 |
| John L. Hill |
He received 17 charges, including three counts of trafficking cocaine, five counts of trafficking methamphetamine, possession of a weapon or ammunition while prohibited, conspiracy to commit an indictable offence, and participation in a criminal organization. When he went to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, he pleaded guilty to trafficking cocaine and methamphetamine and doing so for a criminal organization.
Without providing details in her reasons for sentence on Jan. 24, 2024, it was apparent that the trial judge accepted the Crown’s recommendation of a global sentence of about 42 months (3.5 years). After credit for time in custody and strict bail (542 days total), the judge imposed a conditional sentence of 729 days (approx. two years) to be served in the community, plus 18 months’ probation. The sentence was concurrent on all counts and did not impose consecutive time for the criminal organization offence. A $15,000 restitution order was imposed to recover funds used in the undercover operation.
The Crown appealed the sentence to the Ontario Court of Appeal, claiming that the trial judge erred in the sentence calculation. Specifically, the Crown urged that a conditional sentence was unavailable because the
mr_north: ISTOCKPHOTO.COM
The Crown and the respondent agreed on the errors and agreed on a joint resolution at the appeal. They proposed: a) vacating the conditional sentence; b) imposing a 3.5-year sentence (1,277 days) with 94 days credit for pre-sentence custody; c) staying the remainder of the sentence due to rehabilitation and time served (471 days under the conditional sentence); d) staying the criminal organization conviction; and e) setting aside the restitution order.
The Court of Appeal decision was released on April 23, 2025 (R. v. Glynn, 2025 ONCA 310). In the 13-paragraph judgment, the Appeal Court:
- Accepted the joint proposal and allowed the appeal.
- The criminal organization conviction and restitution order were stayed.
- The conditional sentence was set aside.
- A new sentence of 476 days was imposed (after accounting for credits).
- The remainder of the sentence is stayed.
The Appeal Court accepted that when the trial judge failed to impose a consecutive sentence for a criminal organization offence, it did so without the assistance of Crown or defence counsel when sentencing submissions were made. It also noted that all parties were non-compliant with the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in R. v. Trac, 2013 ONCA 246, which explained that restitution orders are made to ensure direct accountability by the wrongdoer to the victim and allow the victim to obtain redress by a convenient and inexpensive route. It was not designed to reimburse police agencies for funds expended in investigating a crime.
Although the Court of Appeal was open to criticism that it was allowing a convicted drug dealer a greater degree of leniency that could raise public outcry, it was noted that Glynn was making meaningful progress toward rehabilitation and was well down the path toward serving the conditional sentence order that had been erroneously imposed.
John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a J.D. from Queen’s and an LL.M. in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. He is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books) and The Rest of the [True Crime] Story (AOS Publishing). Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.