Sentencing
Ranges
12
I. Introduction .............................................
II. Sentencing Ranges for Schedule I Oences ....................
A. Possession and Obtaining ............................
B. Tracking Oences ..................................
C. Importing and Exporting .............................
D. Production .........................................
III. Cannabis (Marijuana) and Cannabis Resin (Hash) ..............
A. Possession .........................................
B. Tracking-Related Oences ...........................
C. Importing ..........................................
D. Production .........................................
IV. Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances in Drug Sentencing ....
A. Statutory Aggravating Factors ..........................
B. The Signicance of Addiction and/or Rehabilitative Steps ...
C. Criminal Convictions .................................
D. The Role of the Oender in the Distribution Network ......
E. Cooperation with the Police ...........................
V. Tables ..................................................
© 2024 Emond Montgomery Publications. All Rights Reserved.
2 Prosecuting and Defending Drug Cases
I. Introduction
Sentencing proceedings in drug cases can be challenging even for experienced practi-
tioners. The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act1 defines a variety of diferent maxi-
mum and, in some instances, minimum sentences. These statutory sentencing ranges
fluctuate according to both the nature of the oence and whether it was committed in
relation to a Schedule I, II, or III substance. The CDSA also establishes a variety of
aggravating factors that must be considered. Moreover, the existing jurisprudence
establishes broad sentencing ranges that can make it dicult for counsel to confi-
dently settle on a position concerning the appropriate sentence. Counsel must also be
aware of unique factual issues that can influence drug sentences. For example, the
role of the oender in a drug distribution network can influence a sentence dramatic-
ally, such that a courier who tracs multiple kilograms of cocaine might receive a
three-year sentence of imprisonment whereas a person who committed the same act
but had a financial interest in the distribution network might receive a sentence of
five to eight years in prison.
This chapter outlines sentencing ranges and examines factual issues surrounding
the relevant aggravating and mitigating circumstances that often arise in drug sen-
tencing cases. Section II focuses on Schedule I oences—the so-called hard drugs,
such as cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, fentanyl, and others—and summarizes
the range of sentences as established by the CDSA as well as the applicable case law.
Section III does the same concerning Schedule II substances, such as marijuana and
hashish. Section IV discusses aggravating and mitigating circumstances that com-
monly influence the sentencing process for possession, tracking, producing, and
importing oences. These factors include the oender’s role in a distribution net-
work, whether the oender was addicted to a controlled substance, whether they
overcame an addiction prior to sentencing, the presence or absence of a related crim-
inal record, and the statutory aggravating factors defined in the CDSA. Here, the
focus moves beyond the substantive law and into the nuanced factual circumstances
that arise in these cases. Finally, Section V oers detailed tables of cases that show
sentencing ranges for a variety of dierent oences.
II. Sentencing Ranges for Schedule I Oences
This section examines sentencing ranges for Schedule I substances such as cocaine,
methamphetamine, heroin, fentanyl, and others. It is divided according to oences,
beginning with possession, then tracking oences, and finally importing oences.
1 SC 1996, c 19 [CDSA].
© 2024 Emond Montgomery Publications. All Rights Reserved.
Chapter Sentencing Ranges 2
A. Possession and Obtaining
According to section 4(3) of the CDSA, the maximum sentence for the indictable
oence of possessing a Schedule I substance is seven years imprisonment. Where the
prosecution proceeds by summary conviction, the oender is liable, on a first oence,
to a fine of not more than $1,000 or up to six months’ imprisonment or both.2 On a
subsequent oence, the maximum fine and period of imprisonment doubles to
$2,000 and one year.3 There is no minimum sentence for possession of a Schedule I
substance. For the indictable oence of obtaining a Schedule I substance, the CDSA
provides for a maximum seven-year sentence of imprisonment.4 Where the prosecu-
tion proceeds by summary conviction, a maximum fine of $1,000 or six months’
imprisonment, or both, applies to a first oence. These maximum sentences double
for a subsequent oence.5
1. Cocaine and Methamphetamine
The available case law reflects sentences for possession of cocaine ranging from
discharges,6 fines,7 probation,8 conditional sentences,9 and actual imprisonment.10
Unlike tracking-related oences, exceptional circumstances are not necessary
before the court will impose a non-custodial sentence for possession of cocaine.
2 CDSA, s 4(3)(b)(i).
3 CDSA, s 4(3)(b)(ii).
4 CDSA, s 4(7)(a)(i).
5 CDSA, ss 4(7)(b)(i), 4(7)(b)(ii).
6 R v Al-Saedi, 2017 ONCJ 204; R v Potvin, 2017 ONCJ 429; R v Narayan, [2017] OJ No 1333
(QL) (Ct J); R v Oduro, 2014 ONSC 3122; R v Burke, [2005] OJ No 1902 (QL) (Sup Ct J); Rv
Caswell, 1994 CanLII 172, 54 BCAC 5 (CA); R v Conley, [1990] OJ No 3209 (QL) (Prov Ct
(Crim Div)); R v Carey (1988), 5 WCB (2d) 273 (CA).
7 Her Majesty The Queen v Balasubramaniam, 2 014 ONSC 7319, leave to appeal refused, 2016
ONCA 470; R v Kuczma, [2005] OJ No 1185 (QL) (Ct J); R v McCormack, 1996 CanL II 3353,
84 BCAC 299 (CA); R v Heidema, [1989] OJ No 669 (QL) (Dist Ct).
8 R v Davis, 2012 ONSC 6486; R v Malott, [2005] OJ No 4424 (QL) (Ct J); R v Bazkur (1999),
44 WCB (2d) 36 (Ct J); R v Lensen (1993), 21 WCB (2d) 235 (Ont Ct (Gen Div)), a’d 1994
CarswellOnt 2446, 22 WCB (2d) 525 (CA); R v Olarte (1984), 12 WCB 132 (Co Ct).
9 R v Manoharan, 2017 ONSC 480; R v Daniels, 2015 ONSC 2520, a ’d 2017 ONCA 551; R v
Day, 2011 ONSC 1148; R v Murray (1997), 34 WCB (2d) 422 (Gen Div); R v Jackson, [1997]
OJ No 5570 (QL) (Ct J (Gen Div)).
10 R v Goulding, 2017 ONSC 4376; Her Majesty the Queen v Nuttall, 2017 ONSC 970; R v Lourenco,
2017 ONSC 7606; R v Muir, 2015 ONSC 3119, a’d 2017 ONCA 461; R v Costain, 2014 ONSC
4247; R v Javier, 2014 ONCJ 361; R v Brown, 2013 ONSC 4230; R v Stewart, 2011 ONSC 2621;
HMTQ v Abreu-Larancuent, 2011 ONSC 6742; R v Leader, [2006] OJ No 2024 (QL) (Ct J); R
v Simmonds, [2005] OJ No 1881 (QL), 66 WCB (2d) 351 (Sup Ct J); R v Langevan, 1998 CanL II
5037, 59 CRR (2d) 220 (BCCA); R v Zastowny, 1993 CanLII 2185, 23 BCAC 268 (CA).
© 2024 Emond Montgomery Publications. All Rights Reserved.
