The Crown appealed sentences imposed on two offenders convicted after a lengthy jury trial for leading a sophisticated criminal organization that imported approximately two tonnes of cocaine into Ontario over three years.
The sentencing judge imposed global sentences of 22 and 20 years’ imprisonment, relying heavily on the parity principle by comparing the respondents’ sentences to those of co‑accused who had resolved charges through joint submissions.
The Court of Appeal held that the sentencing judge erred by overemphasizing parity, using joint‑submission sentences as comparators, and failing to adequately apply the proportionality principle or account for the respondents’ leadership roles and the unprecedented scale of the importation scheme.
Given the gravity of importing roughly 2,000 kilograms of cocaine and the respondents’ status as directing minds of the criminal organization, the court substituted life sentences for the conspiracy count.
The court also set aside a fine in lieu of forfeiture imposed on one respondent in light of subsequent Supreme Court authority.
