Jeffrey L. Hartman

The Ontario Court of Justice sentenced Rodolfo Sanchez-Neria to 8.5 years imprisonment for attempted murder, following a planned murder-for-hire shooting targeting Harpreet Hanjra.

The offender, aged 22 with no prior criminal record, shot Hanjra multiple times while he was driving his 6-year-old daughter to school.

The court considered significant aggravating factors including the use of a firearm, the presence of a child, and the public risk posed by the shooting.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s youth, guilty plea, harsh pre-trial custody conditions, and strong rehabilitative prospects supported by a solid community and family network.

The judge applied a 1.5:1 credit for 470 days served pre-trial, reflecting exceptionally harsh conditions including lockdowns, triple-bunking, and health risks.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The applicant brought motions to enforce a final consent order requiring the respondent to pay her $300,000, seeking partition and sale of the matrimonial home, and for reunification therapy with their children.

The respondent had failed to make the payment and the applicant was left 'couch surfing'.

The court ordered the partition and sale of the matrimonial home, defeating a concurrent life interest held by the respondent's mother, with compensation to be paid from the respondent's share.

The court also ordered the children to attend reunification therapy at the respondent's expense, noting the children had been inappropriately exposed to the litigation.

The respondent brought a motion to change a final order for custody and child support.

The applicant brought a contempt motion alleging the respondent breached a consent order requiring settlement funds to be held in trust.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding that the respondent could not have known of the order's existence as it was never properly prepared, issued, entered, or served upon him or his civil counsel.

The court noted that while the respondent's conduct was reprehensible—withdrawing approximately $90,000 for personal use while owing child support arrears—the procedural requirements for a contempt finding could not be satisfied.

The motion to change was ordered to proceed on an expedited basis.