and posted ads for her sexual services as an escort. He essentially managed her sex worker activities and financially benefitted from that.
II. The Circumstances of the Offender
6Both sides agree that S.C. has served, to date, 956 actual days in presentence custody. On the maximum grossed-up scale as per Summers, which both sides also agree be applied here, that equals 1434 days.
7S.C. is a chronic fraudster. He has a lengthy criminal record (Exhibit 2) containing numerous convictions between 2006 and 2023, including several convictions for crimes of dishonesty – fraud under $5000.00; take motor vehicle without consent; fraud over $5000.00; and trafficking a forged credit card.
8In March 2023, S.C. was convicted of frauds and other offences and sentenced to 5 months in custody, less credit for presentence time, plus 3 years of probation, plus very sizeable restitution orders.
9We know from the chart prepared by the Crown detailing the facts of the prior convictions (part of Exhibit 2) and the transcripts of the most recent proceedings before Maylor J. of the Ontario Court of Justice at Toronto (Exhibit 3) that S.C. is a habitual offender who preys on women through webs of lies and deceit.
10We also know, unfortunately, that S.C. has been a victim himself. He has been the subject of rampant abuse and intolerable and inhumane conditions while in presentence custody. All of this is documented in Exhibit 5, filed by both sides on consent. 277 days of lockdowns at Maplehurst Correctional Complex ("MCC"), including in the days surrounding the death of S.C.'s mother in early 2024. 629 days of triple-bunking at MCC, including 72 straight days between August and October 2023. Sleeping on the floor of a triple-bunked cell for 35 days.
11Besides MCC, the offender was also on lockdown for 61 days and triple-bunked for 6 days at Central North Correctional Centre.
12In addition, S.C. has Crohn's disease. While at MCC, he has experienced delays in getting his required medication and delays in receiving proper medical care for his disease.
13Further, while at MCC, the offender was assaulted by other inmates on two separate occasions, suffering significant injuries both times which required medical treatment.
14Finally, it is undisputed that S.C.'s time spent in presentence custody at MCC has been plagued with unsanitary conditions including mold growth in various areas of the facility like the showers, very limited access to basic personal items like a razor for shaving, very limited access to cleaning supplies for the cells, being sprayed by urine in the middle of the night when a fellow cellmate uses the toilet right beside the offender's head as he sleeps on the floor, bugs infestations, and so on.
15The reader can be sparred the full litany of the abysmal conditions, all undisputed in the evidence before this Court.
16A jail is not expected to be on par with a vacation home, however, society's progress is measured in more than financial statistics and wealth data. How we treat those who are vulnerable and at the mercy of the state is one such measure, as Nelson Mandela stated many years ago. By that measure, we have failed this lowest citizen, S.C., and significant Duncan/Marshall mitigation will be the result of that terrible maltreatment.
17Exhibit 7, the Pre-Sentence Report, tells us that S.C. is a Canadian citizen; single, with no children; 43 years old; without a high school diploma; from a family home that was infused with domestic violence and alcohol abuse; with a sporadic and limited employment history; with serious health issues including the Crohn's disease; and with a very sick father and the recent loss of his mother while incarcerated.
18Exhibit 8 is proof of the offender's completion of five rehabilitative programs while in presentence custody. He received a formal certificate of completion for each. They range from anger management to substance use and healthy relations.
III. The Positions of the Crown and the Defence
19All of the ancillary orders sought by the Crown are on consent.
20They are all hereby issued: a secondary DNA order; a section 380.2 Criminal Code order for five years; a section 743.21 Criminal Code order, naming all three victims; a restitution order in the total amount of $270,866.64 in the form presented on consent – I have decided to permit S.C. 12 years (not the 20 years requested by the defence) to comply with that order; and a forfeiture order in the form presented on consent.
21The Crown advocates for the following sentence: 6 years in prison for the frauds and 2 years, concurrent, for the other convictions. The Crown suggests that the Court give some Duncan/Marshall credit of about 6 months and then also deduct the maximum Summers credit of just under 4 years, leaving a net sentence of about 18 months in custody.
22The defence says that it should be about one further month in jail from today (4 years, global, after accounting for the overly harsh presentence custody conditions, less the just under 4 years effectively served on the agreed-to grossed-up basis).
23Through no fault of anyone, this case has languished. The guilty pleas were entered seven months ago. S.C. needs to be sentenced today, the same date that counsel gave their submissions. Thus, I can only say so much.
IV. Analysis
The Principles of Sentencing
24The fundamental purpose of sentencing, which is a highly individualized process, is that the sentence imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender – section 718.1 of the Criminal Code.
25For S.C. specifically, and for these particular offences that he committed, under section 718 of the Criminal Code, I think that the most important sentencing objectives are (i) denunciation and (ii) deterrence (both general and specific).
The Range of Sentence
26Both sides agree, and the caselaw filed supports, that the general range of sentence for large-scale frauds, and this case is one of them for certain, is 3-6 years in prison.
27Defence counsel expressed the range as 3-5 years, however, I think that is incorrect. Justice Hill's exhaustive review of the jurisprudence at paragraph 42 in the decision of R. v. Atwal, 2016 ONSC 3668, clearly places 6 years within the range for a major or large-scale fraud over $5000.00.
28Both sides agree that this Court should impose about 2 years in custody, concurrent, for the other convictions. That seems reasonable to me.
The Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
29The victim impact statements, Exhibit 4, are devastating. The victims have been stripped of their financial security, their trust in others, their sense of self-worth, and their dignity. They did not deserve to be treated this way.
30There are statutory aggravating factors here, under subsections 380.1(1)(a), 380.1(1)(c.1), 718.2(a)(ii), and 718.2(a)(iii.1) of the Criminal Code.
31It is further aggravating in that the offender has a lengthy and highly-related criminal history and that he victimized, here, several persons.
32The two most significant mitigating factors are the guilty pleas and the atrocious presentence custody conditions.
What is a Fit Sentence for S.C.?
33Sentencing ranges are not fixed tariffs. They are not meant to operate as straightjackets for sentencing judges. They are not "averages" that are designed to unduly confine the discretion that is inherent in the sentencing process. A judge can impose a sentence that is outside the range as long as it is in accordance with the principles and the objectives of sentencing. A sentence that falls outside the regular range of sentence is not necessarily unfit. There will always be cases that call for a sentence that falls outside a particular range. That is the very nature of the sentencing process – it is not a mathematical calculation or a scientific exercise but rather a highly individualized process that involves a myriad of factors that are difficult to define with any degree of precision. R. v. Lacasse, [2015] SCJ No. 64 (QL), 2015 SCC 64 , [2015] 3 SCR 1089, 333 CCC (3d) 450, 24 CR (7th) 225, at paragraphs 57-58.
34Here, though, a fit global sentence for this offender on these facts falls within the range for large-scale frauds. Before considering the conditions in presentence custody, I think that a fit sentence for the frauds is 5 years and 9 months in custody – close to but not quite at the upper end of the spectrum.
35Although I do not have to quantify the Duncan/Marshall "credit", I will do so in this case. I would reduce the sentence by 15 months on account of the deplorable conditions, in particular at MCC.
36That takes the sentence down to 54 months. The maximum Summers credit amounts to about 48 months (the 1434 days). That must be further deducted from the 54 months.
37That leaves a net carceral sentence from today of 6 months. That is the sentence of the Court.
38The Warrant of Committal will put it this way: on each fraud, 54 months less psc of 956 days credited as 48 months = 6 months from today. On each of the other non-fraud convictions, 24 months less psc of 24 months = time served.
39Every sentence on every conviction runs concurrent to one another.
40The end result for S.C. is 6 more months in jail from today.
Conlan J.
Released: February 12, 2026