R v Duncan, 2018 ONCA 574 (Lauwers):

[9] The issue before this court is, as in Pham, whether a sentence otherwise falling within the range of fit sentences can be varied by this court to take potential deportation into account. Trotter J. noted: “Wagner J. [in Pham] warned (at para. 16) that the consideration of immigration consequences ‘must not lead to a separate sentencing scheme with a de facto if not a de jure special range of sentencing options where deportation is a risk:’ McKenzie, at para. 34.

***

[13] Despite duty counsel’s able submissions, we are unable to find that the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was unfit in light of the appellant’s criminal record. A conditional sentence would not have been appropriate in light of the appellant’s multiple previous failures to comply with the terms of community supervision orders. There is no principled basis on which we could reduce his sentence to a conditional sentence, despite the immigration consequences. As noted in Pham at para. 15, “the flexibility of our sentencing process should not be misused by imposing inappropriate and artificial sentences in order to avoid collateral consequences which may flow from a statutory scheme.”