COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
CITATION:R. v. Melo, 2026 ONCA 589
DATE: 20260819
DOCKET: COA-25-CR-0085
Coroza, Favreau and Pomerance JJ.A.
BETWEEN
His Majesty the King
Respondent
and
Jeffrey Melo
Appellant
Symon Zucker and Nancy Tourgis, for the appellant
Eunwoo Lee, for the respondent
Heard and rendered orally: August 13, 2026
On appeal from the sentence imposed by Justice Gregory Paul Renwick of the Ontario Court of Justice on January 2, 2025.
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] The appellant pleaded guilty to three offences: possession of a loaded restricted firearm without a license (s. 95), careless handling of a firearm (s. 86(1)), and possession of a firearm contrary to a prohibition order (s. 117.01).
[2] While on bail for an intimate partner violence offence, the appellant, who had been drinking, handled a loaded handgun. He dropped the gun and it discharged; the bullet entered an occupied bedroom of a neighboring residence. At the time the appellant was subject to a lifetime firearms prohibition.
[3] The sentencing judge determined that the range of sentence for the offences was between 36 to 48 months’ imprisonment. He decided that a global sentence of 36 months’ imprisonment was appropriate but reduced the sentence by six months having regard to the principles of totality and restraint. Accordingly, he imposed a global sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment.
[4] The appellant argues that the sentence imposed is demonstrably unfit and disproportionate to the gravity of the offence and his degree of responsibility. The appellant relies on several mitigating factors including the time spent on strict bail conditions and most importantly the collateral impact that a lengthy prison term would have on his children. The appellant contends that this court should set aside the sentence and impose a conditional sentence of imprisonment of 2 years less one day.
[5] In support of his appeal, the appellant has also tendered fresh evidence from himself and from his girlfriend.
[6] In our view, there is no basis for this court to interfere with the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge. The sentencing judge thoroughly considered the relevant principles including the mitigating factors, the appellant’s prospects for rehabilitation and the impact a jail sentence would have on the appellant’s family. The sentencing judge noted that “this sentencing was a difficult one” and then explicitly told the parties that he recognized the appellant’s “home-life situation” and that imprisonment threatened the stability of his young children’s homelife.
[7] However, the sentencing judge also noted that the appellant has prior convictions for possessing firearms and while on bail, he obtained an illegal handgun, loaded it and drank heavily. We agree with the sentencing judge that the principles of denunciation and deterrence were paramount considerations in this case. After identifying a range of sentence, the sentencing judge imposed a sentence at the lower end of the range. We see no error in principle.
[8] Turning to the fresh evidence, although it provides further evidence of the appellant’s rehabilitation, it does not affect the result. As noted, the sentencing judge explicitly considered the appellant’s rehabilitative prospects. Although we commend the appellant for his progress while he has been out of custody, we do not admit the fresh evidence because it does not meet the test for admitting such evidence: Palmer v. The Queen, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 795.
[9] In sum, we see no error in principle in the sentencing judge’s analysis. Nor is the sentence demonstrably unfit.
[10] Accordingly, the motion to adduce fresh evidence is dismissed. We grant leave to appeal sentence but dismiss the appeal.
“S. Coroza J.A.”
“L. Favreau J.A.”
“R. Pomerance J.A.”