ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
GIDEON BONSU
Before Justice G.P. Renwick
Sentencing Submissions Heard on 06 October 2025
Reasons for Sentence Released on 08 October 2025
K. Holmes................................................................................... counsel for the prosecution
C. Levien.............................................................. counsel for the Offender Gideon Bonsu
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
INTRODUCTION
1Following a trial, I found the Offender guilty of all six firearms-related offences on the Information:
i. Knowingly possessing a handgun while not licensed (s. 92);
ii. Having a firearm in a vehicle (s. 94);
iii. Possessing a loaded firearm (s. 95);
iv. Carrying a concealed weapon (s. 90);
v. Possessing a firearm with an obliterated serial number (s. 108); and
vi. Possessing a firearm contrary to a prohibition Order (s. 117.01).
2These offences arose from a traffic stop on October 9, 2023, during which police observed a loaded handgun in the Offender’s pants pocket. The firearm was seized following a physical struggle, during which the Offender was tasered.
3A Charter Application alleging breaches of ss. 9 and 10(b) was dismissed, save for a minor s. 10(b) violation in terms of the timing of the facilitation of the right to counsel. The firearm and ammunition were admitted into evidence and a finding of guilty on all counts was conceded.
4The prosecution seeks a global sentence of 8 years imprisonment, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence. The prosecutor highlights the Offender’s prior record, including a weapons-related conviction following a home invasion, and the penitentiary sentence served just 18 months prior to the current offences. The prosecution argues that the Offender’s conduct — possessing a loaded firearm with an obliterated serial number, breaching a prohibition order, and struggling with police during his arrest — warrants a significant penitentiary sentence.
5Defence counsel proposes a sentence of 5 years imprisonment, less 9 months of credit for the time spent in pre-trial custody, the time spent while on a restrictive bail, the trial concessions made, and the Charter violation. The Offender relies on mitigating factors including the Offender’s tumultuous upbringing, successful bail compliance, employment since 2022, and his prospects for rehabilitation. Lastly, the Offender does not oppose any of the ancillary orders sought.
DISCUSSION OF A FIT SENTENCE
6It will be helpful to consider the circumstances of these offences and those of this particular Offender to situate the context for this sentencing.
Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
7The Aggravating factors include:
i. Possession of a loaded firearm (10 live rounds of ammunition) in a public setting. The Offender was in a parking lot outside of a strip club where alcohol is consumed, late at night;
ii. Concealed possession of a firearm. The handgun was concealed, and the Offender kept moving his jacket over his leg to further hide the firearm from police;
iii. Possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number. No firearm can be legally possessed in Canada without a registration certificate and pursuant to the possession of a valid firearm licence (neither of which existed) and the obliterated serial number made this firearm virtually untraceable by the authorities. There is no innocent reason for the Offender’s possession of a loaded, illegally possessed handgun while recently prohibited from possessing firearms. This is a true-crime firearm, the possession of which is beyond any innocent explanation;
iv. Possession of a firearm soon after the completion of the equivalent of a penitentiary sentence for a home invasion robbery where a firearm was used (two shots were fired at a witness by the Offender’s accomplice). The Offender also has an unrelated conviction for excess blood alcohol while driving in 2014; and
v. The Offender actively resisted the police and he had to be tasered and physically controlled on the ground before the loaded firearm could be secured. This increased the danger of an accidental discharge exponentially.
8Mitigating factors include:
i. The Offender is a Black male living in Canada; he has undoubtedly experienced anti-Black racism, possibly even at the hands of state actors, like the police;
ii. The Offender has experienced the trauma of parental mental illness and spent six months (according to the pre-sentence report) in the foster care system;
iii. The Offender graduated from college (police foundations) in 2018;
iv. The police violated the Offender’s s. 10(b) Charter rights to a limited extent;
v. The Offender has been on a strict form of bail without incident for 22 months;
vi. The Offender conceded much of the prosecution’s case, saving limited prosecutorial and judicial resources;
vii. The Offender has the support of his family and his girlfriend;
viii. The Offender has been gainfully employed for three years where he is a valued employee;
ix. The Offender’s allocution expressed genuine remorse and acknowledgment of wrongdoing; and
x. The Offender wants to lead a pro-social life.
Neutral Factors
9The following are neither aggravating nor mitigating and have not factored into the calculus of an appropriate sentence in this case:
i. There is no suggestion that the Offender had used or fired the firearm prior to this event; and
ii. There were no physical injuries suffered by the Offender or the police who recovered the firearm.
Circumstances of the Offender
10The Offender is not a young man. He is 32 years old. The Offender has not led an entirely pro-social life. At age 23, the Offender was convicted of a drinking and driving offence. Eighteen months before this event the Offender was sentenced for a home invasion robbery that involved the actual use of a firearm during the getaway. The Offender served the equivalent of 3 years in prison for those offences.
11After hearing from the Offender, I am convinced that he appears genuinely remorseful about these offences. He is embarrassed. The pre-sentence report writer described the Offender as “polite” and “respectful” and I agree with this characterization.
12All the same, the Offender has a serious and related criminal past. He is neither youthful, nor naïve in his criminal pursuits. If anything, these offences suggest an inexplicable return to a criminal lifestyle (assuming there ever was a departure) that is no less serious than his prior convictions. All of which belies the Offender’s family support, stable relationship, and his acknowledged positive work history.
Circumstances of the Offences
13The Offender drove around, late at night, with a loaded firearm concealed in his front pants pocket.
14Counsel suggests that there is no evidence that anything untoward or criminal was afoot. In fact, the Offender told the pre-sentence report author that the firearm was carried to help him feel safe because a former friend once stole money from his home.
15I do not accept this logic. If possessing a firearm at home actually made sense within the Offender’s psyche, that had nothing to do with what happened here. The Offender was not at home. Rather, he stood in a parking lot (initially at least), late at night, where he might well encounter intoxicated patrons. Although there is no evidence of an intention to use the firearm, that does not reduce the criminality or dangerousness of its public possession in a concealed and ready state. His moral culpability is high because he was prohibited from possessing firearms for his convictions in March 2022.
16This case also underscores the inherent danger of loaded handguns. The police, the Offender, or another member of the public could easily have been mortally wounded because of the Offender’s lack of precaution and unbounded carelessness. Certainly, the Offender should not be punished for what never occurred, but neither should he be credited for the fortuity of random happenstance (the fact that no one was injured during his apprehension).
SENTENCING PRINCIPLES
17The fundamental purpose of sentencing as expressed in section 718 of the Criminal Code is to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: denunciation, deterring the offender and others from committing offences, separating offenders from society, where necessary, assisting in rehabilitating offenders, providing reparations for harm done to victims, and promoting responsibility in offenders and an acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and the community.
18The fundamental principle of sentencing is that the punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The punishment should fit the crime. There is no single fit sentence for any particular offence. The relevance and relative importance of each of these objectives will vary according to the nature of the crime and the circumstances of the offender.1
19In R. v. Hamilton and Mason, Doherty J.A. of the Ontario Court of Appeal stated:
The "gravity of the offence" refers to the seriousness of the offence in a generic sense as reflected by the potential penalty imposed by Parliament and any specific features of the commission of the crime which may tend to increase or decrease the harm or risk of harm to the community occasioned by the offence…
The "degree of responsibility of the offender" refers to the offender's culpability as reflected in the essential substantive elements of the offence - especially the fault component - and any specific aspects of the offender's conduct or background that tend to increase or decrease the offender's personal responsibility for the crime.2
20The Court quoted Rosenberg J.A. who had previously described the proportionality requirement in R. v. Priest:
The principle of proportionality is rooted in notions of fairness and justice. For the sentencing court to do justice to the particular offender, the sentence imposed must reflect the seriousness of the offence, the degree of culpability of the offender, and the harm occasioned by the offence. The court must have regard to the aggravating and mitigating factors in the particular case. Careful adherence to the proportionality principle ensures that this offender is not unjustly dealt with for the sake of the common good.3
21Section 718.1 of the Code ensures that proportionality is the fundamental principle of sentencing. However, proportionality is not the sole principle to be considered. A sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances.4
22In the circumstances of this case, both parties submit that a sentence of imprisonment in the penitentiary is appropriate, but they differ on the length to be served.
23As a sentencing tool, institutional imprisonment is to be used only as a last resort when required by the circumstances of the crime and the background of the offender.
24Our Supreme Court has instructed that section 718 requires a sentencing judge to consider more than simply denunciation and deterrence. The court must also consider the restorative goals of repairing the harms suffered by individual victims and by the community as a whole, promoting a sense of responsibility and an acknowledgment of the harm caused while attempting to rehabilitate or heal the offender.5
25Although the rehabilitation of the Offender is a secondary consideration in the overall calculus of an appropriate sentence in this case (well behind denunciation and deterrence), it is still a factor I must consider, especially in light of the Offender’s potential, his family support, and his demonstrated remorse.
26Proportionality in sentencing can also account for factors personal to the offender:
Courts should consider the effect of a sentence on the particular offender. The principle of proportionality implies that where the impact of imprisonment is greater on a particular offender, a reduction in sentence may be appropriate (Suter, at para. 48; B. L. Berger, "Proportionality and the Experience of Punishment", in D. Cole and J. Roberts, eds., Sentencing in Canada: Essays in Law, Policy, and Practice (2020), 368, at p. 368). For this reason, courts have reduced sentences to reflect the comparatively harsher experience of imprisonment for certain offenders, like offenders in law enforcement, for those suffering disabilities (R. v. Salehi, 2022 BCCA 1, at paras. 66-71; R. v. Nuttall, 2001 ABCA 277, 293 A.R. 364, at paras. 8-9; R. v. A.R. (1994), 1994 CanLII 4524 (MB CA), 92 Man. R. (2d) 183 (C.A.); R. v. Adamo, 2013 MBQB 225, 296 Man. R. (2d) 245, at para. 65; R. v. Wallace (1973), 1973 CanLII 1434 (ON CA), 11 C.C.C. (2d) 95 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 100), or for those whose experience of prison is harsher due to systemic racism (R. v. A.F. (1997), 1997 CanLII 14505 (ON CA), 101 O.A.C. 146, at para. 17; R. v. Batisse, 2009 ONCA 114, 93 O.R. (3d) 643, at para. 37; R. v. Marfo, 2020 ONSC 5663, at para. 52).6
27Obviously, this offender is part of a community that has suffered racism and over-incarceration. Though this does not mean he is entitled to a race-based discount, the Offender should receive the least restrictive sentence (in terms of duration) that is appropriate in the circumstances.
APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLES
28Imprisonment is a terrible consequence. Penitentiaries are dark places of untold degradation and despair. Nonetheless, in some cases, a penitentiary sentence is the only sentence that will be just.
29The sentencing range for possession of a loaded firearm in similar circumstances is four to nine years.7 The Court of Appeal for Ontario has also made it clear that exemplary sentences are required to deter gun use and possession.8
30The Offender’s conduct falls beyond the middle of the range of an appropriate sentence. There can be no doubt that this re-offending was not minor. The body-worn camera footage proved that the Offender was equally calculating and uncooperative during the traffic stop. His behaviour exacerbated an already dangerous situation.
31While I accept that the Offender has rehabilitative potential and there are numerous mitigating circumstances, the short turnaround from his last conviction, the breach of a prohibition order, and his conduct during arrest require a sentence that prioritizes denunciation and deterrence above other penal considerations.
32The Offender has been found guilty of possessing a loaded, illegal handgun, which he concealed, and possessed carelessly in public, contrary to a weapons prohibition. His conduct threatened the safety and security of the public. He is not a first offender, nor is he particularly youthful. Nothing short of a significant penitentiary sentence can adequately address the need for deterrence and denunciation in adequate measure.
33Counsel seeks credit for pre-sentence custody (57 actual days), plus additional Duncan9 credit (to enhance pre-trial custody credit to a ratio of 2:1) for time spent in custody during the Covid-19 pandemic, and Downes10 credit for stringent bail conditions. Defence counsel also suggested a sentence reduction given the Charter violation and the lack of any real contest following the Charter Application.
34I am prepared to give the Offender credit for the circumstances that have made his time in pre-trial custody especially difficult. It is well-known that time spent in pre-trial custody during the pandemic was harsh due to staff-shortages and additional health protocols. I would credit the pre-trial custody as the equivalent of 4 months. I would also credit the Offender an additional 2 months for his 22 months on a restrictive bail. Although the bail was set at the uppermost rung of the ladder in terms of its restrictions, this was reasonable in light of the Offender’s criminal record and the seriousness of the offences.
35A global sentence of 8 years of imprisonment is appropriate for these offences. However, I will impose a global remaining sentence of 7 years in a penitentiary, apportioned as follows:
i. Possessing a loaded firearm (s. 95, count #3 on the Information), 7 years imprisonment, less 4 months for pre-trial custody, 2 months for restrictive bail, and 6 months for other considerations (personal characteristics, trial cooperation, and expressed remorse), for a remaining sentence of 6 years imprisonment;
ii. Knowingly possessing a handgun while not licensed (s. 92), 3 years, concurrent to count #3;
iii. Having a firearm in a vehicle (s. 94), 4 years, concurrent to count #3;
iv. Carrying a concealed weapon (s. 90), 3 years, concurrent to count #3;
v. Possessing a firearm with an obliterated serial number (s. 108), 3 years, concurrent to count #3; and
vi. Possessing a firearm contrary to a prohibition Order (s. 117.01), one year, consecutive to count #3.
36I have not reduced the sentence for the minor Charter violation. To do so would undermine the court’s findings that the violation was momentary, had little impact upon the Offender, did not lead to the discovery of evidence, and was not likely the result of systemic carelessness with constitutional norms.
37Although not requested, I also considered the “jump” principle: Unless justified, a subsequent sentence should not be significantly harsher than an offender’s last sentence.
38A seven-year prison sentence is significantly longer than the Offender’s last sentence (the equivalent of 3 years imprisonment). However, the total sentence is warranted because it accounts for the increased moral blameworthiness of these crimes:
i. The Offender was in actual possession of a loaded, illegal handgun;
ii. The Offender did not receive the mitigation of a guilty plea, which would have lowered the global sentence appreciably;
iii. These offences were committed within 18 months of his last sentence; and
iv. The Offender breached a weapons prohibition which requires a consecutive sentence.
39This sentence is a significant one, but it responds to the need to deter this Offender and others from such serious criminal activity. Nothing less than this will adequately denounce this Offender’s conduct or deter him or others from similar conduct.
40It bears repeating that I took into account the mitigating circumstances of the Offender’s background, his remorse, and the support he has in the community. While penal parsimony is appropriate, it cannot predominate the sentencing process.
41Given that the ancillary orders were unopposed, it is appropriate to order the following:
i. An Order pursuant to s.109(2) prohibiting the Offender from possessing any firearm, crossbow, prohibited or restricted weapon or device, any ammunition, or explosive substance for life;
ii. An Order pursuant to s. 487.051(3)(b) (s. 95 is an offence for which the maximum punishment is more than five years, making this a secondary designated offence) for the taking of a sample of the Offender’s deoxyribonucleic acid (“DNA”) in circumstances that are hygienic and respectful of his privacy and bodily integrity, by a person qualified to take such samples. The Order need not be carried out if the Offender’s DNA is already known on the national databank. This Order may be carried out while the Offender is in custody. If the Offender refuses to cooperate with the sampling of his DNA, reasonable force may be used to extract it from him; and
iii. Forfeiture of the firearm, magazine, and 10 rounds of ammunition seized by Peel Regional Police from the Offender on 09 October 2023.
CONCLUSION
42The appropriate global sentence is 7 years in a penitentiary with ancillary orders (a s. 109 weapons prohibition for life, DNA sampling pursuant to s. 487.051(3)(b), and s. 491 forfeiture of offence-related property) in addition to one year credited for pre-trial custody and other considerations.
43This sentencing was a difficult one. The court is mindful of the practical realities of the Offender’s background and how incarceration in the penitentiary imperils his peace of mind and that of his family. The principles of sentencing permit courts to be lenient and merciful when counter-balanced by the superordinate goals of denunciation and deterrence.
44Gideon Bonsu appears to have a good brain, a strong will, and an able body. He is loved by his family and partner. Unlike many people I see, it is anticipated that he can improve himself and move beyond the entries on his criminal record. I hope this is true for his sake and that of our community.
Released: 08 October 2025
Justice G. Paul Renwick
Footnotes
- R. v. Hamilton and Mason, 2004 CanLII 5549 (ON CA), [2004] O.J. No. 3252 (C.A.) at para. 102.
- Hamilton, supra, at paras. 90-91.
- R. v. Priest, 1996 CanLII 1381 (ON CA), [1996] O.J. No. 3369 (C.A.) at para. 26, as quoted in Hamilton, supra, at para. 92.
- See subsection 718.2(b) of the Code.
- R. v. Gladue, 1999 CanLII 679 (SCC), [1999] S.C.J. No. 19 at paras. 43 and 48.
- R. v. Hills, 2023 SCC 2 at para. 135.
- See R. v. Morris, 2023 ONCA 816 at para. 87.
- R. v. Danvers, 2005 CanLII 30044 (ON CA), 2005 O.J. No. 3532 (C.A.)
- See R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754.
- See R. v. Downes, 2006 CanLII 3957 (ON CA), [2006] O.J. No. 555 (C.A.).