COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
CITATION: R. v. Munroe, 2026 ONCA 592
DATE: 20260819
DOCKET: M57418 & COA-25-CR-1201
Coroza, Favreau and Pomerance JJ.A.
BETWEEN
His Majesty the King
Appellant
and
Jason Munroe
Respondent
Catherine Glaister, for the appellant
Mark C. Halfyard, for the respondent
Heard: August 14, 2026
On appeal from the sentence imposed by Justice Nathan N. Baker of the Ontario Court of Justice on August 26, 2025.
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] The Crown seeks to appeal the sentence imposed by the trial judge in this case.
[2] After hearing the parties’ submissions, we dismissed the appeal with reasons to follow. These are our reasons.
[3] Armed intruders entered the home of the respondent, Jason Munroe. They forced Mr. Munroe and his family into the basement. There was an altercation during which Mr. Munroe’s son was shot. Mr. Munroe wrestled a handgun from one of the intruders and shot one of them. The intruders fled the house. Mr. Munroe chased them. He then stood on his porch and shot at them approximately three times as they were fleeing in their car. Mr. Munroe did not hit anyone. When the police first interviewed Mr. Munroe, he lied and said that he did not have or use a gun. He subsequently told the police that he used the gun he wrestled from the intruders to shoot at them, saying that he tried to kill them and that, if given the chance, he would have killed them all.
[4] The trial judge found Mr. Munroe not guilty of any charges related to what occurred in the house while the intruders were still there. The trial judge was satisfied that Mr. Munroe was acting in self-defence. However, the trial judge found that Mr. Munroe was no longer acting in self-defence when he shot at the intruders from his porch. The trial judge found Mr. Munroe guilty of reckless discharge of a restricted or prohibited firearm. He also found him guilty of obstruction of a peace officer for lying in his initial statement to the police.
[5] The trial judge found that the five-year mandatory minimum sentence for reckless discharge of a restricted or prohibited firearm under section 244.2(3)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code was unconstitutional if applied to the circumstances of this case. He gave Mr. Munroe a conditional sentence of 729 days (two years less a day) followed by three years’ probation.
[6] The Crown does not appeal the trial judge’s finding that the five-year mandatory minimum sentence is unconstitutional. The Crown appeals only the length of the sentence imposed on Mr. Munroe, arguing that the trial judge erred by failing to give proper effect to the principles of denunciation and deterrence and that the sentence is demonstrably unfit.
[7] We see no error in the sentence imposed on Mr. Munroe.
[8] Sentencing is highly individualized. This court owes significant deference to the trial judge’s decision. There is no doubt that weapons offences are very serious and that they should generally carry a significant custodial sentence, especially in circumstances where an accused discharges a firearm in a public place. In his reasons, the trial judge recognized that denunciation and deterrence are generally the primary objectives when sentencing an individual for discharging a weapon in a public place.
[9] However, the trial judge also found that the circumstances of the offence in this case are exceptional. When Mr. Munroe shot at the intruders from his porch, he was no longer acting in self-defence but he was still acting in the heat of the moment after seeing his family under threat and his son shot. In addition, Mr. Munroe used a handgun he had wrestled from the intruders to protect his family; this was not a handgun he acquired unlawfully and brought to the scene. Besides the circumstances of the offence, there were other significant mitigating factors, such as Mr. Munroe’s demonstrated remorse and extensive rehabilitative efforts, and that he had overcome a turbulent youth to become a dedicated father and a skilled worker with a stable job and income.
[10] It is also worth remembering that the appellant is not going unpunished for his convictions. The two years less a day conditional sentence carries onerous conditions, including house arrest (except for going to work) and GPS monitoring. The conditional sentence is to be followed by three years’ probation. This is essentially the maximum available conditional sentence short of a custodial sentence.
[11] Given the exceptional circumstances of the offence and the significant mitigating factors, we see no error in principle in this case. Nor do we find that the sentence was manifestly unfit.
[12] Leave to appeal the sentence is granted but the appeal is dismissed.
[13] In light of our conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed, it is not necessary to consider the respondent’s fresh evidence.
“S. Coroza J.A.”
“L. Favreau J.A.”
“R. Pomerance J.A.”