ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
CITATION: R. v. Miller, 2025 ONCJ 618
DATE: 2025.11.25
COURT FILE No.: Toronto #24-48114328
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
TYRIAL MILLER
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Before Justice P.F. Band
Heard August 11-14 and October 20, 2025
Mr. M. Boissoneault............................................................................. counsel for the Crown
Ms. A. Shakeel...................................................................................... counsel for Mr. Miller
I. Introduction
1After trial, I found Mr. Miller guilty of the following Criminal Code offences in relation to a violent domestic incident that took place in May 2024:
Assault (s. 266).
Assault with choking (s. 267(c)).
Pointing a firearm (s. 87(1)).
Unauthorized possession of a prohibited firearm (s. 91(1)).
Unauthorized possession of a restricted firearm (handgun) (s. 92(1)).
Unauthorized possession of a loaded restricted firearm (handgun) (s. 95(2)).
Careless handling of ammunition (s. 86(1)).
Unauthorized possession of a prohibited magazine (s. 91(2)).
Possession of a restricted firearm contrary to prohibition (s. 117.01(1)).
Possession of a handgun for the purpose of committing an offence (s. 88(1)).
Fail to comply with release (no weapons condition) (s. 145(5)(a)).
Fail to comply with youth sentence (no weapons condition) (s. 733.1(1)).
Fail to comply with youth sentence (no weapons condition) (s. 733.1(1)).
2The Crown proceeded by Indictment.
3At the sentencing hearing, the parties took dramatically different positions. On behalf of the Crown, Mr. Boissoneault sought a sentence of seven years’ imprisonment together with ancillary orders. On Mr. Miller’s behalf, Ms. Shakeel submitted that a conditional sentence of imprisonment in the community (CSO) is appropriate, having regard to Mr. Miller’s personal circumstances, including the impacts of anti-Black racism, the time he has served in pre-trial detention and under restrictive conditions of release, and other factors.
4The following reasons explain how I have come to what I consider to be a fit and proportionate sentence for Mr. Miller.
II. The Facts
5I set out the facts in my Reasons for Judgment dated September 9, 2025, which should be read together with these reasons. That said, they can be summarized as follows. Mr. Miller and the victim, Ms. Lindo, are in their early twenties. They had been in an intimate relationship for approximately 10 months. At the time of the incident, they had a one-and-a-half-month-old son and were living with Mr. Miller’s mother and siblings. The incident started when Mr. Miller became angry and jealous because he found a text message from Ms. Lindo to another man on one of her phones. In the course of the argument, Mr. Miller struck Ms. Lindo in the face and called her a whore while he was holding the baby. She slapped him back. He handed the baby over to his sister and struck Ms. Lindo again several times. He then pushed her onto his bed and strangled her with both hands. While this did not last long and she did not lose consciousness, her vision “went a little dark” and “starry.” He then reached to his dresser, grabbed a loaded handgun, and pointed it at her head. He said, “why would you do that to me?” and told her that she was not to be with anyone else. The incident ended only when Mr. Miller’s brother Chris came in and pulled him off of Ms. Lindo. Ms. Lindo called 911 in a heightened emotional state. Mr. Miller remained on scene.
6Police arrived at 11 p.m. to find Ms. Lindo in an emotional state. They also found a semi-automatic handgun loaded with 17 rounds in a laundry hamper on the balcony.
7Police arrested Mr. Miller in the hallway without incident. At the time, he was on a bail that required him to live at his aunt’s apartment, in the same building, and to abide by a 10 p.m. curfew. He was also bound by several court orders with conditions not to possess weapons, and a s. 109 order prohibiting him from possessing firearms. While Mr. Miller does not have an adult record, he has serious Youth Court entries that remain within the access period.
8At trial, Mr. Miller denied having committed the offences, and characterized Ms. Lindo as the only aggressor. He also denied any knowledge of the handgun that the police found on the balcony.
9After trial, I rejected Mr. Miller’s testimony as untruthful and cited concerns about his credibility.
III. Application of the Kienapple Principle
10Mr. Boissoneault invited me to enter conditional stays on Counts 4, 5, 10 and 13. Ms. Shakeel submitted that Count 8, regarding the magazine (s. 91(2)), should be stayed because it is subsumed by Count 6, regarding the loaded restricted firearm (s. 95). This is because the Crown has not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the firearm contained an over-capacity magazine and, therefore, the count is redundant based on the reasoning of Madam Justice Roberts in R v Fogah-Pierre 2024 ONSC 386 at paras. 10 and 11.
11I agree with Ms. Shakeel that the nature of the magazine in this case cannot be resolved by simple reference to the relevant regulations and that Mr. Miller is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, albeit after the fact. I also agree with Justice Roberts’s reasoning. However, in the circumstances of this case, an acquittal rather than a stay is called for.
12Since the sentencing hearing, I have come to the view that Count 12 must be marked as dismissed. That count charges a violation of s. 137 of the YCJA and, as such, could not have been prosecuted with the Criminal Code offences.
13As a result, conditional stays will be entered on counts 4, 5, 10 and 13, an acquittal will be entered on Count 8 and Count 12 will be marked as dismissed.
IV. The Parties’ Sentencing Positions
14Mr. Boissoneault submitted that the appropriate range for Mr. Miller’s offences, seen globally, is in the range of seven to nine years. Owing to the mitigating factors, he sought a sentence of seven years, less time served in pre-trial custody (amounting to 442 days). He cited the need for an exemplary sentence in violent cases like this, which involve the use of a firearm and choking in the context of intimate partner violence. He noted that Parliament has seen fit to increase maximum sentences relating to firearms and domestic violence, and to add to the list of statutorily relevant factors in recent years. As for the correct approach regarding each count, he argued that in this case, it is sensible to treat the offences as concurrent, since they are intertwined and mutually aggravating. He adamantly opposed the imposition of a CSO in this case as constituting an affront to the governing objectives and principles of sentencing.
15Ms. Shakeel sought a CSO of two-years-less-a-day. At first, she arrived at this essentially by deducting Summers credit (442 days x 1.5 = 663). When I pointed out that such an approach is impermissible pursuant to R v Fice 2005 SCC 32, Ms. Shakeel took a different tack. A sentence of two-years-less-a-day could be reached by punishing the substantive counts consecutively for a total of four years. If the assault and choking offences were to receive “time served” – approximately 2 years, rounded up to account for harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody and restrictive bail conditions – then the two remaining years would open the door to a CSO for the s. 95 firearm offence. She then relied on Mr. Miller’s personal circumstances and evidence regarding the impacts of anti-Black racism.
16The parties agree that Mr. Miller deserves credit for time served in pre-trial detention as well in accordance with R v Summers 2014 SCC 26 and R v Marshall 2021 ONCA 344.
V. Applicable Sentencing Principles
Generally
17Pursuant to s. 718 of the Criminal Code, the fundamental principle of sentencing is “to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions….” Just sanctions have one or more of the objectives listed in s. 718:
Denunciation.
General and specific deterrence.
Separation of offenders from society when necessary.
Rehabilitation.
Reparations.
Promoting a sense of responsibility.
18As the Court of Appeal has repeated in R v Morris 2021 ONCA 680 at para. 56, these objectives do not necessarily point to the same sentencing outcome. Sentences must be individualized. Arriving at the fit and proportional sentence for a given individual “is a delicate task”: at para. 66. To do so, sentencing judges must prioritize and blend the different objectives of sentencing in order to properly reflect the gravity of the offence and the moral blameworthiness of the offender. Ultimately, judges must use proportionality as their lodestar: see R v Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, [2015] S.C.J. No. 64.
19Three additional sentencing principles, parity, restraint and totality are also important. Parity requires that “material differences between the circumstances of the offence or offender” be “reflected in the sentences imposed”: Morris at para. 108. Restraint, which is remedial in nature, requires the imposition of the least restrictive or severe punishment that is consistent with the principle of proportionality: Morris at paras. 111-112. It has particular force in cases involving youthful and first offenders: see R v Habib 2024 ONCA 830 at paras. 31-35. Totality helps to ensure that the total sentence for multiple offences is proportional and that competing objectives are given their due weight: see R v M.V. 2023 ONCA 724 at para. 100 and R v Johnson 2012 ONCA 339 at para. 18.
20It is important to remember that sentencing ranges, which are often cited in cases like this, are not straitjackets: Lacasse, supra at para. 57. A judge must arrive at the appropriate balance between the seriousness of the offence and the moral blameworthiness of the offender by considering their circumstances, the aggravating and mitigating factors, any collateral impacts, applicable sentencing ranges and the purpose, principles and objectives of sentencing.
Possession of illegal firearms
21In R. v. Nur 2013 ONCA 677 (aff’d 2015 SCC 15), the Court of Appeal held that those who possess loaded firearms and who are engaged in criminal conduct or conduct that poses a danger to others should receive exemplary sentences that emphasize deterrence and denunciation.
22In that case, the Court found that a 19-year-old first offender who ran from police and threw a loaded handgun under a car “could well have received a sentence of three years”: at para. 206. In R. v. Mohiadin 2021 ONCA 122, the Court imposed a three-year sentence on a youthful first offender in possession of a loaded handgun in his car. Both cases are illustrations of offenders on the “truly criminal conduct” side of the spectrum of s. 95 offences. As Justice Doherty explained in Nur, on that end “stands the outlaw who carries a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm in public places as a tool of his or her criminal trade. By any reasonable measure, this person is engaged in truly criminal conduct and poses a real and immediate danger to the public”: at para. 51. The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Nur did not displace those conclusions.
23An overview of the case law submitted by the parties suggests that a sentencing range of three to five years is appropriate for an offender who possesses a loaded prohibited firearm in conjunction with other crimes, or as a “tool of the trade.” Cases involving first offenders guilty of possessing an illegal handgun with no additional criminality can attract sentences ranging from upper reformatory to low penitentiary time: Morris at paras. 125 and 131. In some cases, conditional sentences have been imposed on such offenders.
Pointing a firearm
24The Crown relied on R v Schneider 2017 ONCJ 444, R v Reesor 2018 ONCJ 823, aff’d 2019 ONCA 901, R v Salvati and Sacco 2022 ONSC 3610 and R v McIntosh 2016 ONCA 370. A range of five to nine years can be said to emerge from these cases for the offence of pointing a firearm at someone.
Choking in the context of intimate partner violence
The Crown was unable to find cases establishing a range for the relatively new stand-alone offence of choking during the commission of an assault (s. 267(c)). However, choking someone is an inherently dangerous act that can lead to death. Whether or not it leads to unconsciousness or other consequences, it “is an act of cruel domination met by sheer horror and often accompanied by serious physical and psychological harm”: see R v Lemmon 2012 ABCA 103. Courts must treat this offence very seriously, particularly when it arises in the context of an intimate relationship.
Relevance of disadvantage and anti-Black racism
25In R v Hassan 2024 ONCA 782 at para. 11, the Ontario Court of Appeal recently reminded us that “the Morris decision recognizes that disadvantaged circumstances can mitigate, to some degree, the moral blameworthiness of the offender”: at paras. 94 and 99. “A person with a disadvantaged background may receive a lower sentence than someone from a stable background where the offence is linked in some way to the background or systemic factors”: at para. 94.
26In Morris, at para. 1, the Court of Appeal wrote that sentencing judges can take judicial notice of the existence of anti-Black racism in Canada, and the GTA in particular. It is reflected in many institutions and “most notably the criminal justice system.” Moreover, an offender’s personal circumstances, including those tied to overt and institutional racism … can be relevant in determining an appropriate sentence: at para. 4. They can do so in two ways. First, when an offender’s choices were limited or influenced by their disadvantaged circumstances, including the impacts of anti-Black racism, this factor can tell of their moral responsibility by helping to explain why and how the offender came to be where they are today. A connection, but not a causal one, is required for such factors to have a mitigating impact on sentence: at paras. 76, 87 and 97. Second, such factors can help judges more accurately assess, weigh and blend competing sentencing objectives: at para. 102.
27That said, the mitigating effect of such factors is limited; “the fundamental principle of proportionality must prevail in every case”: at paras.101 and 112.
Collateral consequences
28Collateral consequences, such as an impact on an offender’s immigration status in Canada, are relevant considerations on sentence, but cannot lead to a sentence that is disproportionate or that is otherwise used to circumvent Parliament’s will: R v Pham 2013 SCC 15 at paras. 14 and 15.
29Likewise, the impact of an offender’s sentence on their loved ones and children is a relevant factor; however, it must not be allowed to overwhelm the analysis: see Habib at paras 43-44.
30An offender’s health status can also be a relevant consideration where a jail or prison may not be able to see to their care or where incarceration would be harsher for them by virtue of their condition.
Availability of CSOs
31A conditional sentence is available when (1) the appropriate sentence is less than two years’ imprisonment; (2) it would not endanger the safety of the community; (3) the offence in question is not punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment; (4) the offence is not among those for which a conditional sentence is unavailable and (5) it “would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing”: see s. 742.1 of the Criminal Code.
VI. Aggravating Factors
32There are many serious aggravating factors in this case:
The firearm was a loaded semi-automatic pistol.
The pistol was loaded with 17 rounds.
The incident took place in the context of an intimate partner relationship.
Ms. Lindo, a young Black woman who had given birth six weeks prior, was a particularly vulnerable victim.
The assault was prompted by jealousy.
Mr. Miller began the assault while holding the couple’s infant son.
Mr. Miller choked Ms. Lindo to the point where she saw stars.
Mr. Miller pointed the loaded pistol at Ms. Lindo at point blank range. This was extraordinarily dangerous.
As is evident from the 911 call, the offence terrorized Ms. Lindo.
There were others nearby, in a cramped apartment.
The handgun was left in a hamper on the balcony of an apartment in which several people lived, including a teenager; moreover, children were known to visit.
Mr. Miller was subject to court orders prohibiting him from possessing weapons and firearms.
Mr. Miller was on bail with electronic monitoring and had been violating the curfew and residence conditions of that bail.
Mr. Miller’s prior Youth Court entries include a robbery in 2020, assaults, possession of a weapon and breaches in 2021 and assaulting with a knife, choking and threatening a prior girlfriend in 2022. In that case, the victim was choked to the point of unconsciousness and suffered injuries, including a cut to her finger. That said, I am prepared to give this factor less weight than I would an adult record, given the passage of time and Mr. Miller’s age when he committed those offences: see R v Kumi 2025 ONCA 3.
VII. Mitigating Factors and Collateral Consequences
Mitigating factors
33In his affidavit, Mr. Miller explained that he obtained a firearm to protect himself, Ms. Lindo and their son. While I will say more about this below, this is not a mitigating factor in and of itself. In R v J.G., [2005] O.J. No. 4599 at para. 35 (S.C.J.), Justice Nordheimer wrote that “[t]he belief that a gun is an effective and legitimate means of self-protection is one that must be rejected, clearly and absolutely”: see also R. v. Johnson 2022 ONSC 2688 at para. 41.
34That said, there are compelling attenuating factors in this matter. Some can be expressed simply. Others require more discussion. I begin with the simple ones.
35Mr. Miller is a youthful Black man, who was 20 years old when he committed these offences. He has no adult convictions. He has the love and support of his mother and siblings. He is in a nine-month relationship with a young woman to whom he is now engaged. His family and fiancée say that he is committed to being a good father to his son and to working on improving himself. He has done some programming while in custody and has been accepted to attend a general studies programme at Humber College for 2026. He held some jobs when he was 16 and 17, and now has an offer to work in a tire shop upon his release. He has been working with the Youth Association for Academics, Athletics, and Character Education (YAAACE) since October 2023. YAAACE provides comprehensive support to individuals like Mr. Miller as they transition back into the community. His worker believes that with YAAACE’s continued support, Mr. Miller “has the resilience and determination to successfully reintegrate and thrive as a productive and valued member of society.”
36When he spoke directly to the Court, Mr. Miller said that while he regrets being in jail, it has given him the opportunity to reflect on the person he wants to be: a good father and role model to his son. He has career goals and understands that he is lucky to have the support of his family.
37Mr. Miller has been subjected to lockdowns and triple bunking while in custody. He pointed to increased violence, limited access to the telephone and showers, and little opportunity for exercise such as playing basketball and doing pull-ups. Ms. Shakeel suggests that he deserves an additional 90 days’ credit for those harsh conditions. He suffers from scoliosis, for which he says he needs physiotherapy. He has also been diagnosed with PTSD.
38Mr. Miller spent 135 days under strict bail conditions. That said, he has been charged with breaching those same conditions, along with other offences. These remain before the court.
39Mr. Miller’s personal circumstances require a more involved discussion. Mr. Miller was born in St. Vincent. He is the seventh of eight children. He met his father a few times when he was little. He pined for a connection with him. His mother became involved with a different man, who was abusive. Mr. Miller first witnessed him assaulting his mother when he was five years old. His mother moved to Canada to get away from the abuse. Mr. Miller’s stepfather and other relatives were abusive toward Mr. Miller and his siblings on a daily basis, sometimes using weapons. His mother sent for him a few months later, in 2011, having heard about the abuse he was suffering. One of his brothers and his sister moved here five years ago. Another brother arrived three years ago. Other siblings remain in St. Vincent and St. Lucia.
40Here, Mr. Miller’s mother was able to make sure that he was fed and clothed, but they lived in a predominantly Black, low-income neighbourhood. Mr. Miller’s affidavit explains that he was exposed to violence at a young age. He has seen someone fall from a building. He has witnessed three shootings, including at the age of twelve, when his best friend was shot and killed. At 14, Mr. Miller was shot at and assaulted. He was stabbed in 2021 or 2022; this led to him developing scoliosis. At school, he acted up and caused fights. He attended three different high schools. Despite being offered support in school, he dropped out after Grade 10 because he found it too difficult.
41Mr. Miller’s affidavit explains that his experience with police has been negative. Police have stopped and questioned him regularly, when alone or with a group of other Black males. The first time was when he was 11 or 12 years old. He was pushed against a fence and patted down. Because of this, he has developed a distrust of police. He feels that they think he is a criminal and he feels harassed.
42As for the firearm, Mr. Miller’s affidavit explains that he received threats against Ms. Lindo and his son and felt the need to protect himself and his family. He knows this was the wrong decision, “but it felt right at the time.”
43I can readily appreciate how the physical violence that Mr. Miller witnessed and experienced starting at the age of five at the hands of his caregivers and then on the streets, and the lack of a positive male role model have had a role in shaping who he is today. I am also of the view that the predominantly Black, low-income and heavily policed environment in which he grew up in Toronto subjected him to systemic if not overt anti-Black racism. Together, these factors help me understand why he chose to obtain a firearm to defend himself and his family. However, if there is any connection between his personal disadvantage and the social context in which he grew up, on the one hand, and his decision to choke and point a firearm at Ms. Lindo, on the other, it is very weak.
Collateral consequences
44Despite living here since 2011, Mr. Miller is a permanent resident. The findings of guilt in this case have made him inadmissible in Canada. A carceral sentence above six months will cause him to lose his right of appeal against any deportation order.
45Mr. Miller’s family, particularly his young son, are also to be considered. While I am sympathetic to his fiancée, that relationship is so new as to warrant very limited consideration. Much of it has taken place while Mr. Miller has been in custody.
46On this record, I was not persuaded that Mr. Miller’s scoliosis and PTSD were the types of health conditions that should lead to a reduction in sentence. He is able to play basketball and use a pull-up bar. I have not been provided with enough reliable information about the impact of his PTSD or any particular needs that he has in relation to it.
VIII. Seriousness of the Offences
47The offences Mr. Miller committed were extremely serious. He decided to arm himself with a restricted handgun whose only purpose is to maim or kill people. He assaulted Ms. Lindo in the presence of their infant son and other members of his family. He then choked her, threatened her and pointed a loaded gun at her. He had to be pulled off her by his brother. All this while violating core terms of his bail and being subject to several court orders regarding weapons. Leaving the gun where he did exposed others, including children, to real danger. The impact on Ms. Lindo had to be significant. Also, the impact of the violence may very well reverberate through is son as he grows up.
IX. Moral Culpability
48Mr. Miller’s age attenuates his moral responsibility: see Habib at paras. 31-35. The conditions of Mr. Miller’s childhood and exposure to violence are very concerning. Combined with the effects of anti-Black racism, they also tend to mitigate his moral culpability for possessing the firearm to a degree. If they reduce his moral culpability for choking Ms. Lindo, however, that effect is very low. Much lower still with respect to pointing the loaded handgun at her.
49Mr. Miller’s level of moral culpability is significant.
IX. Applicable Sentencing Principles and Objectives
50Mr. Miller has a history of committing violence and using weapons. The offences he committed on his then girlfriend in 2022 are eerily similar to what he did to Mr. Lindo except that in this case, he upped the ante by using a loaded gun. He was also on a restrictive bail and breaching several court orders.
51Mr. Miller continues to present a danger to the public, particularly women he might become involved with. General deterrence, specific deterrence, denunciation and protection of the public are the core sentencing objectives in this matter. Given his age, the support of his family and his realistic plans, rehabilitation also remains an important goal. That said, while Mr. Miller regrets his current situation, he has not taken responsibility for what he did, with the possible exception of possessing the firearm.1 Giving him the benefit of the doubt that he has accepted responsibility for possessing the firearm, I see Mr. Miller’s rehabilitative prospects as fair. It is not too late for him to make real changes.
XII. Applicable Sentence
52I have carefully considered the circumstances of Mr. Miller’s offences in the context of his background, the objectives of sentencing, the aggravating and mitigating factors and the relevant collateral consequences. In doing so, I have reviewed the cases cited by the parties. Of course, no case is ever entirely on all fours with the facts before a sentencing court. That said, I note that the cases that Ms. Shakeel filed in support of her argument for a CSO are distinguishable in important respects.2 Most importantly, none of them involved pointing a firearm or intimate partner violence.
Possession of a loaded firearm
53To identify the appropriate range of sentence, it is important to plot Mr. Miller’s possession of a firearm on the spectrum described by Justice Doherty in Nur, cited above. Firearms offences are more serious when the offender possesses one as a tool of the trade or in conjunction with other offences. We often see this in the context of drug dealers. However, to draw a distinction between an offender who uses their firearm against someone else in a case like this and an offender who possesses a firearm and happens to be a drug dealer seems artificial. Both are engaged in true criminality and both are a real danger to the public.
54I find that Mr. Miller’s possession of a loaded handgun places him squarely in the true crime side of the spectrum. The reasons for this are that he chose to use a restricted handgun carrying 17 rounds of ammunition in carrying out a domestic assault that was sparked by jealousy and a need to exercise control. He did this while prohibited by several court orders.
55In this case, the applicable range for the possession of the firearm is three to five years.
Pointing the firearm
56As I stated above, a range of five to nine years is appropriate for the offence of pointing a firearm. In this case, the aggravating factors are that it was loaded and wielded in the context of intimate partner violence.
Assault and choking
57Assault in the domestic context is a serious offence. In this case, given the aggravating factors, a sentence of up to six months in jail could be warranted.
58Choking someone is a very serious form of assault, particularly when the victim is one’s intimate partner. This kind of assault can attract a variety of punishments, including jail or prison. In this case, given the aggravating factors, the appropriate sentence could be up to 12 months in jail.
Breaches of no weapons conditions and s. 109/110 prohibitions
59The courts treat breaches of s. 109 and 110 firearms prohibitions very seriously. Consecutive sentences of 6-12 months are not uncommon: see R v Georgievski 2024 ONSC 5899 at para. 22. For reasons that are not entirely clear, the courts do not uniformly treat breaches of no weapons conditions found in bail and probation orders in the same way. Section 109 and 110 orders often follow convictions for firearms offences – but not necessarily. They are all court orders that are meant to be obeyed in the interest of public safety. At the very least, possession of a firearm in breach of a no weapons condition must be treated as among the most serious type of such a breach. In this case, each breach could warrant a sentence of 6 to 12 months.
60I have chosen to identify the fit sentences that I would impose for each offence, and to adjust them in accordance with the principle of totality as this is the preferred method according to the Supreme Court of Canada: see R v Bertrand Marchand 2023 SCC 26 at para. 43.
61I find that the fit and proportionate sentences in this case, viewed individually, are as follows:
For the assault (Count 1): three months.
For the choking (Count 2): one year.
For the point firearm offence (Count 3): five years.
For the possession of a loaded restricted firearm (Count 6): three years.
For the careless storage of ammunition (Count 7): three months.
For the breaches (Counts 9 and 11): six months each, to be served concurrently to one another.
I would have the sentences for the possession of the firearm and the careless handling of ammunition run concurrently with the point firearm sentence. I would have the sentence for the assault and the choking run concurrently with one another but consecutively to the point firearm sentence. I would have the sentences for the breaches run concurrently to one another and but consecutively to the other sentences.
62As such, a conditional sentence is not available to Mr. Miller. Even if it was, technically, it would be grossly disproportionate and inconsistent with the fundamental principles of sentencing.
63That said, if I were to sentence Mr. Miller as I have described, the total sentence would be six years and nine months, or 81 months. A sentence of that length would be disproportionate in Mr. Miller’s case.
64I would reduce that sentence to a total of five years to account for the principle of totality. Mr. Miller is a youthful Black offender who had a traumatic childhood in which he was abused and exposed to violence, directly and indirectly, from a very young age. This included gun violence. He also experienced the impacts of anti-Black racism in his neighbourhood, which have led to a distrust of the police. In Morris, the Court of Appeal reminded us that when courts acknowledge these factors, they can attempt to restore confidence in the administration of justice by distancing the sentencing process from society’s complicity in anti-Black racism.
65As a result, Mr. Miller will be sentenced to five years in prison in relation to the point firearm offence, and will serve all the other sentences I have listed concurrently.
66He will be given credit for the equivalent of 663 days of pre-trial custody and an additional 90 days to reflect the harsh conditions of his time in custody. I state this last factor explicitly and numerically, as other judges have, to call attention to the human cost of the continually deplorable conditions in Ontario’s detention centres: see Georgievski, cited above at paras. 31-35.
XIII. Conclusion
67This will leave Mr. Miller with a net sentence of 1,072 days, or approximately three years, to be served.
68In addition, Mr. Miller will provide a sample of his DNA and be prohibited from possessing firearms and other weapons listed in s. 109 of the Criminal Code for life.
69Lastly, Mr. Miller will be subject to a s. 743.21 order prohibiting him from communicating with Ms. Lindo, with appropriate exceptions relating to their son.
Released: November 25, 2025
Justice Patrice F. Band
Footnotes
- This came up when I raised the apparent inconsistency between his testimony at trial, in which he denied any connection with the firearm, and his affidavit, in which he explained why he possessed a firearm. In response, Ms. Shakeel submitted that he did not admit that the firearm was the one that I found him guilty of pointing at Ms. Lindo. It is very difficult to know what to make of that. After trial, I found that Mr. Miller was not credible. If I reject Ms. Shakeel’s submission and interpret his affidavit in a way that accords with common sense, he has shown a willingness to perjure himself.
- R v Stewart 2022 ONSC 6997, R v Lewis 2022 ONSC 1260, R v Sahadevan 2023 ONSC 6764 and R v Vijayakumaran 2025 ONSC 886.