Canada Judgment

Supreme Court of British Columbia

R. v. Johnson

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court accepted the agreed joint submission of a three and a half year custodial sentence because, on balance, the offender's demonstrated rehabilitation and personal circumstances warranted the proposed disposition while still meeting the paramount sentencing objectives of denunciation, deterrence and public protection; ancillary orders (weapons prohibition, DNA order, victim fine surcharge) and stay of remaining counts were appropriately imposed as agreed.

Court disposition

Accused Jason Gordon Johnson sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment; remaining counts stayed

Orders

  • Custodial sentence of 3.5 years imprisonment (42 months)
  • Ancillary weapons prohibition under Criminal Code s.109(2): prohibited from possessing weapons for 10 years; lifetime prohibition on possessing prohibited firearms, restricted firearms, prohibited weapons, prohibited devices and prohibited ammunition
  • Order that DNA samples be taken pursuant to Criminal Code s.487.051(3)(b); samples to be taken in custody
  • Victim fine surcharge of $200 payable 30 days after release from custody
  • Consent forfeiture signed by the court
  • All remaining counts on both indictments stayed

02

Material facts

Parties

Rex

Crown Counsel: C.A. Sauder

Jason Gordon Johnson

Accused Counsel: W.E. Jessop

Gary Dhami

Accused

Amounts and remedies

  • Custodial Sentence (months): 42
  • Victim Fine Surcharge: CAD 200
  • Weapons Prohibition (years): 10

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Sentencing / Sentencing Hearing (oral Reasons)

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Defense (joint submission) proposed a global sentence of three and a half years with agreed ancillary orders including a 10‑year weapons prohibition, DNA sampling, a $200 victim fine surcharge payable 30 days after release, and consent forfeiture, stressing the accused's mitigating personal circumstances, rehabilitation progress and prospects for desistance.
Respondent
Crown accepted the joint submission, emphasizing the need for general and specific deterrence and protection of the public; Crown sought clarity on the scope and duration of the weapons prohibition and confirmed request for stay of remaining counts.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Criminal Code and common law sentencing principles

    Sentencing requires balancing denunciation, deterrence, protection of the public and rehabilitation; joint submissions may be accepted when they meet sentencing principles

  2. 02

    Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C‑46, s.109(2)

    Prohibition on possession of weapons may be ordered under s.109(2) of the Criminal Code with specified durations and lifetime restrictions for certain classes of weapons

  3. 03

    Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C‑46, s.487.051(3)(b)

    Court may order that samples be taken for DNA analysis under s.487.051(3)(b) of the Criminal Code

  4. 04

    Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C‑46, s.737

    Victim fine surcharge is an ancillary monetary order imposed on offenders

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court accepted the agreed joint submission of a three and a half year custodial sentence because, on balance, the offender's demonstrated rehabilitation and personal circumstances warranted the proposed disposition while still meeting the paramount sentencing objectives of denunciation, deterrence and public protection; ancillary orders (weapons prohibition, DNA order, victim fine surcharge) and stay of remaining counts were appropriately imposed as agreed.

Obiter and limits

  • Judge commended the accused for personal progress and urged continuation of rehabilitation and program participation while incarcerated
  • Judge reflected on the cycle of addiction and trafficking and the moral and social harms of drug trafficking
  • Judge expressed hope that the accused will use custodial time constructively, including education and treatment programs

Court disposition

Accused Jason Gordon Johnson sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment; remaining counts stayed

  • Custodial sentence of 3.5 years imprisonment (42 months)
  • Ancillary weapons prohibition under Criminal Code s.109(2): prohibited from possessing weapons for 10 years; lifetime prohibition on possessing prohibited firearms, restricted firearms, prohibited weapons, prohibited devices and prohibited ammunition
  • Order that DNA samples be taken pursuant to Criminal Code s.487.051(3)(b); samples to be taken in custody
  • Victim fine surcharge of $200 payable 30 days after release from custody
  • Consent forfeiture signed by the court
  • All remaining counts on both indictments stayed

Source and reliance status

Supreme Court of British Columbia · 31 March 2025

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Judgment· 31 March 2025

2025 BCSC 1021

2025 BCSC 1021 R. v. Johnson

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Johnson, 2025 BCSC 1021 Date: 20250331 Docket: 37276-1-T Registry: Vancouver Rex v. Jason Gordon Johnson Gary Dhami ‑ and ‑ Docket: 37277-1-T Registry: Vancouver Rex v. Jason Gordon Johnson Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Murray Oral Reasons for Sentence (re Accused Jason Gordon Johnson) Counsel for the Crown: C.A. Sauder Counsel for the Accused, Jason Gordon Johnson: W.E. Jessop For the Accused, Gary Dhami: No appearance Place and Date of Trial/Hearing: Vancouver, B.C. March 31, 2025 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C. March 31, 2025 [1] THE COURT: When I first heard the joint submission and I looked at the indictments and I heard the facts, I thought this is really low. But having learned about you and, more importantly, having heard from you throughout the morning, I can see why counsel landed where they did. [2] Coming from where you did and experiencing what you have, it is a miracle that you are here so solid. You should be congratulated. [3] It is up to you to break the cycle and only you can do it. I know you said that you are in a good place because you are surrounded by good people, but it seems to be more than that. I think it is coming from within, because it has got to come from within. You cannot rely on people around you. That is all good, but I think you are pretty solid. [4] THE ACCUSED:

That's [inaudible/not near microphone] it's been a positive change, for sure, like yeah, I can't explain it. [5] THE COURT: Well ­­ well, I am really glad, because that is a beautiful little girl you have sitting there, and the last thing you want is for your kids to go through what you went through. [6] And I do not need to sit here and talk to you about the destruction that you cause by trafficking. You get people hooked on drugs that have certainly impacted your life tragically and significantly. It always surprises me, and I know it is easy for me to say, but that people go through things like that and they themselves become addicted, and yet they go on to traffic and get more people addicted. It just seems to be like that. That does not make sense, but I get it. It is a cycle. [7] Yes, and you are taking responsibility and you are breaking the cycle. [8] So three and a half years is a long time. You will not be in there the whole time, you know that I am sure. I hope you take advantage of programs that are offered to you. You could probably take university courses. I mean, I do not know, but I hope for you that you come out of this the same person you are now, maybe stronger, because you can get that off your shoulders. [9] THE ACCUSED: I'll probably come out better. That's kind of the way I've been going the last couple years is any position that [inaudible/not near

microphone] ­­ [10] THE COURT: I think you will. I think you ­­ I really think you will. [11] So given the unique circumstances of this case, given you and what you have done and where you are going, I am satisfied that the sentence proposed by counsel does meet the principles of sentencing. In this case, the paramount considerations are deterrence, both general and specific- although I do not think you need any more deterrence- and protection of the public through sending a message loud and clear that if you traffic drugs, you are going to go to jail and it is going to be significant. [12] So I accept the sentence proposed by counsel. Do you want to stand up? [13] I sentence you to three and a half years. [14] In addition, I am going to make the ancillary orders that have been agreed on. So pursuant to s. 109(2) of the Criminal Code you are prohibited from possessing weapons for a period of 10 years. And pursuant to s. 487.051(3)(b), I order that samples be taken from you suitable for DNA analysis. They will be taken from you in custody. [15] In addition, I order a victim fine surcharge in the amount of $200. You can sit down now, Mr. Johnson, because that is the main part of the sentencing. So ­­ [16] CNSL W. JESSOP: Sometimes they say 30 days, payable 30 days after his release, Justice, if ­­ or I mean ­­ [17] THE COURT: Is that what you ­­ is that your submission? [18] CNSL

W. JESSOP: Yes. [19] THE COURT: Okay, payable 30 days after your release from custody. [20] And I will sign this consent forfeiture. [21] CNSL C. SAUDER: Thank you, Justice. [22] THE COURT: Thank you. [23] CNSL C. SAUDER: And with respect to the weapons prohibition, just for clarity, it is the period of 10 years from possession of any firearm, other than cross‑bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition, and explosive substance for a period of 10 years. And then there is a lifetime aspect to that under s. 109(2), and that is just he is prohibited from possessing a prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device, and prohibited ammunition for life. I just specify that on the record for clarity with respect to s. 109(2) of the Criminal Code. [24] THE COURT: Thank you, that is not in your written submissions. Okay, thank you. [25] CNSL C. SAUDER: Thank you, Justice. It's just ­­ [26] THE COURT: I am going to give you back the materials. Here you go. [27] THE CLERK: And a stay on the remainder? [28] THE COURT: And the case book. Yes, all the remaining counts are stayed. And Mr. Johnson, I wish you the best. [29] CNSL C. SAUDER: Justice, there ­­ there ­­ [30] THE COURT: Sorry, Crown counsel has not finished. [31] CNSL C. SAUDER: I just note, because of procedures, there are ­­ there is that second file

of Mr. Johnson's where he is charged alone on the indictment. [32] THE COURT: I have just stayed all the remaining counts. [33] CNSL C. SAUDER: Oh, oh, okay. I just wanted for clarity, thank you, Justice. [34] THE COURT: Yes, on both indictments, thank you. [35] CNSL C. SAUDER: Thank you. [36] THE COURT: And actually on the ­­ is there a co‑accused on the conspiracy? So that would be the counts are stayed against Mr. Johnson only. Thank you. [37] CNSL C. SAUDER: That's correct, Justice, thank you. [38] THE COURT: Okay, Mr. Johnson, I wish you the best. I know you will come out even stronger, and I want to commend you on what you have done. [39] THE ACCUSED: Thank you, Your Honour. [40] THE COURT: Okay, thank you. "The Honourable Madam Justice Murray"

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s.109(2)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s.487.051(3)(b)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s.737

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.