ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
JORDAN MCINERNEY-BROOKS
Before Justice Seth Weinstein
Heard on November 13, 2025 and February 24, 2026
Reasons for Sentence released on March 25, 2026
Meghan Tait counsel for the Crown
Philip Klumak counsel for Jordan McInerney-Brooks
WEINSTEIN J.:
Introduction
1On November 13, 2025, Jordan McInerney-Brooks entered a guilty plea to possessing a loaded restricted firearm and possessing a firearm while prohibited, contrary to sections 95 and 117 of the Criminal Code.
2The Crown seeks a total sentence of five to six years in the penitentiary minus pre- sentence custody (PSC). The Crown emphasized that denunciation and deterrence are the primary applicable principles, which are particularly pressing here given that Mr. McInerney-Brooks has a previous conviction for possession of a loaded firearm and was subject to a prohibition order at the time of the offence.
3The defence seeks a global sentence of four years imprisonment, less PSC and any mitigation arising from the harsh custodial conditions Mr. McInerney‑Brooks has endured. While acknowledging that denunciation and deterrence are the primary sentencing objectives, counsel submits that Marshall credit and other mitigating factors support a lower sentence. Counsel further argues that a total sentence exceeding four years would constitute an unwarranted and disproportionate increase from his prior sentence.
Circumstances of the Offence
4On April 11, 2025, police commenced an investigation into Mr. McInerney‑Brooks. Over the next three days, officers conducted surveillance on him. During that investigation, police obtained a search warrant for his residence and for an associated vehicle, a red Jeep Wrangler.
5On April 15, 2025, police continued their surveillance. They observed Mr. McInerney‑Brooks briefly leave his residence with two small children before returning inside. Approximately one hour later, he exited the home alone and walked onto the street. At that point, officers decided to arrest him and initiated the takedown.
6Mr. McInerney‑Brooks initially resisted but was ultimately brought under control and arrested. During the search incident to arrest, police located a satchel containing a SIG Sauer handgun pointed upward, loaded with an over‑capacity magazine. There was no round in the chamber, and the serial number had been removed. Police also located a knife in the pocket of his jacket.
7Police subsequently executed the search warrant at his residence. No items of evidentiary value were located.
8At the time of the offence, Mr. McInerney‑Brooks did not hold a registration certificate or any valid authorization for the firearm. He was also subject to a weapons prohibition order.
Circumstances of the Offender
9Mr. McInerney-Brooks is 28 years of age. He is a Canadian citizen and identifies as Mi’kmaq First Nations.
10He has been in a stable relationship for approximately a year and a half, which both he and his partner describe as loving and supportive. Mr. McInerney-Brooks has two young children from a previous relationship and reports being actively involved in their care. In the pre‑sentence and Gladue reports, he said that his children are a significant motivating factor in his efforts toward stability and rehabilitation.
11Mr. McInerney‑Brooks completed schooling to the Grade 11 level. His educational history reflects long‑standing learning difficulties. He was diagnosed in childhood with ADHD and a learning disability, which significantly affected his ability to function in conventional classroom settings. Mr. McInerney-Brooks was frequently placed in special education programs and described his interactions with teachers as largely negative, stating that he often felt overlooked rather than supported.
12Mr. McInerney-Brooks demonstrated improved performance in alternative education environments that provided individualized instruction and reduced classroom demands. When he was previously incarcerated, he completed multiple high school credits through continuing education programs, achieving marks in the 70 percent range. He has since completed his high school diploma while in pre-sentence custody.
13Mr. McInerney-Brooks completed a carpentry apprenticeship course and states that he wants to return to construction work, expressing interest in eventually operating his own small business.
14In addition to pursuing his high school diploma in custody, Mr. McInerney-Brooks has completed core life‑skills training, worked with an addictions counsellor, and participated in several rehabilitative programs, including Alcoholics Anonymous, overdose‑prevention initiatives, and harm‑reduction programming.
15Mr. McInerney‑Brooks was raised in a two‑parent household. His father is Indigenous, and his mother is of Irish descent. He has one younger brother. The family environment was described as stable, caring, and free from domestic violence. His parents remain supportive and intend to provide housing and stability upon his release.
16Mr. McInerney-Brooks’ paternal grandparents attended a residential school and his father and aunts attended Indian Day School. These experiences resulted in long‑term impacts on the family, including substance abuse, mental health difficulties, and involvement with the criminal justice system among extended relatives. Mr. McInerney-Brooks described these experiences as having normalized exposure to violence, addiction, and incarceration from an early age, despite his parents’ efforts to guide him positively.
17While Indigenous cultural practices were not consistently present in Mr. McInerney-Brooks’ immediate household, extended family members introduced him to traditional practices such as smudging, powwows, and spiritual cleansing. As an adult, particularly while in custody, Mr. McInerney‑Brooks has made meaningful efforts to reconnect with his Indigenous identity. He currently participates in Indigenous‑led programming and has assumed a leadership role in facilitating smudging ceremonies.
18Mr. McInerney-Brooks grew up in a neighbourhood characterized by social disadvantage, drug activity, and gang violence. He reported frequent exposure to assaults, robberies, and other criminal behaviour, which contributed to chronic insecurity and hypervigilance. His father described the area as one with a high concentration of at‑risk youth, and both parents confirmed that, despite remaining in the family home, Mr. McInerney-Brooks was regularly exposed to unsafe influences.
19These conditions were compounded by multiple incidents in which Mr. McInerney‑Brooks was himself a victim of violence, including being shot at and having his family home targeted by gunfire. A particularly significant event occurred in 2016, when his father was stabbed and nearly died. He also recently disclosed experiencing childhood sexual abuse. These events had profound psychological effects, resulting in persistent guilt, anxiety, fear for his family’s safety, and symptoms of post‑traumatic stress. He developed chronic anxiety and maladaptive coping strategies, including using cocaine and alcohol to manage trauma‑related symptoms.
20In 2023, Mr. McInerney‑Brooks experienced the death of a former partner, a loss he says he has not yet processed. In 2024, he entered a new relationship, took on a parental role with his partner’s daughter, and later had a son. The couple separated later that year, leading to custody disputes and limited contact with his children. According to the Gladue report, the loss of contact with his children caused him significant emotional distress.
21He reports that his mental health deteriorated after the relationship breakdown, including a relapse into substance use involving misuse of prescribed anxiety medication and opioids. He states that these substances impaired his judgment, heightened his paranoia, and contributed to impulsive decision‑making. Mr. McInerney‑Brooks expresses strong motivation to remain sober and reconnect with his children and is willing to engage in counselling, cultural programming, employment supports, and community‑based treatment.
Criminal Record
22In 2022, Mr. McInerney-Brooks was convicted of possession of a loaded firearm. He was sentenced to 17 months and 10 days in custody, two years’ probation and a weapons prohibition for ten years.
Legal Framework
23Sentencing is a highly individualized process that must reflect and balance multiple, and often competing, sentencing objectives: R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64 at para. 58.
24Determining the appropriate sentence in this case requires that I weigh the sentencing objectives set out in section 718(a) to (f) of the Criminal Code. Ultimately, the sentence imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility borne by the offender.
25The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal have consistently underscored the seriousness of offences involving the possession of loaded firearms: R. v. Nur, 2013 ONCA 677, aff’d 2015 SCC 15; R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680; R. v. Burke‑Whittaker, 2025 ONCA 142; and R. v. Kulatheeswaran, 2026 ONCA 128. These courts have repeatedly emphasized the scourge that firearms represent and their profound impact on public safety. Consequently, the overriding sentencing principles in cases involving a loaded firearm and restricted weapons are deterrence, denunciation and protection of the public.
26Although the weight given to these objectives increases with the gravity of the offence, other principles, such as restraint must not be disregarded. The Court of Appeal has repeatedly emphasized the critical role that restraint plays where, like here, a relatively youthful offender is being sentenced to their first penitentiary sentence. In R. v. Borde, (2003) 2003 4187 (ON CA), 63 O.R. (3d) 417 (C.A.) Justice Rosenberg articulated this principle as follows at para. 36:
The length of a first penitentiary sentence for a youthful offender should rarely be determined solely by the objectives of denunciation and general deterrence. Where, as here, the offender has not previously been to penitentiary or served a long adult sentence, the courts ought to proceed on the basis that the shortest possible sentence will achieve the relevant objectives.
Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
27The fundamental purpose of a fit sentence is to promote public safety and respect for the law through the imposition of a just penalty that reflects a careful balance of the sentencing principles. This is best achieved through a consideration of both the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the case.
28The principal aggravating factors in this matter are:
a) The handgun was fully loaded with an over capacity magazine.
b) The serial number of the handgun was defaced.
c) Mr. McInerney-Brooks possessed the prohibited items in his residence where children were located.
d) Taking the firearm into his car created a genuine risk of deadly consequences.
e) That approximately three years earlier, Mr. McInerney-Brooks was convicted of possessing a restricted firearm and had recently finished serving his sentence.
f) Mr. McInerney-Brooks was subject to a prohibition order at the time of this offence.
29These aggravating factors must be weighed against the following mitigating considerations:
a) Mr. McInerney-Brooks pleaded guilty.
b) Mr. McInerney-Brooks’ sincere remorse as reflected in his statement to the court.
c) Mr. McInerney-Brooks insight into his wrongdoing and his commitment to rehabilitative efforts.
d) Mr. McInerney-Brooks is a relatively youthful offender who has the support of his family.
e) Mr. McInerney-Brooks is in a committed relationship which is a favourable indicator of his long-term rehabilitative potential.
f) His efforts to pursue education and his reconnection with his Indigenous culture reflect both motivation and capacity for rehabilitation.
g) That Mr. McInerney-Brooks’ family history reflects significant inter-generational trauma and a direct impact of residential schools and Indian Day Schools.
30In addition to these factors, it is well settled that unduly harsh conditions in presentence custody are a mitigating factor on sentence: R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754. The Court of Appeal explained in R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344, at para. 52, that this is not a fixed form of credit but a mitigating circumstance to be weighed with all other aggravating and mitigating factors. Its mitigating effect arises because such harsh conditions constitute a collateral consequence of the offence: R. v. Suter, 2018 SCC 34, [2018] 2 S.C.R. 496, at paras. 47-48; R. v. Doyle, 2022 ONSC 2489, at paras. 50-53.
31Counsel filed lockdown records from the Toronto South Detention Centre (TSDC). In addition, Mr. McInerney‑Brooks testified about the hardships he has experienced while in custody. The evidence revealed that:
i. As of the date of submissions, Mr. McInerney‑Brooks had spent 98 days in full or partial lockdown, meaning he was in some form of lockdown for approximately 31.4% of his PSC.
ii. Mr. McInerney‑Brooks spent 77 of his 312 days in custody in a triple‑bunked cell, meaning he was triple‑bunked for approximately 24.7% of his PSC.
iii. On some occasions, Mr. McInerney-Brooks was both in lockdown and triple-bunked.
iv. When triple‑bunked, he sometimes slept on the floor with his head next to the toilet.
v. Due to overcrowding, he often had limited access to the phone to contact his family.
vi. Overcrowding also restricted his access to showers.
32The number of these lockdowns, and particularly, “staff shortages” being the main reason for these lockdowns, demonstrates a persistent institutional disregard to the resources necessary to operate the TSDC. The failure to properly fund the institution deprives inmates of liberty and dignity all inmates are entitled. These deprivations negatively impacts the physical and mental health of those awaiting trial, and those serving their sentence.
33It is considerably aggravating that during many of these lockdowns, three inmates were locked in a cell built for only two. Even with two to a cell, the space is cramped. The addition of a third person sleeping on the floor is bad enough but enduring that during lockdown conditions can only be described as intolerable. Furthermore, many of these triple-bunking days were sequential. Again, one night of triple-bunking is bad enough, but multiple days in a row is unacceptable.
34Mr. McInerney-Brooks describes that his mental and physical health has been affected during his time in custody. He reports that he was deprived of his anxiety and depression medications. He stated that there were weeks when he was not provided with soap or a razor. There were also two lengthy periods of time when his range did not have working lights. Finally, he was not permitted to go outside to smudge on Truth and Reconciliation Day.
35Regrettably, these are not isolated issues unique to Mr. McInerney-Brooks. It is endemic and ongoing. Despite repeated judicial condemnations, absolutely nothing has been done to improve these deplorable conditions. It remains a systemic problem that continues to bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Until these issues are corrected, serving time under these conditions warrants considerable mitigation. As Justice Molloy recently stated in R. v. Reid 2026 ONSC 136:
As futile as it may seem, all I can do in response to this mistreatment is provide some relief by way of a sentence reduction to the unfortunate individuals who have been forced to live this way. I am aware that this is but a band-aid and that it appears to do little to persuade those with power to do anything to fix the root cause. It is particularly troubling that so many of the inmates in these institutions are enduring these conditions while waiting for their trials and, therefore, while presumed innocent. These conditions are not civilized and will likely result in justifiable resentment and outrage against “the system” rather than promoting or encouraging positive attitudes towards rehabilitation.
Conclusion
36I must remain guided by the fundamental purpose of sentencing, uphold the principle of proportionality, apply the relevant sentencing principles, and carefully balance the aggravating, mitigating, and collateral factors. Having conducted a comprehensive analysis, I am satisfied that a global sentence of four and a half years imprisonment is fit and appropriate.
37Where, as here, the offender is a recidivist, the sentencing range for a s. 95 offence is four to nine years’ imprisonment: R. v. Morris, 2023 ONCA 816. For the corresponding breach of a prohibition order, the applicable range is six to eighteen months, to be served consecutively to the s. 95 sentence: R. v. Claros, 2019 ONCA 626 at paras. 51–52; R. v. Carrol, 2014 ONSC 2063 at para. 30; R. v. Reid, supra.
38The circumstances of this case place it squarely within these ranges. Mr. McInerney‑Brooks was not licensed to possess a handgun, and the firearm was concealed, loaded, and equipped with an over‑capacity magazine. There is no conceivable lawful purpose for possessing such items. However, there is also no evidence that his possession was connected to other criminal activity. The Crown accepts that Mr. McInerney‑Brooks possessed the firearm for defensive reasons, given his prior victimization by gun violence and his belief that he was at risk. Although possession for defensive purposes is not mitigating, the lack of any connection to further criminal conduct modestly reduces his moral blameworthiness. His substance abuse and underlying mental health issues likewise impaired his judgment, heightened his paranoia, and contributed to impulsive decision‑making.
39Regardless of the circumstances, however, possessing a loaded and concealed handgun in public is a grave offence marked by a heightened degree of normative wrongfulness. Such conduct places the public in real and immediate danger. Even absent any intention to discharge the weapon, the mere presence of a loaded gun increases the risk of sudden escalation, accidental discharge, impulsive violence, and tragic outcomes that can unfold in seconds. Loaded firearms in public places undermine the sense of safety to which all members of the community are entitled, contribute to the atmosphere of fear and disorder associated with gun‑affected neighbourhoods, and impose profound emotional and economic costs on the communities most affected: Morris, supra at para. 68.
40Gun crime continues to plague the City of Toronto. This crisis has reached epidemic proportions. Illegal firearms continue to circulate widely in Toronto, contributing to unpredictable and often devastating consequences. The widespread presence of firearms in the community and the violence they perpetuate poses a serious threat both to individuals involved in criminal activity and to the public at large.
41The unlawful possession of loaded restricted firearms must be met with meaningful and exemplary sentences. The Court needs to send a clear message that the unlawful possession of firearms will not be tolerated. While individual circumstances, including Gladue factors, must always be carefully considered, the broader context of gun crime in this city demands that the Court respond in a manner that clearly communicates the grave risks associated with carrying a loaded firearm and the urgent need to discourage others from engaging in similar conduct.
42I am mindful that a sentence of four and a half years represents a significant increase from the sentence Mr. McInerney‑Brooks previously served. However, it does not offend the jump principle or the principle of restraint. It is a proportionate sentence that reflects his moral culpability, protects the public, and sends a clear message of deterrence and denunciation
43Having regard to the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, this sentence lies at the lowest end of the appropriate range for Mr. McInerney‑Brooks’ conduct. A sentence of five to six years as suggested by the Crown would not have been unreasonable. However, considering the deplorable conditions he experienced at the Toronto South Detention Centre, together with his guilty plea and acceptance of responsibility, his reduced moral blameworthiness, a four‑and‑a‑half‑year sentence appropriately reflects the governing sentencing principles for this offender and this offence.
44Mr. McInerney-Brooks’ sentence will be allocated as follows:
Count 3, possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, 4 years custody.
Count 6, possession of firearm while prohibited, 6 months consecutive to count 3.
45A four-and-a-half-year sentence equates to 1,644 days. Mr. McInerney-Brooks has been in custody since his arrest on April 15, 2025. He has spent a total of 344 actual days in PSC, which enhances to 516 days with Summers credit. This leaves a remaining custodial term of 1,128 days to be served.
46There will be DNA order on the s. 95(1) offence and a lifetime section 109 order.
47Given that Mr. McInerney-Brooks has been in custody for almost a year and will be serving a lengthy penitentiary sentence, I find that the victim fine surcharge would be an undue hardship so it will be waived.
Released: March 25, 2026
Signed: Justice Seth Weinstein