Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CR-24-2 Date: 2026-02-17 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

B E T W E E N:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING M. Hourigan and E. Skowron, for the Crown Crown

— and —

HARVEY, RAOUL T. Evangelista, for the Defence Defendant

HEARD: December 1, 2025, January 13, 21, 2026.

Amended Reasons for Sentence

MIRZA J.

Background

[ 1 ] On February 25, 2025, Mr. Harvey pleaded guilty to Trafficking Restricted and/or Prohibited Firearms on or about January 27, 2022 ( s. 99(1) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46), Possessing Proceeds of Crime over $5,000 on February 28, 2022 ( s. 354(1) of the Criminal Code ); and Trafficking Fentanyl between May 25, 2022 to July 19, 2022 ( s. 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c.19 ( CDSA )).

[ 2 ] Mr. Harvey pleaded guilty after his s. 8 Charter application challenging the validity of search warrants was dismissed on November 29, 2024 with reasons on January 29, 2025.

[ 3 ] This is a complex sentencing. Mr. Harvey has committed serious crimes that jeopardize public safety and necessitate a lengthy jail sentence. However, his individual circumstances establish mitigating factors and his moral blameworthiness is impacted due to a combination of factors. He is a first time, relatively young offender, with three young children, to be sentenced to jail for the first time, and then likely subject to deportation.

[ 4 ] Deterrence, denunciation, and separation from society are primary sentencing principles for these offences, while restraint, rehabilitation, and reintegration must also be reflected in a just sentence. The aggregate impact and consequences of this sentence are relevant considerations.

[ 5 ] For the following reasons, the sentence is 11 years of jail composed of:

• Seven years' imprisonment is imposed on Count 2 for the fentanyl trafficking offences;
• Four years of jail for Count 4 for the gun trafficking offence to be served consecutively; and
• Two years for Count 6 for the proceeds of property obtained by crime, to be served concurrently.

[ 6 ] However, I reduce this 11-year sentence for unacceptable harsh jail conditions by 2.5 years.

[ 7 ] I further grant a credit to sentence for pre-trial custody of 1311 days or 3.6 years (as required by Criminal Code , ss. 719(3), 719(3.1) ).

[ 8 ] This results in a remaining sentence to be served of 1791 days or 4.9 years. There will also be ancillary orders.[^1]

The Applicable Criminal Code and CDSA Sections

Criminal Code

Weapons trafficking

99 (1) Every person commits an offence who

(a) manufactures or transfers, whether or not for consideration, or

(b) offers to do anything referred to in paragraph (a) in respect of a prohibited firearm, a restricted firearm, a non-restricted firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, a firearm part, any ammunition or any prohibited ammunition knowing that the person is not authorized to do so under the Firearms Act or any other Act of Parliament or any regulations made under any Act of Parliament.

Punishment — firearm

(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) when the object in question is a prohibited firearm, a restricted firearm, a non-restricted firearm, a prohibited device, a firearm part, any ammunition or any prohibited ammunition is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of

(a) in the case of a first offence, three years; and

(b) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, five years.

Punishment — other cases

(3) In any other case, a person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years.

Possession of property obtained by crime

354 (1) Every one commits an offence who has in his possession any property or thing or any proceeds of any property or thing knowing that all or part of the property or thing or of the proceeds was obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from

(a) the commission in Canada of an offence punishable by indictment; or

(b) an act or omission anywhere that, if it had occurred in Canada, would have constituted an offence punishable by indictment.

Punishment

355 Every one who commits an offence under section 354

(a) if the subject matter of the offence is a testamentary instrument or the value of the subject matter of the offence is more than $5,000, is guilty of

(i) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years, or

(ii) an offence punishable on summary conviction; or

CDSA

Trafficking in substance

5 (1) No person shall traffic in a substance included in Schedule I, II, III, IV or V or in any substance represented or held out by that person to be such a substance.

Possession for purpose of trafficking

(2) No person shall, for the purpose of trafficking, possess a substance included in Schedule I, II, III, IV or V.

Punishment

(3) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2)

(a) if the subject matter of the offence is a substance included in Schedule I or II, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life;

Circumstances of the Offences

[ 9 ] An agreed statement of facts (ASF) containing 26 paragraphs was filed. It explains in detail Mr. Harvey's commission of the numerous offences that include gun trafficking and drug trafficking of fentanyl for substantial sums of money.

[ 10 ] The following is a summary.

[ 11 ] The police investigation was called "Project Monarch". Throughout late January 2022, an undercover officer discussed with Edward Dooley purchasing drugs and trafficking firearms. The undercover officer had already bought fentanyl, cocaine, and a restricted firearm from Mr. Dooley in a series of transactions over the past two months.

Firearms Trafficking (Count 4)

[ 12 ] On January 27, 2022, Mr. Harvey and Mr. Dooley sold two handguns (Glock 9mm and H&K .40 caliber) with prohibited extended magazines for $12,400.

[ 13 ] Mr. Harvey drove to the deal, introduced himself as "Splashman", and coordinated with the supplier.

[ 14 ] With respect to the background but not part of the facts specific to count 4, Mr. Harvey was involved in the sale of five more prohibited or restricted firearms to undercover officers during Project Monarch.

[ 15 ] Overall, Mr. Harvey participated in five transactions between May and July 2022, totaling seven guns (mostly Glock handguns), prices ranging from $5,500 - $11,000.

[ 16 ] The transactions each followed the same pattern: Mr. Dooley communicated directly with the undercover officer, handed over the firearm(s), and received the payment. Mr. Harvey placed each gun order with his and Mr. Dooley's supplier, conducted communications with the supplier associated to the transaction, and visited the supplier's residence with Mr. Dooley to pick up the firearm. Mr. Harvey also drove Mr. Dooley to and from each deal in his vehicle.

[ 17 ] The additional guns sold were:

a) A Glock 19 handgun for $6,000 on May 28, 2022.

b) A Glock 45 handgun for $5,500 on June 9, 2022.

c) Two Glock 19 handguns for $11,000 on June 30, 2022.

d) A Glock 19 handgun for $6,000 on July 6, 2022.

[ 18 ] At no point from November 4, 2021, up to and including on July 28, 2022, did Mr. Harvey have any license, authorization or certificate permitting him to possess, transport or transfer firearms, firearm magazines or ammunition. Nor were any of the firearms Mr. Harvey trafficked registered to any person, including himself.

[ 19 ] Mr. Harvey knew about rising gun prices due to new laws and bail restrictions.

Proceeds of Crime (Count 6)

[ 20 ] On February 28, 2022, Mr. Harvey and Mr. Dooley arranged to sell three handguns for $17,000.

[ 21 ] After receiving the money from the undercover officer, they did not deliver the guns and disappeared, effectively stealing the funds.

[ 22 ] Prior to this transaction, Mr. Harvey and Mr. Dooley said that they could possibly obtain machine guns (a Tec-9 or an AK-47) from their supplier. The purchase of the handguns was opted for instead, when they told the undercover officer that the machine guns were not currently available.

Fentanyl Trafficking (Count 2)

[ 23 ] Between May 26 and July 19, 2022, Mr. Harvey sold 395 grams of fentanyl (14 ounces) in six transactions to undercover officers, receiving about $23,000.

[ 24 ] The deals occurred in various GTA locations (Stouffville, Richmond Hill, Mississauga and Vaughan).

[ 25 ] On May 26, 2022, Mr. Harvey sold 7.18 grams of fentanyl directly to an undercover officer codenamed UC#12 for $600. This sale took place in a commercial plaza at 1090 Hoover Park Drive in Stouffville, Ontario.

[ 26 ] On May 31, 2022, Mr. Harvey sold 26.36 grams of fentanyl directly to an undercover officer for $1,600. The deal took place in a movie theatre parking lot at 8725 Yonge Street in Richmond Hill, Ontario.

[ 27 ] On June 16, 2022, Mr. Harvey sold 43.78 grams of fentanyl directly to an undercover officer for $2,750. This sale took place in the LCBO parking lot at Square One Mall, 65 Square One Drive, Mississauga, Ontario.

[ 28 ] On July 4, 2022, Mr. Harvey sold 55.94 grams of fentanyl directly to an undercover officer for $3,000. This sale took place in a parking lot at Vaughan Mills mall, 1 Bass Pro Mills Drive, Vaughan, Ontario.

[ 29 ] On July 7, 2022, Mr. Harvey sold 130.14 grams of fentanyl directly to an undercover officer for $7,500. This sale took place in the LCBO parking lot at Square One Mall, 65 Square One Drive, Mississauga, Ontario.

[ 30 ] On July 19, 2022, Mr. Harvey sold 131.58 grams of fentanyl directly to an undercover officer for $7,500. This sale took place in the LCBO parking lot at Square One Mall, 65 Square One Drive, Mississauga.

Impact on Community

[ 31 ] The Crown filed an affidavit from Lisa Smith, a Criminal Intelligence Analyst at Peel Regional Police, regarding the prevalence of gun violence from 2014 to September 2025. The statistics regarding gun possession and shootings fluctuate. For example, in 2021-2024, s. 95, or illegal possession of firearm offences increased annually. Since the statistics filed are not complete for 2025, it is not clear if they will decline or remain in the range of over 200 charges per year. Shootings have consistently exceeded one hundred per year from 2018 to now, varying in the final numbers. I am not able to conclude that gun crimes or violence are more pressing a problem now than they were in the past.

[ 32 ] Overall, the statistics make clear that in a community of over 1.4 million people, gun violence is a serious problem. This Court recognizes that the combination of drug trafficking and gun offences is an especially dangerous mixture of related criminality.

Positions

[ 33 ] It is agreed by the Crown and Defence that the total time Mr. Harvey spent in pre-trial custody is 1,274 days from July 28, 2022, to January 21, 2026. I would add to that 23 days, from January 21 to February 13, the date sentence was imposed, for a total of 1,297 days.

[ 34 ] The parties also agreed that the jail records establish that Mr. Harvey experienced lockdowns for a total of 423 days and triple bunking for 146 days.

[ 35 ] The Crown submits that the appropriate sentence for Mr. Harvey totals 13 years. After factoring in totality, they seek 10 years for the fentanyl trafficking; 3 years consecutive for the firearms trafficking; 2 years concurrent for the proceeds of crime. I note that this position was taken before the enhanced pre-sentence report (EPSR)[^2] and jail records were submitted.

[ 36 ] After receiving the jail records and EPSR, the Crown revised their position and submitted that a total sentence of 12 years would be appropriate, deducting one year of global mitigation for harsh jail conditions.

[ 37 ] The Crown relies on the caselaw summarized in their written brief, and in particular the Supreme Court's ruling in R. v. Parranto , 2021 SCC 46 , [2021] 3 SCR 366 and subsequent decisions.

[ 38 ] The Defence initially submitted that a fit sentence would be 6 to 7 years, factoring in pre-trial custody and conditions. However, on January 13, 2026, the Defence submitted that a fit sentence would be 6 to 7 years less Summers credit and Marshall mitigation.

[ 39 ] The Defence submitted that Mr. Harvey should receive enhanced credit of 2.5 for 1 for the 282 days that he was in pre-trial custody during the pandemic, which is submitted to be from July 28, 2022 to May 5, 2023. The Defence further submits that Mr. Harvey should receive 2 for 1 credit for the remainder of the time he was in jail (before being sentenced) of 1,016 days from May 5, 2023 to February 13, 2026. Defence counsel concedes that they did not file an affidavit that explained Mr. Harvey's experience with the pandemic period while in jail, and acknowledged that he has no acute health issues that made him especially vulnerable.

[ 40 ] Defence counsel filed the EPSR shortly before the December 1, 2025, appearance. However, they failed to obtain the jail records, so initial submissions were heard and additional dates of January 13 and 21, 2026 were necessary to address those records. There was an underreporting in the records that counsel identified on January 13.

[ 41 ] The Defence relies on Mr. Harvey's lack of criminal record, and disadvantaged life. The Defence also asks the Court to consider that he will be deported.

Circumstances of Mr. Harvey

[ 42 ] A presentence report (PSR) was obtained at the request of the Defence. An EPSR or Morris report was prepared by Ms. Jacqueline Pemberton MSW, RSW, of the Sentencing and Parole Project.

[ 43 ] While the conventional PSR was helpful, both parties indicated that the EPSR was the superior pre-sentence report. They relied on the ESPR in their submissions about the Applicant's total circumstances and social context.

[ 44 ] This EPSR provided the Court with an in-depth understanding of Mr. Harvey's life circumstances, systemic factors, and rehabilitative potential.

[ 45 ] While I am mindful of the judicial obligation to conduct sentencing hearings as soon as practicable after an individual is found guilty, this case involved a Black person with a complex background where the Crown was seeking a 12 year jail sentence. Mr. Harvey requested the EPSR and was prepared to wait for its completion. In my view, in this case the EPSR was necessary to determine a fit sentence.[^3]

[ 46 ] The Court's duty is to impose a fit sentence based on full and accurate information: see Criminal Code , ss. 720, 723 .

Background and Family History

[ 47 ] Raoul Harvey is a 30-year-old Black man.

[ 48 ] He is a father of three boys: I (age 9), N (age 7), and N (age 5). He is currently in a relationship with his girlfriend, Ms. Peter.

[ 49 ] He is a permanent resident. He wanted to apply for citizenship, but his involvement in the index offences is a barrier. Mr. Harvey is aware that his criminal convictions will further complicate his status in Canada and will likely result in the government seeking his deportation.

[ 50 ] Mr. Harvey is the middle child of four siblings. He has three sisters: M, N, and S.

[ 51 ] In 2019, his closest sister, and oldest maternal sibling, M, passed away. They were close and this loss in combination with his mother's passing in 2016 was devastating for him, as he lost his primary support network.

[ 52 ] The EPSR report did not include contributions from his parents because he has limited contact with his father, and his mother is deceased.

[ 53 ] Mr. Harvey grew up in poverty in Jamaica, primarily raised by his father and maternal uncle. His childhood was marked by instability, physical discipline, and limited access to education due to financial hardship. His neighbourhood was severely impacted by gangs and deaths from violence. He has had family members that have died from gun violence.

[ 54 ] His mother immigrated to Canada when he was an infant, and he was raised by his uncle and father. His mother visited Jamaica periodically but was not a constant presence. He valued their relationship even if it was not as consistent as he would have liked. Although they later reconnected, her death in 2016 and his sister's death in 2019 devastated his support system.

[ 55 ] Mr. Harvey reported that his relationship with his father during his childhood in Jamaica was complex. He respected that his father cared for him. His father was a hard-working person that worked in the unstable sectors of construction and farming. His father taught him from a young age how to take care of himself and believed that these life skills enabled him to be independent as he grew older. However, his father " took his anger " out on him by using physical discipline. His father hit him when he was unhappy or intoxicated.

[ 56 ] At around the age of 14, while still in Jamaica, Mr. Harvey's experience with housing insecurity began. He advised his father that he could not take " the beatings " anymore. As a result, he was kicked out of the home. Mr. Harvey resided with a friend of his for a few months before returning home.

Immigration to Canada

[ 57 ] Mr. Harvey's older sister, M, immigrated to Canada first, and he followed in 2011, when he was 16 years old.

[ 58 ] He thought that coming to Canada would be an opportunity to escape the poverty and violence he experienced as a child. He hoped for a better life, but dealt with poverty and housing insecurity in Canada. He lived in a low-income neighbourhood in Brampton with his mother. The neighbourhood was racialized and had drug trafficking and substance use issues.

[ 59 ] While living in Brampton, he had negative experiences with the police starting at the age of 16, during which he would be stopped and questioned. He believed that the police reacted to him more aggressively because he was a Black man with dreadlocks.

[ 60 ] When Mr. Harvey was in high school, his mother received an eviction notice. He obtained a factory job after school, from 3:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. to help pay their bills.

[ 61 ] In his teenage years, he struggled in the absence of an active father figure, telling Ms. Pemberton that he "tried to figure it out ". He relied on family friends for mentorship and direction.

[ 62 ] When Mr. Harvey's mother passed away in 2016, she was only 45 years old, and he was quite young at 21 years old. Losing his mother was difficult to handle as he felt that he did not have enough time with her.

[ 63 ] At that time, they were living with his stepfather. However, he was unable to continue to live with his stepfather because he could not afford the rent and there were conflicts in their relationship.

[ 64 ] He was without a home between 2016 and 2018, staying for short periods with friends and the mother of his two younger children. In 2019, he was able to rent a space and then moved in with his partner. His sister passed away that same year.

[ 65 ] In the aftermath of the losses of his mother and then sister, Mr. Harvey's life changed significantly as he had no form of stability. The events that took place in the subsequent years were critical to his trajectory and how he became involved in the criminal justice system.

Financial and Housing Insecurity

[ 66 ] After his mother's death, Mr. Harvey became homeless for nearly two years, between 2016 and 2018, sleeping in parks and relying on friends for short-term shelter.

[ 67 ] Despite these hardships, he worked factory jobs and later learned carpentry under a mentor.

[ 68 ] His financial struggles intensified during the COVID-19 pandemic, contributing to his eventual involvement in criminal activity.

Fatherhood and Child Welfare

[ 69 ] Mr. Harvey is the father of three boys from two separate relationships. His son, I., was placed in foster care due to his partner's history with child welfare.

[ 70 ] Mr. Harvey reported that he faced systemic barriers and perceived racial bias when trying to regain custody of his son. He eventually succeeded in having his son placed with him and his girlfriend, but lost custody again after his arrest. He deeply regrets this outcome and hopes to reunite with his children post-sentence.

[ 71 ] In 2017, the Children's Aid Society (CAS) intervened and placed his son in foster care. His son is Black and Indigenous, but was placed with an Amish family. Mr. Harvey was concerned that his son's placement did not factor cultural sensitivity.

[ 72 ] Mr. Harvey felt that he was treated in a discriminatory manner when he sought to see his son and was told he required parenting classes, even though the reasons for the apprehension were not related to his conduct. In 2020, a different case worker confirmed that this was not required of him and visits were coordinated. Around 2021, after attending visits and advocating for his son's placement with him and his partner, Mr. Harvey's son was placed with him and his partner and was progressing.

[ 73 ] His partner believed that the transition to having his son in their care was stressful for Mr. Harvey because of the amount of responsibility that was placed on his shoulders. After having his son in their care for just over one year, he was arrested in July 2022 for his involvement in the index offences. The implication is that he was motivated to commit the offences in part, by financial need.

[ 74 ] Mr. Harvey said that he felt bad for failing his son, and his son consequently returning to foster care.

[ 75 ] His other two children live with their mother. He feels regret that his actions have resulted in separation from his family.

Education and Employment

[ 76 ] Mr. Harvey did well in his education in Jamaica up to middle school. However, he stopped going to school at the age of 13. He liked school and had friends; however, he stopped attending when he was 13 years old because his family did not have sufficient money. As a result, he stayed home and " planted crops " with his father.

[ 77 ] In Canada, he attended Central Peel Secondary School in Brampton. He left high school in grade 10 to support his family financially. He struggled with grades and experienced racism from peers.

[ 78 ] He is currently working toward his GED while incarcerated.

Employment

[ 79 ] His employment history includes factory work and carpentry, and he aspires to return to the trade and eventually start his own business. His former employer has expressed a willingness to rehire him upon his release.

[ 80 ] Around the age of 15 or 16, Mr. Harvey began working in factory positions. Due to their temporary nature, he often worked at different factories when they went through slow periods. He also worked for a pool company and gained skills in completing renovation projects.

[ 81 ] Mr. Harvey was 21 or 22 years of age when he met Mr. Sookhanty and began working for his carpentry company. He learned valuable skills about how to frame houses and worked as a subcontractor under Mr. Sookhanty's supervision.

[ 82 ] Mr. Sookhanty commented on Mr. Harvey's work ethic, his ability to learn, and his eagerness to work additional shifts on the weekends. He always saw Mr. Harvey as someone who was " trying to get his life together and better himself, " and while doing so, he never complained about his salary. Mr. Sookhanty described Mr. Harvey as a " good worker " and " good carpenter " who learned under him.

[ 83 ] Mr. Sookhanty currently works in Calgary and would like to re-hire Mr. Harvey when his sentence is completed. He stated that if Mr. Harvey was released into his care, he would ensure that he would stay away from criminal trouble. Mr. Sookhanty also felt that changing the environment for Mr. Harvey might serve as a benefit.

Remorse and Insight

[ 84 ] To the EPSR author, Mr. Harvey expressed considerable remorse, accepted responsibility, and vowed never to repeat these mistakes.

[ 85 ] In terms of context, Mr. Harvey attributes his criminal conduct to financial desperation and a desire to provide for his family. He was focused on planning for his son's exit from foster care, which included finding housing and addressing his material needs in the absence of receiving child tax benefits. Mr. Harvey's financial troubles were also compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic, that presented additional barriers to him finding employment.

[ 86 ] Mr. Harvey expressed that he was "in a rough place and state in my life" and believed that "making quick cash" would have assisted him to no longer experience financial hardship. He acknowledged that there was always a risk of being caught and criminally charged for his actions; however, his focus was on achieving financial stability that he believed could not be achieved any other way.

[ 87 ] He acted as a middleman for drug and gun trafficking and acknowledges the harms caused by his actions.

[ 88 ] He claims that he did not know about the full gravity of the adverse harms of fentanyl outside of the fact that it was a drug he trafficked.

[ 89 ] Mr. Harvey has participated in substance abuse programs in jail, which have educated him on fentanyl and how harmful the drug is to people. By reflecting on his choices, Mr. Harvey recognized that his actions were wrong and could have harmed people.

[ 90 ] Mr. Harvey recognized that violence, particularly gun violence, is harmful and is a serious problem that has affected people close to him in Jamaica. He is aware that gun conflict is a serious issue in the Greater Toronto Area and that he was willing to contribute to the problem by way of his actions. He is not proud of his choice to traffic firearms and benefit from those sales.

[ 91 ] He regrets his decisions and calls them a "big mistake". Mr. Harvey took accountability for his criminal conduct by pleading guilty in February 2025. He reported that this experience has changed his life because it has separated him from his children and loved ones. He feels that he has wasted his life. Mr. Harvey vowed that he would never take the easy route to meet his personal goals again because, in the long run, it is not worth it.

Rehabilitative Potential

[ 92 ] Mr. Harvey has no prior criminal record and demonstrates strong rehabilitative potential. He is committed to completing his education, returning to lawful employment, and rebuilding his life.

[ 93 ] Support from his partner and friends, along with counseling and vocational opportunities, are recommended as part of his correctional plan.

Mental Health and Jail Conditions

[ 94 ] Mr. Harvey has endured harsh jail conditions, including prolonged lockdowns, overcrowding, and unsanitary environments, which have negatively impacted his mental health.

[ 95 ] As a consequence of these conditions, he reports experiencing depression, anxiety, and poor sleep. He says he copes through exercise, communication with loved ones, and educational programs. He is also open to counseling for emotional healing.

[ 96 ] On July 28, 2022, Mr. Harvey was arrested and incarcerated at the Central East Correctional Centre (CECC) in Lindsay, Ontario. He remained in this jail for just over five months or 161 days.

[ 97 ] In January 2023, Mr. Harvey was transferred to the Maplehurst Correctional Complex (MCC) in Milton, Ontario. He remained in this jail for almost three years. He stated that the condition of the jail is quite poor and dirty. He disclosed that inmates are not provided with fresh clothes or sheets for their bunks and have to launder them in the sink.

[ 98 ] Mr. Harvey stated that the lockdowns were excessive and recalled being confined to his cell for what felt like " six months straight, day after day, " with no shower program, which led him to bathe himself in the sink. At some point in 2024, Mr. Harvey began triple bunking, which was a practice he described as inhumane. He perceived that triple bunking occurred at different periods for 2-to-3-month increments.

[ 99 ] He described that, due to the lack of space in the cell, his cell mates had to step over him to go to the washroom. At times when the toilets were clogged, he said that inmates would either hold it or defecate in bags that cause a foul smell in the cell.

[ 100 ] Mr. Harvey disclosed that MCC is a jail that has predominantly Black inmates. He also described MCC as a "crazy jail" that mostly houses inmates who are gang members. Given that he is not affiliated with any gangs and did not know anyone in the jail, Mr. Harvey had to fight to survive. He believes he received about five misconducts for fighting during his time at MCC.

[ 101 ] Since July 2025, Mr. Harvey has been incarcerated at the Central North Correctional Centre (CNCC). Upon his arrival, Mr. Harvey was triple bunked for two months and since that time has been two to a cell. He reported that CNCC is very different in comparison to MCC, especially in regard to the lockdowns and overall environment. He observed that Black inmates are the minority and Indigenous and white inmates are the majority. He stated that access to institutional programs and education is better at CNCC. He involves himself in the programs when they are available.

EPSR Assessment

[ 102 ] Financial hardship was a constant throughout Mr. Harvey's childhood and has shaped his life. To those who know him, his participation in the index offences is shocking and out of his character, as he has no prior criminal record. Similarly, for Mr. Harvey, his choices were also incompatible with his approach to life, hard work, and commitment to his partner and children.

Sentencing Principles

[ 103 ] Proportionality is the organizing principle in achieving the goal of a fair, fit, and principled sentence: Parranto , at para. 10 . It is the fundamental principle of sentencing: see Criminal Code , s. 718.1. Further, proportionality requires that a sentence reflect the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender: R. v. Friesen , 2020 SCC 9 , [2020] 1 S.C.R. 424 , at para. 30 ; Parranto , at para. 10.

[ 104 ] Section 718 of the Criminal Code states that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the statutory factors: denunciation, deterrence, separation from society where necessary, reparations to the victim and community, and a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or the community.

[ 105 ] The emphasis for gun and drug trafficking offences is deterrence and denunciation. Both offences cause devastating harms to the safety of the community and suffering, death and destruction: Parranto , at paras. 98, 100 ; R. v. Danvers (2005) , 199 C.C.C. (3d) 490 (Ont. C.A.) , at para. 78 ; R. v. Benjamin , 2024 ONSC 4781, at para. 28.

[ 106 ] Denunciation and deterrence are paramount and prioritized but should not be elevated above the cardinal principle of proportionality: R. v. Boudreault , 2018 SCC 58 , [2018] 3 S.C.R. 599 , at paras. 81-83 .

[ 107 ] In cases where the primary sentencing principles are specific and general deterrence, and denunciation, "the door to rehabilitation must remain open": R. v. Marchand , 2023 SCC 26 , 487 D.L.R. (4th) 201 , at para. 123 . The objective of rehabilitation is to reform offenders with a view to them reintegrating into society and becoming law-abiding citizens. This penological objective presupposes that offenders can gain control over their lives and improve themselves, which ultimately leads to better protection of society: R. v. Bissonnette, 2022 SCC 23 , [2022] 1 S.C.R. 597 , at para. 48 . In R. v. Lacasse , 2015 SCC 64 , [2015] 3 S.C.R. 1089, at para. 4, the Supreme Court stated that "[r]ehabilitation is one of the fundamental moral values that distinguish Canadian society from the societies of many other nations in the world, and it helps the courts impose sentences that are just and appropriate."

[ 108 ] The principle of restraint, as reflected in ss. 718.2 (d) and (e) of the Criminal Code , means that when jail is required, the quantum of jail time must only be the amount necessary to fulfill punitive, remedial and restorative objectives and deter further criminal behavior. This respects sentencing's fundamental goals of fairness and proportionality.

[ 109 ] When consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh: Criminal Code , s. 718.2(c).

Range

[ 110 ] Fentanyl is more dangerous than almost all other drugs; it is more addictive, destructive, devastating, and deadly: R. v. Lynch , 2022 ONCA 109 , 160 O.R. (3d) 241, at para. 15; Parranto at para. 93-97 . Trafficking in fentanyl and guns requires significant sentences that reflect the principles of denunciation and general deterrence: R. v. England , 2024 ONCA 360 , 171 O.R. (3d) 401, at paras. 96-102 ; R. v. Wong , 2012 ONCA 767 , at paras. 11-13 .

[ 111 ] For the offence of trafficking a substantial amount of fentanyl or wholesale trafficking, the range is an upper-level penitentiary jail sentence. The maximum sentence is life imprisonment, reflecting the objective gravity of the offence.

[ 112 ] In Parranto , at para. 68 , the Supreme Court stated that a range based on a review of reported case law nationally would be 8 to 15 years. The Court identified, at para. 68, the following examples:

[E]ight-year sentences were imposed in Smith (2019) (1834 pills, as part of an 11-year sentence), as well as R. v. Leach , 2019 BCCA 451 (11,727 pills, as part of a 16-year sentence); R. v. Sinclair , 2016 ONCA 683 ; R. v. Solano-Santana , 2018 ONSC 3345 (5000 pills); R. v. White , 2020 NSCA 33 , 387 C.C.C. (3d) 106 (2086 pills); and R. v. Borris , 2017 NBQB 253 (4200 pills). Other sentences imposed include: an 8-year and two-month sentence in R. v. Sidhu , C.J. Ontario, No. 17-821, June 16, 2017, aff'd 2019 ONCA 880 , in which the offender trafficked 89 g of fentanyl and other drugs soon after being released on parole; a 10-year sentence in R. v. Petrowski , 2020 MBCA 78 , 393 C.C.C. (3d) 102 , for trafficking 51 g fentanyl where the offender used a co-accused to insulate himself from detection; 11 years for trafficking 204.5 g of a fentanyl blend in R. v. Vezina , 2017 ONCJ 775 ; 13 years for trafficking 232 g fentanyl and large quantities of other drugs as part of a sophisticated drug trafficking operation in R. v. Mai , [2017] O.J. No. 7248 (QL) (Ont. S.C.J.) ; and 15 years for a profit-motivated offender who was the directing mind of "a large-scale drug trafficking operation involving an enormous amount of fentanyl" in R. v. Fuller , 2019 ONCJ 643 (the offender possessed about 3 kg of fentanyl in the course of the conspiracy).

[ 113 ] The Supreme Court accepted the appellate guideline expressed by the Alberta Court of Appeal of starting at nine years as a sentencing "tool", subject to individualization to ensure proportionality : Parranto , at paras. 61, 81 .

[ 114 ] Similarly, I have considered the cases submitted by the Crown that support upper year penitentiary sentences: R. v. Disher , 2020 ONCA 710 , 153 O.R. (3d) 88; R. v. Loor , 2017 ONCA 696 ; R. v. Lynch , 2022 ONCA 109 , 160 O.R. (3d) 241; R. v. Forrest , 2024 ONSC 4851 ; R. v. Gordon-Brown , 2024 ONSC 1300 ; R. v. Owusu , 2024 ONSC 671 .

[ 115 ] In R. v. Celenk , 2026 ONCA 60 , the Court of Appeal granted a sentence appeal and reduced the trial judge's global sentence of 13 years for possession of 1.35 kilograms of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking; with sentences of 3 ½ years and 3 years for the gun possession convictions to be served concurrently. This was before 12 months' credit was given for pre-trial custody and other reasons, resulting in a net sentence of 12 years. The Court of Appeal reiterated that when sentencing a 23-year-old, first-time offender, even for serious offences requiring a sentence that emphasizes denunciation and deterrence, it is nevertheless an error in principle to lose sight of the principle of restraint. The Court of Appeal imposed a sentence of 10 years globally, less one year of credit.

[ 116 ] In Celenk , the Court of Appeal acknowledged that sentences imposed for higher (than in this case) amounts of fentanyl, against older offenders often with prior records, involve sentences of 12 to 13 years: R. v. Olvedi , 2021 ONCA 518 , 157 O.R. (3d) 583 , leave to appeal refused, [2021] S.C.C.A. No. 340 (33-year-old first-time offender sentenced to 12 years for 499.5 grams of 100 percent fentanyl citrate); R. v. Hoang , 2022 ONSC 2534 (38-year-old first time offender sentenced to 18 years for over 16 kilograms of narcotics, including over 3 kilograms of heroin and fentanyl); R. v. Dalia , 2023 ONSC 2114 , aff'd 2025 ONCA 772 (offender with a prior criminal record sentenced to 13 years for 1.7 kilograms of fentanyl); R. v. Abdelgadir , 2023 ONCJ 446 (28-year-old repeat offender with a record for similar offences sentenced to 13 years for approximately 2 kilograms of fentanyl).

[ 117 ] Since sentencing is individualized, it is important to contextual the leading decision of Parranto with the decision's facts. Mr. Parranto pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of fentanyl for the purposes of trafficking in a wholesale commercial operation ( CDSA, s. 5(2)); two counts of illegal possession of a loaded handgun for use in a trafficking operation ( Criminal Code , s. 95); one count of possession of a handgun, knowing he was prohibited from possessing a gun by court order ( Criminal Code , s. 117.01(1)); and breach of a recognizance ( Criminal Code , s. 145(3)). These charges arose from events that occurred on two separate dates: March 24, 2016, and October 22, 2016.

[ 118 ] Mr. Parranto had a lengthy and related criminal record. He was under a lifetime firearm prohibition and was bound by a recognizance order prohibiting him from possessing controlled substances and firearms. In March, the police recovered 27.8 grams of fentanyl powder with an approximate street value of $5,560, along with $55,575 in cash. In October, police recovered 485.12 grams of fentanyl powder (capable of producing 500,000 individual doses) with an approximate street value of $97,064, along with $20,690 in cash.

[ 119 ] Mr. Parranto waived his right to a Gladue report and did not file a pre-sentence report. I pause here to note that this is remarkable given the quantum of sentence in issue and the importance of quality information to inform the determination of a fit sentence. Counsel made submissions indicating that Mr. Parranto had a disjointed childhood surrounded by drugs, alcohol and abuse. He began using drugs in the 1990s and had struggled with addiction to heroin. The Supreme Court held, at para. 80, that:

Mr. Parranto's background circumstances can be said to have played a part in bringing him before the court. Against this must be weighed the reality that Mr. Parranto committed the second set of offences less than three months after being released on bail for the first set of offences. This suggests that restorative justice principles such as rehabilitation are less salient in this case compared to other objectives including protection of the public.

[ 120 ] At para. 81, the Supreme court explained the 14-year sentence, stating:

While we would not make any finding as to how the 14 years should be apportioned between the various counts, we note that it would have been appropriate to impose the 9- and 12- year sentences sought by the Crown at first instance with respect to the two fentanyl offences, with those sentences to run concurrently.

[ 121 ] Mr. Parranto's co-accused, Mr. Felix, pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in fentanyl and two counts of trafficking in cocaine, both contrary to s. 5(1) of the CDSA . He entered his guilty pleas after exhausting his Charter challenges. The Supreme Court held that 14 years was a fit sentence, upholding the Court of Appeal's determination that the trial judge's sentence was unfit.

[ 122 ] Mr. Felix was the directing mind of a drug trafficking operation in Fort McMurray, Alberta, that included selling drugs destined for Nunavut. It was structured as a "dial-a-dope" operation with "runners" filling orders from the stash location and remitting the proceeds to a "boss", who then, in turn, remitted the money to Mr. Felix weekly. The structure functioned to insulate Mr. Felix from criminal exposure.

[ 123 ] The fentanyl trafficking convictions related to five completed transactions and one incomplete transaction. The five completed transactions involved a total of 1,398 fentanyl tablets and 19.75 ounces of cocaine sold for $76,000. The one incomplete transaction involved 987 fentanyl tablets and 1,974 grams (69.63 ounces) of cocaine. In Fort McMurray in 2015, the 987 fentanyl tablets had an approximate street value of between $107,000 and $214,000 if sold by the tablet.

[ 124 ] Mr. Felix was found to have good rehabilitative prospects. This is because at the time of the offence, he was a 34-year-old college-educated individual with no prior criminal record and a successful owner-operator of a non-drug related business. Mr. Felix had no physical or mental impairments, had no relevant addiction or substance abuse issues, and provided the Court with a positive pre-sentence report indicating that, among other things, he maintained a good parental relationship with his children. Mr. Felix also provided 17 letters of reference speaking to his good character. He was sentenced to ten years.

[ 125 ] For the offence of gun trafficking, the sentencing range is mid to upper penitentiary jail sentences: see R. v. Hewitt , 2018 ONCA 561 ; R. v. Marshall , 2015 ONCA 692 , 340 O.A.C. 201 ; R. v. Allison , 2021 ONSC 2455 ; R. v. Benjamin, 2024 ONSC 4781; R. v. Cass, 2019 ONSC 7313 ; R. v. Datta , 2021 ONSC 2136 .

[ 126 ] While ranges are useful tools, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that sentencing judges are free to depart from the starting point and move up or down from this marker based on the specific characteristics of the offender in order to meet the primary sentencing principle of proportionality: Parranto , at para. 61 . When sentencing Black offenders, marginalization by socio-economic disadvantage, and systemic racism are relevant factors.

[ 127 ] I have read the cases submitted by both sides in their respective briefs including cases not cited above. I will discuss a few that are helpful and that post-date Parranto, as they bring home that heavy sentences must be tempered by factoring in complex individual circumstances.

[ 128 ] I will begin with Mr. Dooley, a co-accused for these offences who was sentenced in 2024. Between November 4, 2021 and July 28, 2022, Mr. Dooley trafficked a total of 654.8 g of cocaine and 358.66 g of fentanyl, transferred one restricted handgun and six prohibited handguns, and offered to transfer eight firearms to undercover officers. He also admitted that he possessed a loaded prohibited firearm while selling it to an undercover officer.

[ 129 ] On April 22, 2024, Mr. Dooley pleaded guilty to one count of Trafficking Cocaine, contrary to s. 5(1) of the CDSA ; one count of Trafficking Fentanyl, contrary to s. 5(1) of the CDSA; four counts of Transferring a Firearm, contrary to s. 99(1) of the Criminal Code ; and one count of Unauthorized Possession of a Loaded Prohibited Firearm, contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code . The Crown sought a global sentence of 13 years, less pre-trial custody credit. The Defence sought a sentence of 8 years, less pre-trial custody credit.

[ 130 ] Mr. Dooley has a compelling and complex personal history of disadvantage. In a high-profile case, Mr. Dooley's father and stepmother were convicted of second-degree murder of his brother when they were children.

[ 131 ] After factoring in his lack of a prior record and extraordinary personal circumstances of a childhood mired by trauma from family violence, loss, instability, and mistreatment in the child welfare system, the sentencing judge imposed a global sentence of 10 years. Credit for pre-trial custody ( Summers credit) were then factored in, resulting in a net sentence of about 6 years and 1 month. Mr. Dooley was 34 years old. Justice Lai explained the sentence as follows:

The appropriate sentence for the drug offences, collectively, is 7.5 years. The appropriate sentence for the firearms offences, collectively, is 5.5 years. The sentences for the drug offences and for the firearms offences should be served consecutively because they involve separate delicts and implicate different protected interests. However, a 13-year sentence would exceed Mr. Dooley's overall culpability and would be unduly harsh given his mitigating circumstances and rehabilitative prospects. To comply with the principle of totality, I would reduce the sentence for Trafficking Fentanyl to 6 years, and the sentences for the Transfer Firearm counts to 4 years consecutive (concurrent to each other), for a global sentence of 10 years (3,650 days).

The sentence will be broken down as follows:

Count 3 (Trafficking Cocaine) – 5 years concurrent to Count 4 Count 4 (Trafficking Fentanyl) – 6 years Count 12 (Transfer Firearm) – 4 years consecutive to Count 4 Count 16 (Unauthorized Possession) – 4 years concurrent to Count 12 Count 17 (Transfer Firearm) – 4 years concurrent to Count 12 Count 25 (Transfer Firearm) – 4 years concurrent to Count 12 Count 27 (Transfer Firearm) – 4 years concurrent to Count 12

Mr. Dooley served 953 real days, for which I will credit him with 1,430 days (at 1.5:1). This leaves Mr. Dooley with 2,220 days (about 6 years and 1 month) left to serve. The pre-trial custody should be applied to Counts 3 and 4 ( i.e. , 760 days left to serve on the drug offences; 4 years left to serve on the firearms offences).

R. v. Dooley , March 6, 2025, Brampton 23-1871, at paras. 80-82.

[ 132 ] In R. v. Benjamin , 2024 ONSC 4781 , a youthful first-time offender was sentenced to 13 years (reduced to 9 years after credits) for trafficking 27 firearms and over half a kilogram of fentanyl, reflecting the serious nature of combined firearms and drug trafficking offences.

[ 133 ] As part of my duty to sentence Mr. Harvey, I recognize that consecutive sentences are appropriate when the offences are distinct and their sentencing implicates different legal interests: R. v. Crevier , 2015 ONCA 619 , 330 C.C.C. (3d) 305 , at paras. 127-30 . Different offences that arise out of the same behaviour normally receive concurrent sentences. Consecutive sentences may be imposed where there is some separation among the offences in time or they constitute different legally protected interests. A sentencing judge is entitled to bring home the seriousness of the offences by imposing consecutive sentences for firearms (combined with drug) offences: R. v. Houle , 2008 ONCA 287 .

[ 134 ] When consecutive sentences are imposed, the totality principle must be fulfilled: see Crevier , at para. 130 ; Houle , at para. 4 . A total sentence must not crush a person's spirit and undermine their ability to rehabilitate and reintegrate.

Aggravating Factors

[ 135 ] This criminal business involved the deadly combination of repeated trafficking of the most dangerous drug and guns, albeit separately: R. v. Omoragbon , 2020 ONCA 336 , at para. 22 ; R. v. Wong , 2012 ONCA 767 , at para. 11.

[ 136 ] This was a profit-motivated, criminal enterprise, repeated over several months, with an escalating quantum of drugs supplied over time. There were numerous guns sold and a willingness to sell more powerful guns.

[ 137 ] The stealing of a significant amount of police buy money and the cover-up were also aggravating.

[ 138 ] The trafficking of guns and fentanyl poses remarkable risk to the safety and security of the community. Both categories of crimes are known to be capable of causing extraordinary immediate and long-term devastating harms to people, including death.

Mitigating Factors

[ 139 ] Mr. Harvey has no other criminal record.

[ 140 ] He was 26 years old, a relatively young man.

[ 141 ] Mr. Harvey pleaded guilty on the basis of an agreed statement of facts, after his s. 8 Charter motion was dismissed: see R. v. Harvey , 2025 ONSC 375 . This plea was not early, but it saved valuable court time and resources.

[ 142 ] He has remorse and insight into the harms from his gun and drug trafficking offences. He expresses genuine remorse in the EPSR. While in jail, he has taken steps to educate himself about the detrimental impacts of fentanyl and is committed not to return to crime.

[ 143 ] Mr. Harvey has strong rehabilitative potential.

[ 144 ] In the face of extraordinary adversity of personal loss and financial hardship, including housing insecurity from his youth to early adulthood, he worked hard to obtain employment, support his family, and advocate to reunite with his son in CAS care. He is a committed father.

[ 145 ] Mr. Harvey has a reliable support system of family and friends that are able to assist him with his rehabilitation and reintegration. This support has been important in helping him overcome his financial and personal hardship.

[ 146 ] But for the deportation factor, I find that he would rehabilitate and reintegrate successfully back into Canadian society. His circumstances will be complicated by the reality that he will likely be removed from the country to face additional long-term personal hardships.

[ 147 ] The EPSR shows that he worked hard before the offences, and since being incarcerated has reflected on and addressed some of the risk factors indicated in the probation authored pre-sentence report of "poor decision making" and "lack of effective problem-solving skills".

[ 148 ] His genuine remorse, insight, and strong rehabilitative prospects attenuate, to some extent, the amount of specific deterrence required.

Social Context

[ 149 ] Relevant social context evidence relating to an individual's life experiences will mitigate their degree of responsibility or provide essential context to assist in the balancing of principles and objectives of sentencing to tailor a sentence that best serves the purposes of sentencing as set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code : R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680 , at paras. 13 , 75-81, 87-107.

[ 150 ] Mr. Harvey has experienced systemic disadvantage as a Black man. He had one parent during the two primary phases of his life (childhood and early adulthood), with his father and mother facing their own challenges. He lived in lower socio-economic conditions in Jamaica in his youth and as an immigrant in Canada in his teenage years. He endured racism in Canada that added more barriers. His response to financial hardship was to get a job to help support his family at the expense of his education. This is admirable yet speaks to the harshness of his reality that limited his long-term upward economic mobility.

[ 151 ] Disproportionate experiences with disadvantaged socio-economic social context circumstances by racialized people can contribute to over-representation in the criminal justice system: R. v. Morris , 2018 ONSC 5186 , at Appendix A ( The Experiences of Black Children and Youth in Education; Black Employment and Poverty ), cited with approval in R. v. Morris , 2021 ONCA 680 .

[ 152 ] I understand Mr. Harvey's background circumstances of barriers from his youth into adulthood as having contributed to his involvement in these crimes. He was driven by a desire to make money to support himself and his family.

[ 153 ] I find that his financial insecurity informs the circumstances of the offences. Mr. Harvey was a middle person in a pro-longed criminal enterprise to obtain and deliver drugs to the undercover officer for substantial money.

[ 154 ] I find that he knew drug trafficking damages communities and harms people. However, I accept that he did not know the full magnitude of destruction to people and communities that fentanyl causes until after his arrest.

[ 155 ] While not a mitigating factor, it is relevant context that people marginalized by poverty or from lower socio-economic circumstances that are exposed to drug activity are distinctly exposed to the temptation of becoming involved in drug trafficking to supplement their incomes. This source of disadvantage should not be improperly viewed as aggravating or contribute to unconscious bias in the sentencing process. To the contrary, it assists the Court to understand the person's total circumstances when imposing a proportionate sentence.

[ 156 ] His financial insecurity also contributed to his involvement in the firearms trafficking, where there were consistently lucrative offers. Again, this is by no means an excuse or mitigating, but assists to understand his motivation.

[ 157 ] The discussion above pertains to recognizing the complicated subjective circumstances of the offences, which are an important consideration in sentencing. Offences of the same kind yield a range of penalties, situated on a spectrum. This can be done while maintaining the distinction between the gravity of the offences and individual circumstances. In Friesen , at para. 96 , the Supreme Court held that "[t]he gravity of the offence includes both subjective gravity, namely the circumstances that surround the commission of the offence, and objective gravity ( L.M. , at paras. 24-25)." In other words, the circumstances in which the offences were actually committed assist to understand their subjective gravity, while not detracting from the objective gravity of the offences.

[ 158 ] See also the comments of the majority in R. v. Sharma , 2022 SCC 39 , [2022] 3 S.C.R. 147 , at para. 108 (and the dissent at para. 178), adopting the reasoning in Friesen .

[ 159 ] Overall, I recognize that while the circumstances which led Mr. Harvey to traffic drugs and firearms are influenced by his disadvantaged life, including factors beyond his control that attenuate his moral culpability in part, he made choices to repeatedly participate in these offences, sufficiently aware of the grave harm of guns and drug crimes.

Collateral Consequences

[ 160 ] Reasonably foreseeable consequences of the sentence must be taken into account to ensure proportionality. They cannot be used to reduce a sentence to the point that it becomes disproportionate: R. v. Suter , 2018 SCC 34 , [2018] 2 S.C.R. 496, at paras. 48, 56.

[ 161 ] I recognize that due to Mr. Harvey's pre-trial incarceration and further sentence, he will be separated from his children during a crucial time in their development. He will be unable to help them financially.

[ 162 ] I have considered the family impact of the jail sentence, including his pro-longed separation from his young children. I recognize proportionality demands factoring in and preserving the family to the extent possible: R. v. Habib , 2024 ONCA 830 , 99 C.R. (7th) 110 , at paras. 41-47 . This is another reason that a sentence must strive to be as exacting as possible.

[ 163 ] Prior to his incarceration, Mr. Harvey was a devoted parent to his children and was an important source of support, especially for his eldest son who was in the child welfare system.

[ 164 ] Mr. Harvey's continued incarceration (and likely deportation) will mean a major loss of emotional and financial support that he provided for his family.

[ 165 ] Further imprisonment in a federal institution will inevitably mean that Mr. Harvey will be geographically separated from his family for a significant period. Visiting family jailed further away is harder for people of limited financial means.

[ 166 ] My decision must give emphasis to denunciation and deterrence but also consider restraint and foster rehabilitation, including family reunification: Habib , at paras. 41-47 .

Deportation Consequence

[ 167 ] Mr. Harvey will likely be deported after serving his sentence. Mr. Harvey has lived in Canada for 15 years and has a partner and three children that he will have to leave.

[ 168 ] There is no right of appeal for serious criminality that relates to a conviction for which a sentence of 6 months or more imprisonment (excluding a conditional sentence) has been imposed: Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , S.C. 2001, c. 27, s. 64(2) .

[ 169 ] Despite living in Canada since he was a young teenager, Mr. Harvey did not obtain his Canadian citizenship. He had no prior record. It was not explained why this step was not taken, but it is apparent that he is now gravely disadvantaged as a result of this failure.

[ 170 ] Immigration status is properly considered in determining a fit sentence. The significance of this consequence depends on and must be determined in accordance with the facts of the particular case. The deportation consequence cannot, however, lead to a separate sentencing scheme or justify the imposition of a sentence that is not proportionate to the gravity of the offence, and does not adequately reflect the level of culpability. This is because "artificially" reducing sentences to unfit levels would circumvent Parliament's will: R. v. Pham , 2013 SCC 15 , [2013] 1 S.C.R. 739 , at paras. 13-19 ; R. v. Suter , 2018 SCC 34 , [2018] 2 S.C.R. 496, at paras. 47, 56.

[ 171 ] The facts of this case make clear that the deportation is a heavy consequence of the sentence that will substantially add to its punitive impact. Mr. Harvey explained in the EPSR that he feels stress about the reality that he will likely be deported because it results in tremendous uncertainty about his and his children's lives. Mr. Harvey has spent a large part of his life, including all of his adulthood, in Canada and was settled. His removal and absence will likely cause a major long-term adverse impact on all of his children, especially his son in foster care, who will not have his father in his daily life, or available to advocate for him. These are important individualized circumstances and consequences. Deportation and separation from his family support will impact long-term rehabilitation and successful reintegration.

[ 172 ] In my view, while maintaining proportionality and an individualized approach, but ensuring that approach does not result in a two-tier system, the law of sentencing must be fully attentive to the actual impact of the deportation consequence in a particular case. It can be more severe for a person that has lived most of their life and raised their children in Canada. The impact of removal should be considered carefully, since when combined with other personal and systemic factors for some offenders, it results in substantially more harsh punishment long-term. The harsh impacts of separation of an individual from society for a long period through pre-trial and post-sentence custody are compounded by permanent removal from the country, separating them from their support network, including their partner and children, necessary for successful rehabilitation and reintegration. In this context, it is my duty to ensure a sentence fairly factors in the impact of deportation overall and especially on rehabilitation and reintegration.

[ 173 ] In other words, a sentence that appropriately considers this consequence on a spectrum commensurate with the facts to ensure a fit sanction does not mean the person receives an artificially lower sentence.

[ 174 ] In reality, the sentencing analysis must recognize that on these facts the deportation consequence adds a considerable punitive dimension to a sentence that is already substantial, emphasizing deterrence and denunciation. The long-term adverse consequences for Mr. Harvey and his family extend well beyond the serving of his sentence and eventual release from jail.

[ 175 ] A Black person marginalized by poverty, impacted by racism, that after serving a lengthy penitentiary jail sentence including harsh jail conditions, is deported away from their children and partner, removed to a place where they have less or no support is clearly facing a distinctly severe consequence.

[ 176 ] Upon release, permanent separation from immediate family, including vulnerable children, is life-altering and can be psychologically devastating and undermine otherwise good rehabilitative prospects.

[ 177 ] Even though deportation in these circumstances is Parliament's will, the extent or degree of this consequence must be fairly factored in and inform the totality of a just sentence imposed.

[ 178 ] As a matter of general principle, cumulative sentences may offend the totality principle if the effect of the aggregate sentence is "a crushing sentence" not in keeping with the offender's record and prospects: R. v. M. (C.A.) , [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500 , at para. 42 .

Pre-Sentence Custody

[ 179 ] The mitigation for unusually harsh pre-trial custody jail conditions mitigates the sentence substantially.

[ 180 ] I accept that there are two distinct forms of mistreatment, which even if they overlap on certain dates have different physical and psychological adverse impacts.

[ 181 ] The amount for this factor does not consume the sentence or as I will explain, render it unfit.

[ 182 ] The following is the justification for that mitigation. According to the jail records filed, Mr. Harvey was at Maplehurst Correctional Complex for 976 days broken down as 925 days between January 4, 2023 and July 17, 2025, and 51 days between November 27, 2025 and January 17, 2026.

[ 183 ] He spent 39 days (July 17, 2025 - November 27, 2025) at Central North.

[ 184 ] During that time, he experienced full lockdown 252 times at Maplehurst and about 22 times at CNCC.

[ 185 ] He also experienced partial lockdowns 94 times at Maplehurst and 6 times at CNCC.

[ 186 ] The total number of lock downs was 346 at Maplehurst and 28 at CNCC for a total of 374 days.

[ 187 ] He was triple bunked for 107 days at Maplehurst. He was triple bunked 39 days at CNCC. That amounts to almost five months.

[ 188 ] In R. v. Duncan , 2016 ONCA 754 , the Ontario Court of Appeal held that, in appropriate circumstances, harsh presentence incarceration conditions can provide mitigation apart from and beyond the 1.5 for 1 credit referred to in s. 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code . In R. v. Marshall , 2021 ONCA 344 , at para. 52 , the Court explained that this is not really a "credit", but rather a mitigating factor to be considered together with other aggravating and mitigating factors. Particularly punitive pre-trial incarceration conditions can be a mitigating factor to be taken into account with other mitigating and aggravating factors in arriving at the appropriate sentence from which the R. v. Summers , 2014 SCC 26 , [2014] 1 S.C.R. 575 credit will be deducted. Harsh conditions are amongst the mitigating factors to be taken into account and therefore cannot justify the imposition of a sentence which is unfit, having regard to all of the relevant mitigating or aggravating factors.

[ 189 ] By quantifying the " Duncan " mitigation, only one of presumably several relevant factors, there can be a risk that it will be improperly treated as a deduction from the appropriate sentence in the same way as the " Summers " credit. If treated in that way, the " Duncan " mitigation can take on an unwarranted significance in fixing the ultimate sentence imposed: R. v. J.B. (2004) , 187 O.A.C. 307 (C.A.).

[ 190 ] In Marshall , the trial judge's application of " Duncan " mitigation improperly "devoured three-quarters of what the trial judge had deemed to be the appropriate sentence but for pretrial custody": Marshall , at para. 53.

[ 191 ] Having considered the authorities, and with the consent of the parties, I find that quantification is not inappropriate in this case, as long as it does not improperly skew the calculation of the ultimate sentence. Harsh pre-trial custody conditions can be factored in or alternatively calculated as long as there is not double counting or a disproportionate outcome. In considering whether any mitigation should be given, the Court will consider both the conditions of the pre-sentence incarceration and the impact of those conditions on the accused. Realistically, a judge will have to determine the extent of the mitigation for this distinct factor, and whether they are prepared to quantify it or not in their ruling. In some cases, quantification will be beneficial because it is transparent and fair to the parties.

[ 192 ] I find that these unacceptable jail conditions are part of a systemic failure of an uncontested long-standing problem, to varying degrees depending on the institution, in the jails. I am satisfied that Mr. Harvey experienced prolonged periods of unacceptable pre-trial custody conditions for which he must receive significant mitigation to ensure a proportionate sentence.

[ 193 ] This sentence must factor in the punitive conditions that go well beyond the normal restrictions and deprivations of liberty associated with pre-trial custody. Taking into consideration persistent, unacceptable, and harsh jail conditions in provincial remand facilities is a necessary and frequent part of sentencing in Ontario. However, these conditions should not be normalized in our justice system as simply part of being in custody. In this regard, treating them as "typical" may be misleading.

[ 194 ] The unacceptable and appalling conditions have been ongoing for several years and are not improving: see R. v. Crawford , 2025 ONSC 345 , at paras. 49-56 .

[ 195 ] These conditions are clearly contrary to the public interest for multiple reasons, including that they are cruel, foster violence, restrict access to family and legal support, and complicate sentencing hearings.

[ 196 ] Periods of lockdowns and segregation may be responsive to security issues, but in this case their frequency and duration violate fundamental human rights of reasonable sanitary and safe conditions.

Sentence Imposed

[ 197 ] Proportionality is both the cardinal principle of sentencing and the goal of every sentence imposed: Parranto , at para. 10 .

[ 198 ] The Supreme Court has consistently held that each sentence imposed is the result of a thorough individualized process that seeks to answer the complex question: "For this offence, committed by this offender, harming this victim, in this community, what is the appropriate sanction under the Criminal Code ?": see R. v. Gladue , [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688 , at para. 80 ; Parranto , at paras. 12, 36 ; Quebec (Attorney General) v. Senneville , 2025 SCC 33 , at para. 1 .

[ 199 ] Proportionality is not achieved by ranking categories of offences or assuming presumptive sentences. It is achieved through individualized sentencing that takes into account the specific circumstances of both the offender and the offence. In Parranto , at para. 12 , citing Lacasse , at para. 58 , the Supreme Court made this point crystal clear:

Individualization is central to the proportionality assessment. Whereas the gravity of a particular offence may be relatively constant, each offence is "committed in unique circumstances by an offender with a unique profile" (para. 58). This is why proportionality sometimes demands a sentence that has never been imposed in the past for a similar offence. The question is always whether the sentence reflects the gravity of the offence, the offender's degree of responsibility and the unique circumstances of each case.

[ 200 ] Mr. Harvey, a man without a prior criminal record and with difficult personal circumstances, decided to become directly involved in these highly serious offences. He was a middle person between a supplier and an undercover officer, providing a significant amount of fentanyl and numerous firearms for profit.

[ 201 ] The gravity of the offences is clearly high. The circumstances establish involvement in dangerous crimes that threaten public safety, for profit.

[ 202 ] In a relative sense, and factoring in parity, there is an absence of additional aggravating factors in other cases with higher sentences, as it was not proven that Mr. Harvey was a mastermind in a sophisticated operation, or had a related criminal record like the accused in Parranto . To be clear, this is not mitigating but assists to situate his conduct on a spectrum.

[ 203 ] Also, the sentencing record about Mr. Harvey's personal circumstances, remorse, and total consequences arising from the conviction and sentence are compelling.

[ 204 ] He recognizes that this was a terrible error in judgment that will cost him for the rest of his life. The circumstances are aggravating but also demonstrate a complexity that can pull in the direction of mitigation or context, to reduce the degree of moral blameworthiness. He committed these crimes to supplement his income (for profit), because of his personal history of financial hardship and housing insecurity. He chose the wrong path to help to provide for himself and his children. He participated in crime to try to become more financially secure. It is this personal instability that contributed to him accepting, rather than rejecting, the temptation to make "easy money".

[ 205 ] The gravity and circumstances of the offences while considering the compelling and distinct individual background of Mr. Harvey support a total sentence of 11 years before factoring distinct mitigation for unacceptable jail conditions; and pre-trial custody time credit. This sentence is broken down as follows:

a) For count 2, trafficking approximately 14 ounces or 395 grams of fentanyl to the undercover officer, over the course of several incidents (of escalating amounts), while factoring the total individual circumstances, I impose a sentence of 7 years.

b) For count 4, trafficking of two prohibited handguns for $12,400, one loaded, I impose a consecutive sentence of 4 years.

c) For count 6, possessing proceeds of crime over $5,000, I would impose 2 years concurrent.

[ 206 ] I have factored in the additional agreed on aggravating facts in support of resolution read in pursuant to ss. 725(1)(c) of the Criminal Code and R. v. Di Paola , 2025 SCC 31 , at paras. 41-44 , 55. Mr. Harvey agreed that he was involved in trafficking more guns and offering to supply a machine gun to the undercover officer.

Jail Conditions Impact

[ 207 ] The compelling mitigating factor of harsh jail conditions over a prolonged period of time necessarily impact the 11-year (or 4,015 day) sentence further.

[ 208 ] The jail records prove that Mr. Harvey has existed in extraordinary hardship over a prolonged period of time. During his time in three jails, he has experienced 423 days of lockdown. That is 33 percent, or a third, of the time he was in jail. It is over a year of being in lockdown.

[ 209 ] Full lockdown at Central East Correctional Centre (CECC) generally means the unit is locked down for 6 hours or more, and partial lockdown is less than 6 hours. Maplehurst says it is "full" when it is above 6.5 hours.

[ 210 ] The jail records establish an alarming trend.

[ 211 ] While incarcerated at CECC for 161 days (July 28, 2022 to January 4, 2023), he experienced lockdowns 49 times: 46 full lockdowns; and 3 partial lockdowns. That is 30 percent of the time he was jailed there. He was not triple bunked at CECC.

[ 212 ] While incarcerated at Maplehurst for 976 days (January 4, 2023 to July 17, 2025; and November 27, 2025 to January 17, 2026), he experienced lockdowns 346 times: 252 full lockdowns and 94 partial lockdowns. That is 35 percent of the time and almost a year.

[ 213 ] Mr. Harvey was also triple bunked 107 days.

[ 214 ] He had three misconducts from fights or assaults. The descriptions are brief. For some incidents he was attacked.

[ 215 ] While jailed at CNCC for 123 days (July 17, 2025 to November 24, 2025), he experienced 28 days of lockdowns. That is 23 percent of the time he was jailed at CNCC.

[ 216 ] He was also triple bunked for 39 days.

[ 217 ] I pause to note that the Crown accepted the total lockdowns at each jail should be factored in. Also, that triple bunking could be factored in, in addition to the lockdowns, mindful that it would overlap at times, while causing even more severe hardship when it did.

[ 218 ] In addition, Mr. Harvey experienced consecutive days of lockdowns, elevating the harshness of the conditions, deserving of its own recognition.

[ 219 ] For example, the CECC records show that in 2022, Mr. Harvey was subject to consecutive lockdowns, including related to COVID controls: August 11-15; 20-21; September 10-11; 18-19; October 8-9; 26-31 (droplet precautions); November 1-6 (droplet precautions included); December 6-8 (droplet precautions); December 15-16; and December 23-24. The records show that when consecutive days of lockdowns would stop for a few days, they would resume followed by another set of consecutive days.

[ 220 ] There are also periods of consecutive days of triple bunking, such as December 5, 2024 to December 19, 2024. I will not list every example, but they bring home the unacceptable harshness of the environment.

[ 221 ] While jailed at Maplehurst, the records did not indicate consecutive days, but it is reasonable to believe that they occurred, or at minimum there were lockdowns in close proximity to one another, since the lockdowns transpired 35 percent of the time.

[ 222 ] While jailed at CNCC in 2025, consecutive lockdowns occurred: July 19-20; 27-28; August 9-10; 21-22; October 19-23; 28-29; November 14-18, 2025. Again, there may be a short break and then they resume.

[ 223 ] During these periods, Mr. Harvey experienced reduced access to showers, phone calls and family, including his children. Confining three adults to a small cell results in a lack of hygiene, frustration, and violence: Crawford , at paras. 179-80 . Based on the total amount of Mr. Harvey's pre-trial custody time, his misconducts are relatively low but demonstrate that violence is part of difficult jail conditions.

[ 224 ] I find that the impact of the totality of lockdowns of 423 real days, together with triple bunking for 146 real days, warrants substantial mitigation of the jail sentence. The lockdowns are over a year of his life. The triple bunking is almost five months. Then add to that the exacerbating punitive consecutive nature of the lockdowns. The EPSR author explained how these dire conditions made him feel:

Raoul stated that the lockdowns were excessive and recalled being confined to his cell for "six months straight, day after day" with no shower program which led him to bathe himself in the sink ("bird bath"). At some point in 2024, Raoul began triple bunking which was a practice he described as "crazy" and "totally inhumane". He reported that triple bunking occurred at different periods for 2 to 3 month increments. Raoul disclosed that due to the lack of space in the cell, his cell mates had to step over him to go to the washroom. At times when the toilets were clogged, Raoul said that inmates either "hold it" or defecate in bags that cause a foul smell in the cell.

[ 225 ] I find that in this case the combinations of factors causing the unacceptable conditions justify a mitigation of 2.5 years. This is by granting 2 days for each day in lockdown. I also grant around .5 days for each day of triple bunking[^4]. I have rounded the total of these two - down to 2.5 years because this is fair from a totality perspective.

[ 226 ] This reduces the aggregate 11 year sentence (4,015 days), to 8.5 years (3,102 days).[^5]

[ 227 ] This specific and substantial mitigation that has been quantified accounts for the unacceptable conditions that cause serious physical and psychological impact. As he told the EPSR author, being "locked up in a box for so long" in these unsanitary and unsafe conditions is contributing to the deterioration of his mental health.

[ 228 ] Next, the amount of time that is left to be served must be further adjusted by the time spent in pre-trial custody pursuant to Summers and ss. 719(3) and 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code .

[ 229 ] To avoid double counting, I subtract from the total of 1,297 days spent in pre-trial custody, the 423 lockdown days already factored in above.[^6]

[ 230 ] This leaves 874 days to be calculated at a 1.5 to 1 rate as per Summers, amounting to a credit of 1,311 days or 3.6 years.

[ 231 ] In the end, the remaining sentence imposed is 8.5 years (5.5 years for count 2; and 3 years for count 4) less 3.6 years (3102 days - 1311 days) for a total remaining sentence of 1,791 days or about 4.9 years.

[ 232 ] In arriving at this sentence, I have factored in the totality principle. The sentences imposed for each of the counts could have been higher individually, but then the total consecutive sentences would not be proportionate overall considering Mr. Harvey's personal history, total mitigating factors, collateral consequences, deportation and circumstances of the offences.

[ 233 ] In the end, this is a major jail sentence in the total circumstances that gives paramount consideration to deterrence and denunciation but that factors in restraint and rehabilitation for a first-time disadvantaged offender.

[ 234 ] The deplorable pre-trial jail conditions are avoidable. The gross mistreatment of people serving a sentence, both before and after being found guilty, is clearly contrary to the bedrock principles of our justice system that is supposed to hold people accountable in a humane manner while fostering rehabilitation and reintegration. If the jail conditions had not been unacceptable for large periods of time, this further mitigation would not be necessary.

Conclusion

[ 235 ] A sentence of 7 years' imprisonment is imposed on count 2; and 4 years on count 4 to be served consecutively; and 2 years on count 6 to be served concurrently.

[ 236 ] However, after crediting Mr. Harvey for his time spent in pre-sentence custody, and the impact of enhanced credit for the harsh jail conditions, the remaining sentence to be served is 1,791 days or about 4.9 years.

[ 237 ] That is broken down as:

i 1159 days of jail (3.2 years) for count 2; and

ii 632 days of jail (1.7 years) for count 4, consecutive to count 2.

iii 2 years of jail for count 6, which shall be concurrent to count 2.

Ancillary Orders

[ 238 ] Additionally, the following ancillary orders are made:

a) Pursuant to s. 487.051(3) of the Criminal Code , Mr. Harvey is ordered to provide a sample of his DNA for inclusion in the national databank.

b) The Defence did not oppose the order being imposed and I am satisfied that it is in the best interests of the administration of justice to make such an order. I have considered the offender's criminal record (including lack of a prior record), the nature and circumstances of the offences including the high quantum of fentanyl, guns, and cash, and the impact of the order on the offender's privacy and security of the person. The offences are distinctly harmful to the public and community. Although there were no victims before the court, when committed they were not intended to be victimless crimes. The impact on privacy is not grossly disproportionate to the public safety interest.

c) A s. 109(2)(a) weapons prohibition for 10 years; and a s. 109(2)(b) prohibition for life.

d) An order for forfeiture of illegal items seized, subject to a draft order from the Crown.

Mirza, J.

Released: February 17, 2026

[^1]: The reasons were read out (in part) in court on February 13, 2026, with a written copy given to counsel. I advised counsel that final written reasons were to follow that would include my amendments.

[^2]: The EPSR explains in-depth Mr. Harvey's total individualized circumstances.

[^3]: At the time of the plea, there was a considerable backlog in obtaining EPSRs. This delay has now largely been addressed and reports can be obtained within a reasonable time. The Crown did not oppose the Defence request for the EPSR, and the progress was case managed. A conventional PSR was obtained in the interim to assist the Court, parties, and EPSR author, while ensuring that, if for some reason the ESPR was not available, the Court had obtained information.

[^4]: The precise math is (423 days x 2) + (146 x. 5) = 919 days. However, I have rounded this down to 2.5 years or 913 days.

[^5]: For sentence administration purposes, since there is a 3 year mandatory minimum for gun trafficking (count 4), this mitigation of 2.5 years is applied as follows: for count 2 (fentanyl trafficking) reducing the sentence for that count to 5.5 years; for count 4 reducing the sentence to 3 years. This would result in a total sentence of 8.5 years before accounting for Summers credit. To be clear, the Federal Crown confirmed in submissions on February 13, that they are not relying on the mandatory minimum. See Dooley at para. 76 citing cases where the mandatory minimum has not been applied.

[^6]: Another way to look at this is for the purposes of calculating pre-sentence custody generally, the total lockdown days were at a rate of 2.15 for 1. This granting of enhanced credit for those days includes the triple bunking factor as well. The CNCC jail records do not indicate the dates of triple bunking so they may overlap with the lockdowns.