IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

[1]           This is the sentencing decision of the Court following a lengthy trial where Mr. Ranu was found guilty, on December 15, 2017, of eight counts of trafficking contrary to s. 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (“CDSA”). Mr. Ranu was also found guilty of three counts of possession of cocaine, heroin, and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the CDSA.

[2]           In October 2014, the Vancouver Police began investigating the drug trafficking activities of Mr. Ranu and others. The police suspected a home located at 3653 East 27^th Avenue in Vancouver was being used to process and store drugs. The police also suspected taxis were being used to conduct drug trafficking business.

[3]           In late 2014, the police began surveilling the East 27^th Avenue home, observing persons and vehicles coming and going from the property. Surveillance cameras were installed showing the perimeter of the home and the ‘feed’ from those cameras was monitored. At trial, the Court heard that Mr. Ranu’s vehicle, a grey Range Rover, was observed at the house on 47 of the 57 days for which video had been reviewed and Mr. Ranu himself was observed at the home on 45 of the 57 days.

[4]           At the same time the surveillance work around the East 27^th Avenue house was taking place, the police introduced an undercover officer, Mr. M., into the investigation. He developed a persona who claimed to work in the Northwest Territories and would come to Vancouver on his days off to buy heroin and fentanyl to sell up North.

[5]           After the undercover officer feigned a drug deal in the presence of a taxi driver, Mr. Khan, a co-accused, the driver said he knew someone who would be better to deal with, and offered to introduce Mr. M. to that person. The Court heard about a number of subsequent encounters in the taxi involving the undercover officer, Mr. Khan, and a person by the name of “Ray” who I found to be Mr. Ranu. On occasion, drugs were provided to the officer by Mr. Ranu. On other occasions, someone else in the taxi handled drugs or money while Mr. Ranu was in the vehicle, or by someone else after Mr. Ranu had negotiated a deal with the officer. Mr. Khan and his taxi cab appear to have been at Mr. Ranu’s beck and call, indicative of financial means and detection avoidance. The police also surveilled the taxi and Mr. Ranu’s own vehicle to various locations in Metro Vancouver where he was seen in the presence of Mr. McCormick, a supplier of fentanyl Mr. Ranu sold to the undercover officer.

[6]           On February 17, 2015, a search warrant was executed at the E. 27^th Avenue home and a large quantity of drugs was found inside the home although no one was present at the time. Additionally, two pistols and an extended ammunition magazine were located. I found Mr. Ranu was either constructively or jointly in possession of the drugs but not of the weapons.

[7]           On February 17, the VPD executed a search warrant at #87-9566 Tomicki Avenue in Richmond. Mr. Ranu was present in this home at the time. Amongst other items, the search revealed $2,400 in marked bills which formed part of a payment provided by Mr. M. when he bought drugs in the taxi on February 4, 2015. On top of a piece of furniture inside the master bedroom closet, the police located keys, one of which worked on the door locks of the East 27^th home. In the master bedroom, the police found six bundles of cash (totaling $17,010) next to a container with a wallet in which there was photo identification in Mr. Ranu’s name.

[8]           The reasons for my conviction of Mr. Ranu at trial should be read in conjunction with this decision. For the purpose of sentencing, I have taken into account the evidence of the undercover officer about the conversations he had with Mr. Ranu regarding the purchase and sale of drugs. I wish to highlight the following from the undercover evidence:

[9]           On this date, Mr. Khan introduced Mr. M. to Mr. Ranu. Mr. M. told the Court that he and Mr. Ranu discussed prices and the ins and outs of the heroin trade. The two men also discussed type, price and quantity of pills. Mr. Ranu suggested Mr. M. was looking for “Oxy 80s” and said they were sold in batches of 1,000 for $10-$13 per pill. Mr. Ranu told Mr. M. that “black fentanyl” was a new, more powerful form of the drug.

[10]        The undercover officer, Mr. Khan, Mr. Ranu, and 4^th male met again in the taxi. Mr. Ranu asked the officer what he thought of the sample fentanyl pill provided on December 15. Mr. Ranu said it was powerful stuff and that the pills were made of black fentanyl. The officer said he wanted this time to purchase an ounce of heroin and 300 pills. Mr. Ranu said he could only provide the pills in 1000 batches and the two men discussed the price. Mr. Ranu told the officer about a customer who started with 1,000 pills but soon ordered 5,000 and then 30,000. Mr. Ranu said his own take was $.50 per pill along with a cut from “his guy” at the end of the month as he moves a lot of pills for him. Later that evening Mr. Ranu gave the officer a bag of pills which was found to contain 997 fentanyl pills.

[11]        On January 16^th, the undercover officer and Mr. Ranu met again in the taxi and the two men negotiated for the purchase of more pills and an ounce of heroin. Mr. Ranu recommended the purchase of low-quality heroin to encourage people to buy pills instead. Later that evening, Mr. Ranu directed a male in the taxi to hand the officer a small plastic bag and the officer handed the man $16,040. The bag was later determined to contain 1,003 fentanyl pills and 28.5 grams of heroin.

[12]        In the audio recording of the conversation between the officer and Mr. Ranu on this date, Mr. Ranu said he had tried a ¼ of one of the pills and it caused him to feel weak, like his legs were going to buckle. During this same recording, Mr. Ranu spoke about the undercover officer getting his customers to switch from mixed heroin to the stronger pills.

[13]        On January 25, 2015, the undercover officer placed an order with Mr. Ranu in the taxi to purchase an ounce of heroin and 1,000 pills. Back in the cab later that night, the undercover officer was present with Mr. Ranu along with Mr. Khan and another man. The third male gave the officer 29 grams of heroin and 1,001 fentanyl pills. In the audio recording in the taxi on this date, the undercover officer asked Mr. Ranu for advice on how to deal with the cash from the sale of the drugs and Mr. Ranu advised him to launder the money through casinos. Mr. Ranu said his fentanyl supplier drops off 10,000 pills at a time for him and he re-loads with another 10,000 when a batch sells.

[14]        The undercover officer was picked up in the taxi driven by Mr. Khan with Mr. Ranu and another male inside on February 4^th. The officer testified he paid $29,200 that night for an ounce of heroin and 2,000 fentanyl pills.

[15]        There was a considerable body of evidence at trial which linked Mr. Ranu to the drug stash house at 3653 East 27^th Avenue in Vancouver. I found the evidence at trial established Mr. Ranu was part of a conspiracy or common criminal enterprise involving the transaction and sale of drugs. The total value of all of the drugs found inside the home was estimated at just over $1,000,000 and was comprised of:

[16]        On February 12, 2015, the undercover officer and Mr. Ranu started discussions about the purchase of 5,000 pills and an ounce of heroin. Mr. Ranu’s conduct in the days leading up to the execution of the search warrants was consistent with him working to make a large sale of pills in line with the approximately 5000 pills seized at the stash house on February 17^th.

[17]        Section 718 of the Criminal Code provides that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful, and safe society. The objectives of sentencing include the denunciation of unlawful conduct, deterrence of the offender and others from committing further offences, separation of the offender from society where necessary, rehabilitation of the offender, reparations for harm done, and promotion of a sense of responsibility in the offender, including acknowledgment of the harm done.

[18]         Section 718.1 states that sentence imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. A number of specific principles of sentencing are set out in section 718.2, including:

[19]        Both Crown and defence directed the court to a number of sentencing decisions involving either fentanyl or large amounts of drugs. I have considered all of the case law counsel directed the court to but will not refer to all of those cases in this decision.

[20]        The BC Court of Appeal in R. v. Smith, 2017 BCCA 12, discussed the necessity of re-setting the range for street-level trafficking of opiate drugs, especially fentanyl. Harris J.A., writing for the majority (at paras. 48 to 50), stated:

[21]         Mr. Justice Harris went on to state (at para. 65):

[22]        Finally, Madam Justice Newbury (in dissent) stated the following in Smith (at para. 45):

[23]        In R. v. Perkins, 2018 BCSC 1055, Justice Ehrcke imposed a 7 year jail sentence after trial on a 31 year old offender with a related and recent criminal record. Mr. Perkins was found to be a mid-level drug dealer who possessed, amongst many items, 1159 fentanyl pills, almost a kilogram of cocaine, firearms and money. Justice Ehrcke noted that the Smith case was distinguishable in that it dealt with street-level distribution and was a far cry from what Mr. Perkins was involved in.

[24]        In R. v. Toth 2017 BCSC 501, Justice Ker sentenced an offender who had pleaded guilty to possession for the purpose of trafficking of cocaine, fentanyl and heroin, including 1,098 pills found in Mr. Toth’s possession. He had $48,535 stashed in his home and vehicle and possession of an improperly stored firearm and ammunition.

[25]        Justice Ker noted that fentanyl has far eclipsed heroin and cocaine and is at the pinnacle of the hierarchy of seriousness of hard drug offences (at para 66). Justice Ker noted (at para 29 & 30) that each of the pills seized from Mr. Toth could have been lethal and that each purchaser engaged in Russian roulette. She also observed that there is a heavy collateral toll on the healthcare system in BC in responding to the fentanyl epidemic (at para 44).

[26]        Mr. Toth was 34 years old offender and had indigenous ancestry, strong family support, and he had made significant efforts at rehabilitation. He had a criminal record for unrelated offences. Justice Ker noted (at para 17) that Mr. Toth had been engaged in his criminal activity for some time stating “…drug trafficking is a business built upon one establishing trust and reliability within the field, and then working one’s way up to higher positions, like Mr. Toth’s.”

[27]        In sentencing Mr. Toth to a three year jail sentence, Justice Ker stated (at para 84):

[28]        In R. v. Johal 2018 BCSC 549, Justice Kent imposed a jail sentence of two years less a day after finding the accused guilty of 3 counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking on August 12, 2015. The substances were heroin, fentanyl, and a derivative of fentanyl, all of which were contained within each of 1,090 counterfeit OxyContin pills seized from Mr. Johal who was described as being a distributor of the drugs. Mr. Johal was 23 years old at the time of the offence and had no criminal record.

[29]        Mr. Justice Kent noted (at para 22) there had been an “…almost exponential increase in fentanyl-detected illicit drug overdose deaths [in BC] in the years 2012 to 2017”. Justice Kent noted Mr. Johal was involved in trafficking at the distributor level and found the fact the pills were counterfeit meant the offender had access to a drug-trafficking network capable of producing large amounts of the product (at para 65). Justice Kent noted (at para 67) that the quantity of pills involved rendered the Voong and Smith (supra) “sentencing ranges either completely inapplicable or militates in favour of their highest maximums”.

[30]        In R. v. Voutsis 1989 SJ 76, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal was asked to consider whether convictions for two counts of trafficking violated the principle against multiple convictions for a single wrongful act. On appeal, the crown conceded this point and the court entered a stay on the second count. Voutsis does not appear to have been considered or applied in BC. Having invited submissions from counsel on this point, I find the case is not binding upon me and I decline to follow it.

[31]        Mr. Ranu submits the length of jail sentence should be tempered due to the impact it will have on his young son. In R. v. Newson 2008 BCCA 28, the Court of Appeal noted (at para 18):

[32]        Mr. Bick submitted the court should impose consecutive sentences for Mr. Ranu. He argued the trafficking and fentanyl-related offences were a separate enterprise from the cocaine and heroin he was found to be in possession of at the stash house. Mr. Bick noted the fentanyl counts all involved Mr. Ranu negotiating the sale of the pills to the undercover officer. Mr. Bick submitted a 7 year sentence on the fentanyl counts and a 5 year consecutive sentence on the counts of possession of cocaine and heroin would be fitting, although he submitted a global sentence of 10 years would be appropriate.

[33]        In R. v. Li, 2008 BCCA 85, the Court (at para 28) noted:

[34]        The BCCA (at para 42) noted “[t]he test for the imposition of a consecutive or concurrent sentence is "whether the acts constituting the offence were part of a linked series of acts within a single endeavour” [citation omitted].

[35]        In R. v. McCormick 2017 BCPC 22, Judge Craig sentenced Mr. McCormick for his role in activities that came to the attention of the police through the investigation involving Mr. Ranu. Mr. McCormick was also facing charges on separate matters out of Richmond BC.

[36]        On the Vancouver matters, Mr. McCormick pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking and three counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking. The trafficking charge related to Mr. McCormick supplying 3000 fentanyl pills on 2 separate dates. Upon his arrest, large quantities of drugs were located including: 27,000 fentanyl pills; 4.054 kilograms of cocaine; 1.016 kilograms of methamphetamine; and 5 grams of heroin. $171,905 cash, a pistol with readily accessible ammunition, and a rifle were also found. The street value of the drugs was assessed to be $2,034,132.

[37]        Mr. McCormick was 53 at the time of sentencing and he had a drug and alcohol problem. He had a serious and related criminal record including a U.S. conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine involving 10 kilograms of the drug.

[38]        At Mr. McCormick’s sentencing hearing, counsel for the crown called expert evidence of the effect of fentanyl on the human body. Dr. Kennedy was cross-examined by Mr. McCormick’s counsel at the sentencing hearing. The written materials, including a report by Dr. Kennedy and a transcript of his testimony before Judge Craig, were filed at Mr. Ranu’s sentencing hearing.

[39]        Judge Craig noted that heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine are dangerous, but that fentanyl is even more so for a number of reasons, including (at para 64):

[40]        Judge Craig sentenced Mr. McCormick on the basis that he was the supplier to a mid-level drug trafficker (Mr. Ranu) and that he was the principle actor. Even though he did not plead guilty to charges involving firearms that were found, Judge Craig noted the “presence of firearms and drugs has been held to be a “toxic” combination”, something further aggravated by the fact the offender was subject to a lifetime firearms prohibition under the Criminal Code (at para 64). Finally, she found the guilty pleas to be a “significantly mitigating factor” (at para 66).

[41]        When Judge Craig dealt with Mr. McCormick, the BCCA had yet to release its decision in R. v. Smith 2017 BCCA 112. However, on the basis of the evidence placed before the court at sentencing, she noted (at para 85): “The lure of substantial profit for lower risk, with the awareness of the very real and substantial risk to life that comes from trafficking in fentanyl must be counteracted with the threat of a significant jail sentence on conviction.”

[42]        In the result, Judge Craig found that a five year jail sentence was appropriate on the trafficking in fentanyl charge. On the 3 counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking, she imposed 8 years in jail. She made the two jail terms concurrent on the basis that the crown conceded that would be appropriate. Judge Craig found a consecutive sentence of 8 years appropriate on the Richmond matter but reduced the total sentence by 2 years for an aggregate of 14 years.

[43]        Mr. Ranu obtained fentanyl pills from Mr. McCormick but the evidence did not show him to be working for Mr. McCormick. Mr. McCormick was a producer and Mr. Ranu was a distributor. They were both working in the higher levels of their respective drug businesses. Mr. McCormick had more fentanyl and money in his possession, he was older, and had a worse criminal record. However, he also had the significant mitigating factor of having pled guilty to the charges.

[44]        Mr. Ranu is 32 years old. He was 28 years old when the offences occurred. He is married to the woman he was residing with when he was arrested on February 17, 2015. They have a three year old son. Mr. Ranu submits his son has made a big difference in his life and he is now a settled family man who is motivated to serve his jail sentence and be reunited with his family afterward.

[45]        Mr. Ranu’s childhood was impacted by the divorce of his parents. His single-mother raised him and he was often left alone while she worked to support the family. He went to 3 elementary schools and multiple high schools and this negatively impacted his ability to make and keep friends.

[46]        Since sometime in 2015, Mr. Ranu has been working as a cook at a Chinese restaurant in Aldergrove, a stable job he likes. Two letters from the restaurant confirm his employment and describe him as a good employee and co-worker. Reference letters submitted by members of his family described him as an active and loving father who has matured and lived a law-abiding life while these charges have been before the court for the past 4 years. He and his family have expressed concern about the impact of a jail sentence on his child and Mr. Ranu’s distress at being away from his family while serving any jail sentence. Four letters from Mr. Ranu’s friends submitted on April 12^th, 2019, describe Mr. Ranu as polite and hard-working.

[47]        On September 5, 2007, Mr. Ranu received a 4 month jail sentence along with a 12 month probation order and a 10 year firearms prohibition order after pleading guilty in New Westminster to trafficking in cocaine in a dial-a-dope case. Justice Arnold-Bailey noted Mr. Ranu was a young man without a criminal record but found his lifestyle after graduating from high school left something to be desired (2007 BCJ 3272 at para 25). She noted Mr. Ranu was “choosing to live on the Downtown Eastside (DTES), smoke marihuana every day, hang out with people that are most likely involved actively in the drug trade … “ (at para 41). She noted the picture he presented was not a positive one (at para 42).

[48]        Mr. Ranu came before the court again on March 19, 2008 (unreported, Vancouver Registry No. 170901-1), and was sentenced by Judge Warren on a count of possession for the purpose of trafficking. Mr. Ranu was convicted possessing three rocks of cocaine on March 10, 2006. Judge Warren found a pre-sentence report to be positive and noted Mr. Ranu had curtailed his use of marihuana. She imposed a 9 month conditional sentence order, a 12 month probation order, and a lifetime firearms prohibition.

[49]        Mr. Ranu has a Criminal Record with two related convictions. He was also convicted on September 14, 2016, of 5 counts of breaching his bail in January 2015 and was sentenced to 7 days in jail and 12 months’ probation. He was on bail when the offences before this court occurred.

[50]        Mr. Ranu knew how powerful fentanyl was and he actively encouraged the undercover officer to get his customers to switch from heroin to fentanyl for monetary reasons. He preyed on persons who are dependent on drugs with the social cost and human suffering that conduct entails.

[51]        The quantity of the drugs involved show Mr. Ranu was not a low-level drug distributor. Mr. Ranu made clear to the undercover officer that he was not his only fentanyl customer and he spoke of another client who bought batches of 10,000 pills from him. The 7.87 kilograms of cocaine and just over 2 kilograms of heroin found at the stash house show he was also involved in other drugs in considerable quantities.

[52]        Mr. Ranu was the prime negotiator with the undercover officer in the fentanyl and heroin sales. He appeared to be directing the other men who were present in the taxi to hand the drugs to the undercover officer and I find he did so in an attempt to shield himself. Mr. Ranu was engaged in the offences before the court for about two months. This behaviour sets him apart from a number of the sentencing decisions this court was referred to where offenders were involved in a single drug transaction.

[53]        Mr. Ranu had a taxi on hand for his use. He had a large quantity of cash in his Richmond residence. These things are demonstrative of a level of success in the drug trade. He made clear he knew how to launder the proceeds of crime in casinos, another matter of concern to the community.

[54]        Mr. Ranu is still a relatively young man. He has expressed some maturity by his recent focus on his family.

[55]        He has a supportive family and has shown he can keep a good job.

[56]        He has expressed remorse through his lawyer.

[57]        Although it may not be a mitigating circumstance per se, defence counsel pointed out that Mr. Ranu has been on bail since this matter has been outstanding. He was bound by a restrictive curfew, particularly at the outset, and it impacted him when his son was born. There have been no breaches of bail over the past 4 years and Mr. Ranu has attended court over this protracted proceeding, reliably and on time.

[58]        The defence position on sentencing, in light of this information, is 3 to 5 years on the trafficking charges, and 2 years concurrent on the PPT charges relating to the cocaine and heroin at the stash house.

[59]        Mr. Ranu negotiated and facilitated the sale of 5000 fentanyl pills. 5000 more fentanyl pills were located at the stash house on February 17^th. He was also involved in the sale of heroin to the undercover officer. He was found in possession of money obtained from the sale of drugs and over $1,000,000 in drugs were located in the stash house.

[60]        Mr. Ranu’s conduct in this case was motivated by monetary gain. Although items found in his Tomicki residence are consistent with his professed use of steroids, he is not a drug addict. As noted in R. v. Fraser 2009 BCCA 179 (at para 11), while this is not an aggravating factor per se, it speaks to the need to denounce and deter his conduct. Mr. Ranu was observed regularly in the DTES, a place where the use of drugs is notorious. His presence in the DTES was something Judge Arnold-Bailey flagged as a concern in 2007.

[61]        Even though Mr. Ranu’s last drug-related conviction was in 2008 for a 2006 offence, I find it would have taken time for him to work his way up to the level he was engaged in when the current offences occurred. That must have happened some time before the police investigation started in late 2014.

[62]        Given that I did not find that Mr. Ranu would have known about the presence of the firearms and weapons in the stash house, I decline to give any consideration to such matters for sentencing.

[63]        The decision of the BCCA in Smith is instructive in terms of the role of fentanyl in this case. However, in terms of the range of sentence set out by the Court of Appeal, I find it does not apply to Mr. Ranu in that he was not a street-level dealer and he was involved in drug dealing for a longer period of time. Moreover, unlike Mr. Smith, Mr. Ranu knew about the potency of fentanyl and the financial benefits that would flow to the undercover officer and himself if poor quality heroin was used to get customers to switch to fentanyl.

[64]        I find it appropriate to deal with the fentanyl and heroin-related charges together as the facts relate to the undercover officer’s negotiation and purchase of the two substances from Mr. Ranu. I find Mr. Ranu’s involvement in the 8 counts of trafficking and the counts of possession of fentanyl and heroin for the purpose of trafficking, place him at the higher end of the range of sentences imposed for mid-level dealers. The case of Perkins is instructive. Mr. McCormick’s sentence is also relevant to Mr. Ranu’s situation. Although Mr. McCormick was involved with a greater volume of drugs, he was an addict and pled guilty.

[65]        I accept that Mr. Ranu has used the time he has been out on bail on the current charges to settle into a pro-social existence. His compliance on bail for four years suggests he is trying to live a law-abiding life. It appears that he is motivated to serve whatever sentence the court imposes so that he can return to his family and his work. In the circumstances, I find a sentence of 7 years in jail appropriate for the trafficking charges and the counts of possession of fentanyl and heroin for the purpose of trafficking. Those sentences are to be concurrent to one another. I decline to make the PPT heroin sentence consecutive due to the fact Mr. Ranu was actively involved in selling both substances with the undercover officer.

[66]        Regarding the possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking charge (count 11), I find that the cocaine was not part of the business Mr. Ranu conducted with the undercover officer, and must have been intended for distribution and sale to other persons. The fact that Mr. Ranu was observed at the stash house on 38 days where the undercover officer did not have an order with him is indicative of separate criminal activity involving different buyers or markets. The possession of the cocaine was not part of a linked series of acts within a single endeavour regarding the other counts and I find it appropriate to impose a consecutive sentence on this offence of 3 years.

[67]        However, I find a global sentence of 10 years to be unduly harsh, and I reduce the total sentence to that of 7 years in jail, to be apportioned as 2 years on count 11, consecutive to 5 years on all other counts.

[68]        Pursuant to s. 109(1) of the Criminal Code, a firearms prohibition order is mandatory upon conviction for these offences. Because of Mr. Ranu’s previous convictions, s. 109(3) requires that it be a lifetime prohibition. There shall be an order in the terms of s. 109(3) prohibiting him from possessing any firearm, crossbow, restricted weapon, ammunition, and explosive substance for life.

[69]        The Crown also seeks an order under s. 487.051(3) of the Criminal Code for the provision of samples for DNA analysis. Mr. Ranu has not objected to this order being made. The offences he has been convicted of are secondary designated offences. I am satisfied that it is in the interests of the administration of justice to make a DNA order under s. 487.051(3) (b), considering the circumstances of the offence and the impact on the accused's privacy and security of the person. Accordingly, there shall be an order in Form 5.04 for the provision of samples for DNA analysis.