Appeal Court sentence reduction inveighs against normalized errors

Law360 Canada (December 22, 2025, 12:03 PM EST) --

John L. Hill

The John Howard Society once distributed buttons bearing the words, “There is no such thing as a short prison sentence.” The Alberta Court of Appeal recently decided R. v. Lazzaro, 2025 ABCA 410, where it had to determine how long is too long.

Adrian Mollica Lazzaro appealed an aggregate sentence of 11.5 years’ imprisonment imposed after guilty pleas in three cases, including multiple counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking fentanyl, cocaine and methamphetamine, flight from police, dangerous operation of a vehicle, and refusal to provide a sample to a drug recognition expert. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced to 9½ years because of a failure to conduct a proper “last look” for totality under s. 718.2(c) of the Criminal Code.

The facts in Lazzaro’s case were straightforward: on July 10, 2022, Lazzaro was found unconscious in a running vehicle with drugs and trafficking paraphernalia present; he also refused a drug recognition expert’s request for a urine sample. He was released on cash bail. On July 4, 2023, police executing a warrant in Red Deer, Alta., located drugs, packaging, scales and cash; Lazzaro had outstanding warrants and was released. Then, on Nov. 11, 2023, during a robbery response, Lazzaro fled police, driving dangerously at high speeds and endangering the public. After being stopped and arrested, police found multiple controlled substances, scales, phones and cash. Lazzaro had been in custody since.

Lazzaro, in his early 40s, had longstanding addictions and an extensive criminal record with gaps. While on remand, he made notable progress in the therapeutic living unit (TLU), expressed remorse and had strong family support.

The sentencing judge identified mitigating factors (guilty pleas, family support, TLU progress, remorse) and aggravating factors (three increasingly serious files, reoffending while on release, lengthy record, suspended driving status, and evidence of commercial trafficking). The judge emphasized denunciation and deterrence, citing cases that set starting points of six years for commercial fentanyl trafficking (R. v. Herman, 2023 ABCA 330) and three years for cocaine/meth trafficking (R. v. Maskill, 1981 ABCA 50; R. v. Ruth, 2007 ABCA 34). Driving offences were treated as consecutive to the drug offences. A global sentence of 11½ years was imposed, with limited credit for guilty pleas.

However, appellate intervention was considered warranted if demonstrable unfitness or an error in principle affecting the sentence could be shown (R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9; R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64; R. v. Sarrasin, 2021 ABCA 253). However, the weighing of factors lies within the sentencing judge’s discretion, unless the decision is unreasonable.

The Appeal Court rejected claims that the sentencing judge misapprehended motivation or ignored addiction. It was open to find commercial trafficking notwithstanding addiction (R. v. Boles, 2025 ABCA 236). The limited weight to be given to guilty pleas was within the trial judge’s discretion. No reviewable error arose from references to a youth conviction or from unmentioned background materials.

While denunciation and deterrence dominate trafficking cases, rehabilitation remains relevant (R. v. Hargreaves-Bouillon, 2025 ABCA 17). The sentencing judge failed to take an independent “last look” at whether the cumulative sentence was unduly long or harsh under s. 718.2(c), instead relying on the Crown’s assurance. This was an error in principle (R. v. DiPietro, 2021 ABCA 372).

After conducting its own sentencing analysis, the court considered the gravity of the offences, Lazzaro’s record, and the impact of the cumulative sentence on rehabilitation prospects. Given Lazzaro’s limited prior incarceration, addiction-driven offending and substantial rehabilitative progress on remand, the 11½-year sentence was unduly harsh. The sentence was reduced to 9½ years by lowering specified counts, with all other aspects of the original sentence left unchanged.

Was the appeal worthwhile? Arguably, it was. Even a “modest” two-year reduction can serve significant legal, practical and human purposes. In sentencing law, especially for serious drug and public safety offences, appeals are not all or nothing.

A two-year reduction is not abstract: it is 24 months less imprisonment, which is substantial by any realistic measure. It often results in earlier parole eligibility, earlier eligibility for transfers to lower-security facilities and earlier access to community-based programming.

In federal custody, two years can mean the difference between aging into chronic-offender warehousing and release while rehabilitation gains are still usable. Courts routinely reduce sentences by months rather than years. A two-year reduction is a meaningful success.

The appeal corrected an error in principle. The Appeal Court did not merely “tweak” the number. It found a legal error. There was a failure to take a proper “last look” for totality under s. 718.2(c) and in reliance on the Crown’s position rather than an independent assessment.

These issues matter because uncorrected errors become normalized. Trial judges rely on appellate guidance. Leaving the sentence untouched would effectively endorse a flawed methodology. This appeal reinforces that totality is mandatory, not optional, even for fentanyl trafficking.

If the sentence had stood, 11½ years would effectively become a benchmark for similar fact patterns. Future offenders would face inflated starting points, weakened totality analysis and a diminished role for rehabilitation in addiction-driven cases. The reduction re-anchors sentencing ranges and prevents upward drift.

John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a JD from Queen’s and an LLM in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. His most recent book, Acts of Darkness (Durvile & UpRoute Books), was released July 1. Hill 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.