Decision Content
R v Moses, 2026 NWTSC 19 S-1-CR-2025-000023
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
IN THE MATTER OF:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
-v-
DALE MOSES
________________________________________________________
Transcript of the Reasons for Sentence of the Honourable Justice L.A. Charbonneau, sitting in Yellowknife, in the Northwest Territories, on the 20th day of February, 2026.
________________________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
A. Bernard: Counsel for the Crown
R. Gregory: Counsel for the Defence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charges under s. 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and s.354(1)
of the Criminal Code.
THE COURT: Today I must impose sentence on Mr. Moses for the charges he has pleaded guilty to. I delivered my sentence immediately after submissions were concluded. As I said at the time of the hearing, this decision is an edited version of the transcript prepared from the recording. I have added the facts of the offences to put the decision in context, and have made other edits.
The circumstances of the offenses are set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts that was filed at the Sentencing Hearing. On December 9, 2023, the staff at the North Slave Correction Complex in Yellowknife alerted Yellowknife RCMP that an inmate was recorded making calls to other individuals using the phone lines at the correctional complex, and that those calls appeared to be related to drug trafficking activities in the Northwest Territories. Without getting into all the details, the information provided included names or people who were being contacted, phone numbers, and details about some of the calls.
The RCMP began an investigation and as part of that investigation, obtained judicial authorizations to intercept private communications targeting certain phone numbers and individuals. The calls intercepted revealed that a group of men, including Mr. Moses, were carrying out drug trafficking activities in Fort Simpson. In carrying out this activity they were following directions from a man in Alberta.
The instructions pertained, for example, to depositing proceeds from the sales of crack cocaine into a bank account in Fort Simpson; discussions about specific sales of cocaine; instructions about weighing the drugs and preparing them for sale; and discussions about a trip to Edmonton to bring down some proceeds and bring drugs back up to the Northwest Territories.
On December 20th at approximately
9:30 p.m., Constable Young stopped Mr. Moses in a truck, approximately 10 kilometres out of the Village of Fort Simpson, heading south towards the ice crossing. Police conducted a search of his vehicle and Mr. Moses was subsequently released.
Mr. Moses continued heading south, away from Fort Simpson. At approximately 11:21 p.m., he called the man he was heading down to meet in Edmonton and told him about being stopped by the police. In that conversation he described having been searched and the officers not finding anything, and said police were looking for proceeds of crime "over five grand."
The man instructed Mr. Moses to leave Fort Simpson immediately and travel to Edmonton. Over the course of the drive Mr. Moses and this man continued to communicate by phone and text messages.
In the late evening on December 22, 2023, Mr. Moses called his associate to confirm their meeting. Police had surveillance set up at the location discussed for the meeting. After the meeting police stopped the associate’s vehicle and arrested him, along with other people who were in his vehicle. Police seized $5,000 in Canadian currency in a white plastic shopping bag, a cellphone, $705 in Canadian currency on his person, a small plastic bag containing 1 gram of cocaine and $1,220 from one of the passengers.
RCMP had also executed search warrants at the residence of one of the members of the group in Fort Simpson. They found digital scales, elastic bands, baggies and a cellphone bearing the phone number associated to some of the intercepted calls.
The admitted facts also include general information about crack cocaine and its sale value. The average price for crack cocaine in the Northwest Territories is $100 per 0.5 gram piece of crack cocaine. Two ounces of powder soft cocaine purchased in Edmonton cost $2,000, and it's sold at
0.5 gram pieces, would result in 112 sales totalling $11,200. If sold in 1 gram pieces for $100 this would result in $5,600, and 8,000 at 0.7 gram pieces.
Based on the evidence gathered in this investigation, the total amount of cocaine supplied to the group in Fort Simpson was between 4 and 6 ounces.
Defence counsel also noted, and this is not disputed by the Crown, that when Mr. Moses met his associate in Edmonton, he was asked to carry narcotics back to the Northwest Territories and refused. It is also acknowledged by the Crown that all in all, for his involvement in this drug trafficking activities, Mr. Moses received 3 grams of crack. He did not receive any money.
Mr. Moses has a criminal record. It was made an exhibit at the sentencing hearing and is part of the record. In my view it should carry little to no weight in this sentencing because it is not extensive, it is very dated and it is unrelated to what Mr. Moses is being sentenced for today.
Crown and Defence presented a joint submission at the sentencing hearing. They suggested that a conditional sentence of two years less a day be imposed, followed by Probation for 18 months. The joint submission included a very detailed list of proposed conditions for both orders.
The Supreme Court of Canada has said that a joint submission must be given significant weight. A trial judge’s discretion to depart from it is extremely limited. R v Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 204.
The offenses I have to sentence Mr. Moses for today are very serious. It has to be said as a starting point that normally, for this kind of offence, a significant jail term and actual incarceration are imposed, even on a guilty plea.
The reason for that, and Mr. Moses is a good example of it, is that the trafficking of these drugs in our communities leads to terrible outcomes. We do not just hear about this in the criminal courts. We hear about it in family court. We hear about it in child welfare court. Sometimes we even hear about it in civil chambers, in foreclosure proceedings, because people end up losing their homes as a result of money spent feeding their addiction. Others lose their businesses. There are several examples of this, in Yellowknife and in other communities I am sure, of long-established businesses going under because one of their owners developed an addiction to crack cocaine.
We hear stories of empty fridges, children being neglected. We hear stories of drug traffickers taking over homes because the people who are in those homes are so addicted and so desperate for drugs that in exchange for drugs they allow the traffickers to set up shop in their homes, sometimes with young children in the homes. The devastation that stems from this has been referred to often in by this Court over the last few decades, and continues to be. See for example R v Turner, 2006 NWTSC 64; R v Mohammed, 2015 NWTSC 38; R v Ali, 2025 NWTSC 92; R v Gova, 2025 NWTSC 92.
Courts do not have the ability to solve the personal problems and social problems that are at the root of addictions. These problems are complex. But we do know that there are people, many of them who never set foot in this jurisdiction, who are making an enormous amount of money at the expense of our most vulnerable citizens. And we know those people depend on recruiting individuals in the Northwest Territories to carry out their business. This is why denunciation and deterrence are the paramount sentencing principles in these cases, even for those who are not making the real profits from it.
Sending someone to jail is never pleasant but judges often have to do it in cases where they know that the person being sentenced was not the one making the money, was not the one at the head of the operation. Unfortunately, there are many who, like Mr. Moses, get addicted and become desperate, and eventually see no other option than to assist with the very same activity that was destroying his own life. And the reality is that by doing so, they contribute to destroying the lives of many others.
I say all this to emphasize, and for everyone to understand, that in the very large majority of situations, no matter how sympathetic a person's circumstances are, it is very likely that a person who is caught having been involved with this destructive activity will be receive a significant jail term with actual incarceration.
As the Crown acknowledged, our Court of Appeal has endorsed a three-year starting point on sentencing for this type of offence. R v Paradis, 2020 NWTCA 2, para 28. A starting point is not a minimum sentence, but even with mitigating factors it is difficult to find a situation where anything short of actual incarceration is going to be sufficient to address the principles of sentencing that are engaged in this type of case. It must be remembered that in order to grant a conditional sentence, the Court has to be satisfied that a sentence under two years is appropriate, but importantly, it also has to be satisfied that such a sentence is consistent with the fundamental principles and purpose of sentencing. In my view, when dealing with someone who participated, to whatever degree, to commercial trafficking in hard drugs, it is exceedingly rare that a conditional sentence will be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing.
All that being said, I have concluded that the joint recommendation of counsel should be followed. Applying the principles set out in Anthony-Cook, I am unable to conclude that the joint submission, while extremely lenient, is one that I can, in law, decline to follow.
Some aspects of this case, sad as they are, are not exceptional. Mr. Moses is indigenous, and the Pre-Sentence Report outlines some of the struggles he has faced. I will not refer to those difficult circumstances in detail. I do not see a point in repeating here in this decision the list of sad things and difficult things that have happened in Mr. Moses life. He is aware of them. I am aware of them. The report is an exhibit and is part of the record. It is clear that he has very significant background factors affecting his life, in addition to the intergenerational trauma, the consequences of colonialism, of residential schools and various other things that have affected the lives of indigenous people in this country. Those have to be taken into consideration because they reduce his blameworthiness. However, in the context of this jurisdiction, such circumstances, sadly, are not exceptional, Unfortunately, many of the offenders that come before this court are indigenous and have those kinds of things in their background. I am sorry to say that many have backgrounds and circumstances that are even worse. It is mindboggling that some of them have actually survived those circumstances. While those aspects of Mr. Moses’ background must be taken into account, they do not make his case exceptional.
However, one of the things that makes Mr. Moses' circumstances different from many other cases we see is what he has done to meaningfully change the course of his life since he was charged. His counsel described those in details in his submissions. I will not repeat everything that he said but I will say this much: we often hear, at sentencing hearings, that an offender wants to change their life, has intentions, plans to do things. This is a case where Mr. Moses has not only identified what he needs to do but he has also taken several concrete steps to actually do it.
In addition, while there are sad and difficult things described of the Pre-Sentence Report, it also includes a lot of really positive things. There is reason for hope and optimist in Mr. Moses’ case, because of the support he has, including the support from his spouse and her family.
This is an individual who, now in his late 40s, has almost no criminal history. As I said already the criminal record is very dated and is unrelated.
Mr. Moses has been able to maintain employment regularly. He has true insight into his behaviour. He has very strong support from his spouse and her family. He has left Fort Simpson to remove himself from the negative influences and the toxic environment that contributed to his getting into trouble with the law. He is building a house in another community in order to eventually move the rest of his family there with him.
I am not hearing him blaming anyone else, or his past difficulties, for his problems. He is taking responsibility for what he has done, recognizes what he needs to do and has taken concrete steps to get back on the right path.
Mr. Moses has a deep connection with his traditional roots and cultural practices. He has a supportive family. All of those things give me hope that this will truly have been a turning point for him.
In light of the starting point set out in Paradis, and the range of sentences ordinarily imposed in this jurisdiction for involvement in commercial trafficking of cocaine, the joint submission is, as I already noted, exceptionally lenient, but I am satisfied that it would not be contrary to the public interest to follow it, given that the overall circumstances are also exceptional.
This may not be the sentence I would have imposed had there not been a joint submission. If the Crown had sought actual incarceration and the defence had argued for a conditional sentence, I would have had to decide what a fit sentence would be and I would have found it very hard to make that decision. Because as I said, there is nothing pleasant about sending someone who has good rehabilitative prospects to jail. But the seriousness of these offenses, the magnitude of the drug problem in this jurisdiction, and the severe harm it causes are such that more often than not it is unavoidable.
In this case, I do not have to ask myself the same questions. The issue for me is not whether what is proposed is fit. Rather, it is whether it is so unreasonable and contrary to the public interest that I should reject it. Having concluded that this threshold is not met, I must follow the joint submission.
It follows that this decision has very limited precedential value. As I just said following a joint submission is not the same as deciding that the proposed sentence is fit. Anthony-Cook makes it clear that this is not the way to approach a joint submission: it actually directs a sentencing judge to follow a joint submission even if that judge thinks the joint submission is unfit. The threshold to reject it is much higher than mere fitness. It follows that sentences imposed as a result of a joint submission often do not represent what the sentencing court viewed as a fit sentence. Sometimes all it means is that the particular circumstances of that case, the sentencing judge could not say that the joint submission was unreasonable and contrary to the public interest.
For these reasons the sentence I impose on Mr. Moses cannot and should not be divorced from his unique circumstances and from the fact that I was presented with a joint submission. It should not be used in a future case to suggest that conditional sentences should be routinely available in cases of trafficking in hard drugs in a small community. There are many other cases from this jurisdiction that say otherwise and explain why.
The last thing I will note is how helpful and thorough the Pre-Sentence Report was in this case. It is not called a “Gladue Report” but it includes all the information that is required to assist the Court in understanding Mr. Moses’ background and implementing the directions of the Supreme Court of Canada in sentencing indigenous offenders. Even his counsel referred to it as a “Gladue Report”. This just goes to show that there is no magic to how a report is named. The important thing is that it contain all the information that the sentencing court needs to carry out its responsibilities.
For these reasons, I am going to impose a sentence that is being jointly suggested by counsel. The list of proposed conditions provided by counsel will be amended to reflect the issues that I raised during submissions and the agreements arrived at.
On the trafficking charge there will be a jail term of two years less a day that will be served under the terms of the conditional sentence order. On the proceeds charge there will be a jail term of 1 year concurrent, also to be served as a conditional sentence, with the same conditions as on the other charge.
This will be followed by a probation period for 18 months. The period of probation is largely to offer continued support to you, Mr. Moses, in your rehabilitation. It may feel very similar when you transition from the conditional sentence order to the probation order. Some of the conditions will be different, but others will simply continue. It is again about reporting, benefiting from the support of your probation officer. You are a grown man, and you do not need to have your life regimented every second of every day, but this is intended to help you, and to help you access services if you feel you are getting overwhelmed by life, for whatever reason. I know there are not a ton of resources in the north, but some things may now be more accessible, by phone or by video. If you feel you need help then reach out, and you can see if there is anything out there that could assist you. But it does sound like most of your strength is actually coming from within yourself and from the people around you, and that is a true treasure. I hope that continues for you.
Counsel have persuaded me to waive the victim of crime surcharge, giving the financial burden that Mr. Moses is currently carrying, trying to maintain these two households. Understanding that his decision to relocate to Wrigley is a very wise and healthy one, but one that puts financial strains on Mr. Moses and his family, I think it is an appropriate case to waive the surcharge.
I will issue a firearms prohibition order under Section 109 of the Criminal Code on the trafficking charge. It will be in force for 10 years. It commences today. Pursuant to Section 113, I have the power to grant the exemption that is being sought. There is no reference at all in the facts of this case about firearms or weapons being used by Mr. Moses in the commission of his offences, which makes it easier for me to grant this kind of exemption, especially given his engagement in hunting and traditional activities on the land.
Counsel can submit a draft consent order reflecting this exemption, which will permit you to use a firearm when hunting with others for sustenance purposes, but not personally possess a firearm in any circumstances other than when you are actually hunting.
I note as well that while the Crown is not seeking any forfeiture orders today, Mr. Moses has formally forfeited any interest that he may have in any of the items seized during the investigation.
Before we conclude I want to thank you, counsel, for your work on this case.
Best of luck to you, Mr. Moses. I hope that this is truly a turning point for you. I hope that you understand how exceptional a sentence this is for this type of offence. And I hope that you are able to persevere in your efforts to stay out of that world --
THE ACCUSED: Oh, yeah.
THE COURT: -- and be an ambassador for a healthy lifestyle for others. Close Court
(PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED)
Veritext Legal Solutions, Canada, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing pages are a complete and accurate transcript of the proceedings transcribed from the audio recording to the best of our skill and ability.
Judicial amendments have been applied to this transcript by sentencing judge, Justice Charbonneau.
Dated at the City of Toronto, in the Province of Ontario, this 1st day of April 2026.
Veritext Legal Solutions, Canada
____________________________________
Veritext Legal Solutions, Canada