R v Claros – 2019 ONCA 626 (Paciocco):

[51] More importantly, the fact that two offences relating to the breach of a prohibition order occur in close succession, or even at the same time, is not a basis for imposing concurrent sentences. The principle that such offences should be served consecutively is intended to ensure that disregard of firearm prohibition orders, imposed in the interest of public safety, does not go unpunished. This principle also recognizes the fact that the breach of a prohibition order is different behaviour than the associate offences, engaging different social interests: R. v. McCue, 2012 ONCA 773, 299 O.A.C. 14, at paras. 21-22; R. v. Addow, 2014 ONSC 3225, at paras. 29- 35; R. v. Callaghan, 2017 ONSC 1853, at para. 80, aff’d on different grounds, 2018 ONCA 969; and by analogy, R. v. Clouthier, 2016 ONCA 197, 129 O.R. (3d) 481, at paras. 55, 60.

[52] Similarly, two or more separate violations of prohibition orders generally require their own distinct sentences, unless there is cogent reason to do otherwise given the principles and objectives of sentencing. As I have said, there is no bulk discount.