https://canlii.ca/t/jlwj8 is R. v. Senior, 2022 ONSC 136
[26] Pursuant to section 718.1, a SENTENCE MUST BE PROPORTIONATE TO THE GRAVITY OF THE OFFENCE and THE DEGREE OF RESPONSIBILITY of the offender. Proportionality is a cardinal principle of sentencing, therefore, whatever weight a judge gives to the objectives listed above, the ultimate sentence imposed MUST RESPECT THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY. See R. v. Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6, paras. 41-43; R. v. Safarzadeh-Markhali, 2016 SCC 14; R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64 (CanLII), [2015] 3 S.C.R. 1089; R. v. Omoragbon, 2020 ONCA 336, para. 28
Officer Senior, NOT a senior detective, was accused and convicted of:
a. Counts 4 and 5 – Unauthorized Use of Computer and BREACH OF TRUST – Cst. Senior accessed a police computer database to run a licence plate number at the request of Henry Wong, who he believed to be a mid-level Asian organized crime figure involved in the drug business, and provided the results to him. Cst. Senior was advised that Henry wanted this information to “rip” drugs from a rival drug dealer.
b. Counts 6, 7, and 9 – The Drug Warehouse – Cst. Senior was preparing to rob a drug warehouse that Henry Wong had advised him about, in which he anticipated there would be several kilograms of cocaine and cash. In anticipation of finding cocaine, Cst. Senior offered to traffic the cocaine he expected to find in the warehouse, in kilogram quantities, to George Papoutsos and Henry Wong. Also, in preparation for this robbery, Cst. Senior took a loaded YRP shotgun from a YRP vehicle and placed it in the back of a rental van that was parked in a public parking lot.
[5] In both of its earlier judgments, this court referred to the facts in detail and does not propose to repeat those findings. In brief, the charges were in relation to allegations stemming from a YRP SUSPECTED POLICE CORRUPTION INVESTIGATION, known as Project Tadeu, which involved the deployment of two undercover officers, UC1 and UC2 (operating under the pseudonym Henry Wong). The eight counts can be grouped into four events as follows:
c. Count 12 – TRAFFICKING SCHEDULE IV SUBSTANCES – Cst. Senior trafficked $400 worth of Schedule IV substances to UC1, including three liquid vials ofsteroids and a box of tablets, specifically:
• CDSA Schedule IV 23. (22) Metandienone;
• CDSA Schedule IV 23. An anabolic steroid namely, Testosterone enanthate;
• CDSA Schedule IV 23. An anabolic steroid namely, Testosterone enanthate;
• CDSA Schedule IV 23. An anabolic steroid namely, Nandrolone Decanoate
d. Counts 13 and 14 – Cst. Senior improperly ACCESSED (ON THREE OCCASIONS) AND DISCLOSED (ON TWO OCCASIONS) CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION FROM CPIC AND YRP DATABASES TO FRIENDS AND ACQUAINTANCES.
Then, the sentence:
[59] For all of the foregoing reasons, having carefully considered the entirety of the circumstances, this court has concluded that an appropriate global sentence would be
7.5 YEARS OF IMPRISONMENT
(2735 days), apportioned as follows:
a. Count 4, unauthorized use of computer: 1 year (365 days)
b. Count 5, breach of trust: 1 year (365 days), concurrent with count 4
c. Count 6, possession of firearm obtained by crime: 2 years (730 days), consecutive
d. Count 7: weapons dangerous: 2 years (730 days), concurrent with count 6
e. Count 9: traffic cocaine: 4 years (1460 days), consecutive
f. Count 12: traffic steroids: 90 days consecutive
g. Count 13: unauthorized use of computer: 90 days consecutive
h. Count 14: breach of trust: 90 days, concurrent to count 13