Court of Appeal for Ontario
George, Monahan and Pomerance JJ.A.
BETWEEN
His Majesty the King
Respondent
and
Serkan Kesgin
Appellant
Counsel:
Serkan Kesgin, acting in person
Étienne Lacombe, for the respondent
Heard: June 2, 2026
On appeal from the sentence imposed by Justice Bruce Durno of the Superior Court of Justice, on May 31, 2022.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1At the conclusion of oral submissions, we advised the parties that the sentence appeal was dismissed and that our reasons would follow. Here are our reasons.
2On August 16, 2019, the appellant and his former wife appeared in the Superior Court of Justice for a family law proceeding. In open court, the appellant advised the presiding judge that there was an explosive device inside his laptop. He demanded that his daughter be put on a plane and flown to Turkey. He further demanded that he be flown out with his hostages, believed to be the presiding judge and court staff, on another plane to Turkey thereafter. The appellant’s former wife attempted to flee the courtroom. The appellant gave chase but was quickly subdued and arrested by court officers. Immediately before his arrest the appellant told the officers that the bomb was going to go off. It was later determined that the laptop contained an imitation explosive device and that it was not a bomb.
3On November 23, 2021, the appellant pleaded guilty to possessing a weapon for a dangerous purpose, intimidation of a justice system participant, hostage taking, attempted kidnapping, and failure to comply with an undertaking. He received a global sentence of nine years in the penitentiary less the time spent in pre-sentence custody.
4The appellant appeals his sentence on the basis that it is disproportionate and that the sentencing judge failed to apply the principle of restraint.
5We are not persuaded that the sentencing judge made any reversible error. The offences – committed in court during a family law proceeding and which targeted the appellant’s wife and justice system participants, including the presiding judge – were extremely serious. As noted by the sentencing judge, these offences struck at the core of the rule of law. They were an affront to the judicial system and shattered the sense of security and safety that all citizens, including judges and court staff, are entitled to expect in a courtroom. The victim impact statements set out the devastating psychological effects on those who were present at the time of the incident and perceived that their lives were in grave danger.
6The sentencing judge expressly considered the mitigating factors, including the appellant’s guilty plea, the fact he had no criminal record, and the duration of time the appellant was in custody during the pandemic. He also acknowledged the appellant’s mental health challenges, but reasonably concluded that, in the circumstances, they did not reduce his moral blameworthiness. He also addressed the appellant’s concerns about access to his daughter but, again, reasonably concluded that this did not minimize his moral blameworthiness.
7After reviewing comparable cases, the sentencing judge concluded that a sentence of five years, as sought by the appellant’s trial counsel, would be inadequate given the gravity of the appellant’s conduct and generally agreed with the range indicated by the Crown, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. This was open to the sentencing judge.
8The sentencing judge carefully balanced all of the relevant mitigating and aggravating factors and in the end imposed a sentence that took into account the principle of restraint. In our view, the appellant’s submissions quarrel with the weight the sentencing judge assigned to the various factors. This is no basis for appellate intervention.
9Leave to appeal sentence is granted, but the appeal from sentence is dismissed.
“J. George J.A.”
“P.J. Monahan J.A.”
“R. Pomerance J.A.”