R. v. Hashi, 2026 ONCJ 132

Court File and Parties

Ontario Court of Justice Citation: R. v. Hashi, 2026 ONCJ 132 Date: 2026-03-10 Court File No.: Toronto #23-50000505

Between: His Majesty the King — and — Abdullahi Hashi

Reasons for Sentence

Before: Justice P.F. Band Heard: February 27, 2026 Released: March 10, 2026

Counsel: Mr. A. Lerner........................................................................................ counsel for the Crown Ms. A. Craig......................................................................................... counsel for Mr. Hashi

Reasons for Sentence

BAND J.:

I. Introduction

1This matter has a long history. In January 2023, officers with the Guns and Gangs Taskforce executed a warrant at the apartment where Mr. Hashi lived with his mother and his younger siblings. They found Mr. Hashi in one of the bedrooms along with a Glock 22 .40 calibre semi-automatic handgun containing an overcapacity magazine loaded with 15 rounds of ammunition, a baggie containing two rounds of ammunition, a small amount of fentanyl and a bullet-proof vest. The pistol is a restricted firearm, and the magazine is a prohibited device. Mr. Hashi was prohibited from possessing a firearm because of a prior conviction for possessing a loaded handgun. He was charged accordingly.¹

2At trial, which began in April 2024, Mr. Hashi challenged the validity of the search warrant pursuant to s. 8 of the Charter. I dismissed his application in June 2024.² Then, after a number of adjournments, Mr. Hashi conceded the Crown’s case on the merits. An Agreed Statement of Facts was entered as an exhibit, and findings of guilt were registered on all but one count.³ The matter was then adjourned for sentencing. At the time, Mr. Hashi was on a house-arrest bail with GPS monitoring.

3The process ground to a halt when Mr. Hashi decided to cut off his ankle monitor and abscond. In August 2025, I issued a warrant for his arrest, and his lawyer was removed from the record. Mr. Hashi was re-arrested in October 2025 and the process resumed, this time with Ms. Craig acting for him. Mr. Hashi pleaded guilty to failing to comply with his house arrest bail and failing to attend court.

4The Crown proceeded by Indictment on all charges.

II. Positions of the Parties

5The parties’ sentencing positions are far apart. On behalf of the Crown, Mr. Lerner sought a global sentence of 8.5 years for the firearms offences, a 1-year sentence for the fail to comply count, to be served consecutively, and a 6-month sentence for failing to attend court, to be served concurrently. However, Mr. Lerner expressed an openness to the sentences for the latter charges being served concurrently in order to account for Morris factors. As such, the Crown’s “floor” is 8.5 years.

6On behalf of Mr. Hashi, Ms. Craig sought a global sentence of 4 years. She rested her position on Mr. Hashi’s personal history and circumstances, which are described in the PSR and EPSR. Among them is the fact that Mr. Hashi was the victim of a shooting in 2021 and continues to suffer from his injuries. Ms. Craig argued that this makes his decision to re-arm himself with a firearm less morally culpable. She also argued that his medical needs, which are not completely addressed in custody, make imprisonment harsher for him than for healthier offenders.

7The parties agree that Mr. Hashi should be given credit for time he spent under strict bail conditions and in pre-sentence detention.

8The following reasons explain how I have come to what I believe is a fit and proportionate sentence for Mr. Hashi.

III. Applicable Sentencing Principles

Generally

9Pursuant 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.

10As 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.

11Three 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.

12A 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

13In 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.

14The applicable sentencing range for s. 95(1) recidivists who breach s. 109 orders is 6-9 years: see R v Graham 2018 ONSC 6817 at para. 39 and R v Dawkins 2021 ONCJ 4526 at para. 20.

Breaches of s. 109 prohibitions

15The courts treat breaches of s. 109 firearms prohibitions very seriously. Consecutive sentences of 6-12 months are not uncommon: see R v Georgievski 2024 ONSC 5899 at para. 22.

Absconding prior to sentencing

16Offenders who cut off their GPS ankle monitors and abscond before sentencing commit very serious offences against the administration of justice and can expect to receive exemplary sentences. When they do so in a serious matter or have a prior record for breaches, sentences of 6-12 months are easily justified.

Relevance of disadvantage and anti-Black racism

17In 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.

18In 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.

19That 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

20An offender’s health status can 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: R v Hills 2023 SCC 2 at paras. 86, 135-136, 165; see also : R v Oryia 2026 ONCA 166 at para. 19.

IV. Aggravating Factors

21There are serious aggravating factors in this case:

• The firearm was a loaded semi-automatic pistol.
• There were 15 rounds in the over-sized magazine.
• The firearm, which was in the pocket of a jacket on a chair, was easily accessible.
• There were children living in the apartment (ages 12 and 14).
• Mr. Hashi’s criminal record includes a robbery while wearing a disguise (2016) and possession of a loaded or restricted firearm (2018), as well as breaches of court orders. He was sentenced to 3.5 years in the penitentiary for the firearm offence and placed on a lifetime s. 109 prohibition order.

V. Mitigating Factors and Collateral Consequences

Mitigating factors

22In 2021, Mr. Hashi and his friend were shot while they sat in a car. Tragically, his friend was killed. Mr. Hashi sustained wounds to his dominant hand and his left leg. While I will say more about the impact of his injuries below, I reject the argument that his decision to possess an illegal handgun is less morally culpable than an offender’s who had not been the victim of gun violence. 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. It must also be remembered that Mr. Hashi had served a penitentiary sentence for a firearms offence before he and his friend were shot.

23That said, there are attenuating factors in this matter.

24Mr. Hashi is a 30-year-old black man of Somali descent. He was 28 years old when he committed these offences. His parents separated when he was a child. His father remained in his life until 2015, when he returned to Somalia. His mother worked in low-paying jobs and struggled to meet the needs of her six children. They lived in supportive housing and were moved to an apartment in “Willowridge” when Mr. Hashi was 12. According to the author of the EPSR, that neighbourhood has “a reputation for poverty, drug activity and gun violence,” is “characterized as low-income” and “is over-represented by Black and racialized individuals.” It was common for Mr. Hashi to be stopped by police and questioned about his identity. It appears that his peers were involved in criminality and that this influenced his decisions as a youth.

25While his elementary and middle school experience was relatively good, he struggled in high school. His interest declined, he started skipping school and using cannabis. He has not completed high school. According to the author of the EPSR, that is because of a combination of “laziness and the priority he placed on social relationships.”

26As the author of the EPSR notes, Mr. Hashi has little work or life experience. His criminal record and injuries make it difficult for him to find work that he is qualified to do. He also lacks motivation. Recently, he has mentioned a desire to learn how to work as a forklift operator.

27While he first saw his decision to arm himself as justified by his fear of being harmed again, he has come to understand that it was wrong. He knows that gun violence in Toronto is “getting worse and worse.” He feels bad for having let his family down and exposing others to potential harm.

28Mr. Hashi was subject to strict bail conditions for approximately 2.5 years. He has been in custody for the equivalent of 251 days (167 real days). During that time, he has experienced about 10 days under lockdown conditions.

29Mr. Hashi’s guilty pleas for absconding are also mitigating factors.

Collateral consequences

30I accept that Mr. Hashi’s physical condition makes the conditions of his incarceration harsher than those of healthier men. His leg injury continues to plague him. He suffered nerve damage and has “drop foot.” He experiences swelling in his left foot. He also has a wound on that foot that is not healing. Based on the medical records I have reviewed, Mr. Hashi is receiving regular wound care. However, medical staff have told him that he needs a walking boot, yet one has not been provided to him. Nor has he been offered a wheelchair. Given these mobility issues, he feels that he is more vulnerable to potential violence at the hands of other prisoners.

VI. Seriousness of the Offences

31Mr. Hashi decided to arm himself with a restricted handgun whose only purpose is to maim or kill people. In doing so, he committed a very serious offence, particularly considering his criminal record. In the circumstances, Mr. Hashi’s conduct places him squarely in the true crime end of the spectrum. His decision to abscond before sentencing was also a particularly serious kind of breach.

VII. Moral Culpability

32Mr. Hashi is no longer a youthful offender. The circumstances of his upbringing and his exposure to crime and gun violence mitigate his moral culpability to a degree. However, he chose to re-arm himself with a firearm after having received a penitentiary term for a similar offence. His level of moral culpability is very high.

VIII. Applicable Sentencing Principles and Objectives

33General deterrence, specific deterrence, denunciation and protection of the public are usually the core sentencing objectives in firearms offences.

34Of course, rehabilitation is always a goal of sentencing. Unfortunately, I consider Mr. Hashi’s rehabilitative prospects to be low at the current time. He has serious entries on his criminal record. He has very limited life and work experience and he has not taken any concrete steps to better himself in the three years since he committed these offences.

35I am required to prioritize general deterrence, specific deterrence and denunciation in this case.

IX. Applicable Sentence

36I 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 afterwards, as this is the preferred method according to the Supreme Court of Canada: see R v Bertrand Marchand 2023 SCC 26 at para. 43.

37In doing so, I have carefully considered the circumstances of Mr. Hashi’s offences in the context of his background, the objectives of sentencing, the aggravating and mitigating factors, the collateral consequences and the cases cited by the parties.

38Viewed individually, the sentences I would impose are as follows.

Possession of a loaded firearm (s. 95(1)) and related offences

39I would sentence Mr. Hashi to 6 years in the penitentiary for the s. 95(1) offence and to concurrent 6-month terms for the related offences. This sentence takes into account the time he spent under strict bail conditions and the comparative harshness of his experience in custody caused by his health challenges, which can be expected to continue for some time: R v Oryia 2026 ONCA 166 at para. 19.

Breach of s. 109 prohibition

40I would sentence Mr. Hashi to 6 months for breaching the firearms prohibition, consecutive to the sentence for the s. 95(1) offence.

Absconding prior to sentencing

41I would sentence Mr. Hashi to 1 year for breaching the terms of his release and 6 months for failing to appear for sentencing, to be served consecutively to the other sentences for the s. 95(1) offence but concurrently to one another.

42If I were to sentence Mr. Hashi as I have described, the total sentence would be 7.5 years. A sentence of that length would be disproportionate in Mr. Hashi’s case.

43I would reduce that sentence to 6.5 years to account for the principle of totality. Mr. Hashi will be given credit for the equivalent of 275 days of pre-trial custody, which I have increased from 251 to reflect the time he has spent under lockdown conditions.

X. Conclusion

44The total sentence in this case is 6.5 years (or 2,370 days). From it, I would subtract 275 days to reflect time served. This will leave Mr. Hashi with a net sentence of approximately 5 years and 10 months (or 2,095 days) to be served.

45In addition, Mr. Hashi will provide a sample of his DNA and will be prohibited from possessing firearms and other weapons listed in s. 109 of the Criminal Code for life.

46The s. 91(1) and 92(1) convictions will be conditionally stayed pursuant to the Kienapple principle.

Footnotes

1. 1Mr. Hashi was charged with offences under the following sections: 86(1) x 2, 91(1), 92(1), 92(2), 95(1), 96(1) and 117.01. The s. 96(1) count was withdrawn.
2. 2See R v Hashi 2024 ONCJ 288.
3. 3S. 96(1).