ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
ELIJAH SMITH
Before Justice Joseph Hanna
Heard on May 13, 2026
Reasons for Sentence released on June 15, 2026
B. Hart counsel for the Crown
D. Heath……………………………………………………………..counsel for the accused
HANNA J.:
Introduction
1On June 29, 2024, Elijah Smith fired a handgun toward patrons standing in the doorway of the Mansion Kitchen and Bar. Following a trial, he was found guilty of the following Criminal Code offences:
intentionally discharging a firearm into or at a place knowing or being reckless as to whether another person was present in that place, contrary to s. 244.2(1)(a);
carrying a concealed weapon, contrary to s. 90(1);
carrying a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, contrary to s. 88(1); and
unauthorized possession of a loaded firearm, contrary to s. 95(1).
2The Crown seeks a global sentence of nine years’ imprisonment, together with a DNA order, a weapons prohibition, a non-communication order, and a forfeiture order.
3The defence submits that the appropriate range of sentence is between 5 and 6 years, less Summers[1] and Duncan[2] credit. The defence does not oppose the ancillary orders sought by the Crown.
The Offences
4On the day of the incident, Mr. Smith attended the Mansion Kitchen and Bar in Pickering to conduct a drug transaction. He was carrying a loaded handgun at the time.
5Inside the restaurant, he interacted with two males who later followed him as he exited.
6While standing outside at ground level, Mr. Smith fired a single shot in the direction of the two males, who were in the doorway of the establishment, approximately six steps above ground level.
7The projectile fired by Mr. Smith passed through both glass entry doors, struck the interior of the restaurant, and came to rest on the interior stairs. At the time of the shooting, there were patrons inside the restaurant. Fortunately, no one was injured. The males who had been interacting with Mr. Smith, and by the doorway at the time of the shooting were never identified.
8As I explained in my reasons for judgment, I was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Smith was not acting in self-defence when he fired his gun.
The Offender
9Mr. Smith is 27 years old.
10He was born in Toronto. His parents separated when he was 5 years old. His father lived in the United States and Mr. Smith would visit him regularly.
11Child protective services became involved in his care when he was 8 years old because of his mother’s mental health difficulties. From ages 8 to 18, his residence alternated between his mother’s home and, at times, his grandparents’.
12Mr. Smith reports having a good relationship with his mother and having had a good relationship with his father. His father unfortunately passed away recently while Mr. Smith was in custody. He has a supportive family.
13His mother advised the PSR author that Mr. Smith had a great childhood, and that he was well cared for, though she acknowledged the difficulties he experienced during the family disruptions when he was young.
14He has a three-year-old son. Prior to Mr. Smith’s arrest, his son would reside with him every other weekend. Mr. Smith was also regularly involved in his son’s life.
15He has close friends, who he describes as good people who do not have criminal records. His aunt advised the PSR author that Mr. Smith had previously associated with others whom she considered to be a negative influence.
16He completed grade 10 before being expelled from school. Prior to that he had been expelled and suspended several times because of his behaviour. He sold marijuana while he was going through school.
17Mr. Smith has worked for his grandfather painting road lines and held warehouse jobs. He operated his own landscaping business for one year and completed a few jobs. He plans to attend college for business school when released from custody, which he believes will assist him in running his landscaping business. He also hopes to obtain a real estate licence.
18Mr. Smith acknowledged having an alcohol abuse problem.
19Three years ago, Mr. Smith was shot, resulting in a serious injury to his leg which caused him to be concerned about his safety.
20While testifying, Mr. Smith admitted that he used to sell drugs and that on the night of the incident he had attended the Mansion Kitchen and Bar to conduct a drug deal.
21Regarding his experiences as a Black person, he told the PSR author that he felt he was “treated different” and “judged off the bat” because of his race and that he felt discriminated against by the police. He advised, however, that at school he did not have such issues.
22Mr. Smtih described himself to the PSR author as “caring, compassionate, and easy going.” He said he understood he had made mistakes and that he was learning from them. His aunt described him as compassionate, understanding and private. She believes he has matured since having a child. His mother described him as honest, intelligent, helpful and kind.
23Mr. Smith has been in custody since his arrest on October 22, 2024.
24Correctional records indicate that as of May 12, 2026, he experienced 417 partial lockdowns, 59 lockdowns lasting 6 hours or more, and that the total lockdown period during his incarceration was 2006.5 hours. The records also show that he was triple bunked 296 times.
25While in custody, Mr. Smith participated in programs related to anger Management, Problem Solving, parenting, life skills, goal setting, and looking for work.
26Regarding his offences, he advised the PSR author that he was happy no one got hurt. He also advised that having reflected while in custody, he understands the safety issues related to carrying firearms. When addressing the court at his sentencing hearing, Mr. Smith said that he was deeply sorry to the public for his impulsive decision. He also apologized to his family and those affected by his conduct.
General Principles
27Determining an appropriate sentence involves balancing the mitigating and aggravating factors as well as blending and prioritizing the various sentencing objectives listed in s. 718(a)–(f) of the Criminal Code.
28I must also apply the principles of parity, restraint, and totality: s. 718.2(b)–(e).
29Fundamentally, the sentences imposed must be proportionate having regard to both the gravity of the offences and the offender’s degree of responsibility: s. 718.1.
The Mitigating Factors and Collateral Circumstances
30The following mitigating factors are present in this case:
i. Mr. Smith was relatively youthful when he committed these offences, having been 25 years old at the time. See: R. v. Arbuthnot, 2009 MBCA 106, at para. 39.
ii. He has no criminal record.
iii. He has participated in and successfully completed programming while in custody aimed at his rehabilitation.
iv. He has positive educational and employment goals.
v. He conducted a focused trial, which warrants some credit given the importance of conserving court resources: R. v. Cunsolo, 2012 ONSC 114 at para. 52; R. v. Ngo, 2023 ONSC 282 at para. 28.
vi. He has expressed some insight and remorse regarding the danger his conduct presented.
vii. He has a supportive family.
viii. I infer that his experience with racism was connected to the commission of these offences: see R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, at para. 97. It is reasonable to conclude that racism contributed to his limited opportunities and his association with negative peer groups. His fear of being shot again also played a role in his poor decision-making. While these factors modestly attenuate his moral blameworthiness, they do not diminish the seriousness of the offences: see Morris, at paras. 39, 97 – 101. I observe that Mr. Smith acknowledged that he carried a firearm in part because of his involvement in drug dealing. Furthermore, with respect to his decision to discharge the firearm, I note that in my reasons for judgment I concluded that, at most, Mr. Smith experienced an irrational paranoia that either of the men on the restaurant porch was armed; however, any such impression was not reasonably grounded.
ix. While in pre-sentence custody, he has been subject to numerous lockdowns and triple bunked frequently. I infer that he was subject to these conditions at a similar rate between the date the correctional records were produced and the present. I consider the effect of these harsh conditions of pretrial custody as a mitigating factor to be taken into account together with all other mitigating and aggravating factors in determining the appropriate sentence: R. v. Clarke, 2026 ONCA 152, at para. 13; R. v. Brown, 2025 ONCA 164, at para. 3; R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344, at paras. 50 – 53.
31While incarcerated, Mr. Smith will remain separated from his young child. The impact on his family is a relevant consideration in determining the appropriate sentence. The sentence imposed, however, must be proportionate to the gravity of the offences and Mr. Smith’s degree of the responsibility: R. v. L.C., 2022 ONCA 863, at para. 24; R. v. Habib, 2024 ONCA 830, at paras. 41 - 50.
The Gravity of the Offences and the Aggravating Factors
32Loaded, illegal handguns are inherently dangerous. They are used to intimidate, seriously injure, or kill: R. v. Nur, 2015 SCC 15, at para. 7; R. v. Omar, 2018 ONCA 975, at para. 103, per Brown J.A., dissenting, rev’d 2019 SCC 32, [2019] 2 S.C.R. 576 (substantially for the reasons of Brown J.A). Their possession in public is “antithetical to the Canadian concept of a free and ordered society”: Morris, at para. 68.
33Mr. Smith has been convicted of multiple offences relating to his possession and discharging of a loaded gun. I will impose concurrent sentences on these offences. It is therefore appropriate to consider their features as aggravating factors in assessing the global seriousness of Mr. Smith’s conduct: R. v. McCue, 2012 ONCA 773, at paras. 21 – 22; R. v. Fortune, 2024 ONCA 269, at para. 33; R. v. Charley, 2025 ONSC 2490, at para. 45.
34The aggravating factors in this case are:
i. Mr. Smith brought a loaded firearm to a public establishment where a number of people were present.
ii. His possession of the firearm falls at the true crime end of the spectrum, as it was connected to his drug‑trafficking activities.
iii. I conclude that he intended to cause injury when he discharged the firearm. This is the only reasonable inference, having regard to his proximity to the men on the porch, the manner in which he aimed the weapon, and the trajectory of the bullet, as demonstrated by the video evidence showing its point of entry into the glass door only inches from one of the men.
iv. The degree of recklessness in this case was very high. There were individuals standing near Mr. Smith when he fired, and he was plainly aware that others were inside the establishment. His conduct demonstrated a grave disregard for the safety of others.
Sentencing Precedents
35Both sides submitted several sentencing authorities. I have considered all these authorities but will not refer to each.
Cases submitted by the defence
36In R. v. Ali, 2016 ONSC 8190, the offender was found guilty of various offences related to his having shot someone at a shopping mall. The victim was shot in the foot but did not sustain a serious injury. Families, including children were in the vicinity at the time of the shooting. The offender was 26 at the time of the offence and had a relatively minor criminal record. The court imposed a 7-year sentence for the shooting and 1 year consecutive for possessing a weapon while prohibited, less credit for time served in pre-sentence custody.
37In R. v. Derby, 2022 ONSC 2266, the offender fired a clip of bullets at a vehicle occupied by the victim. At the time, he was in possession of a loaded firearm containing an oversized cartridge and was subject to a weapons prohibition. He pleaded guilty to several offences, including discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life. The offender was 31 years old. He had a difficult upbringing, having grown up in poverty and spent time in the care of the Children’s Aid Society and in foster care. His criminal record was serious and included convictions for robbery, manslaughter, break and enter, dangerous driving, and flight from police. He spent nearly 3 years in pre-sentence custody under harsh conditions. He filed an affidavit describing his negative experiences while incarcerated during the COVID pandemic, including having contracted the virus while in custody. Taking these mitigating factors into account, the court imposed a total sentence of 8½ years for discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life, along with a consecutive 1-year term for breach of the weapons prohibition, subject to credit for time served.
38In R. v. Dhaliwal, 2018 ONSC 303, varied 2019 ONCA 398, the offender fired a single bullet into a hallway ceiling located between, but not inside, stores and apartments in a small strip mall building. He was 21 years old at the time of the offence. The offender had a lengthy criminal record, which is summarized at paras. 32–34 of the sentencing judge’s decision. Following a trial, he received a sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment for the reckless discharge offence, along with concurrent sentences for related offences arising from the same incident, and a consecutive 1-year term for breaching his weapons prohibition. On appeal, the 7-year sentence for the offences arising from the shooting incident was reduced to 6 years. The Court of Appeal emphasized that the specific location where the firearm was discharged distinguished the case from others falling within the usual 7–11-year range for serious gun-related offences referred to in R. v. Bellisimo, 2009 ONCA 49.
39In R. v. Ferdinand, 2018 ONSC 7476, the offender was convicted of aggravated assault after shooting a friend in an apartment occupied by several people while he was intoxicated. The victim sustained severe and permanent injuries. The offender was 19 years old at the time of the offence and had no prior criminal record. The sentencing judge found that he had produced the firearm to frighten others and that it discharged unintentionally as he removed it from his bag. The judge emphasized that the lack of intent to shoot distinguished the case from those within the Bellissimo range. In the result, a sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment was found to be appropriate.
40In R. v. Haque, 2019 ONCJ 466, the offender initially brandished a firearm. At the same time, another individual fired in his direction. Mr. Haque discharged his firearm twice. The court found that the first shot was fired with intent to endanger life but that the second was fired unintentionally. The offender himself was shot in the arm and was the only person injured during the incident. He was 19 years old at the time of the offence, had no prior criminal record, and pleaded guilty. The court concluded that a sentence of 5½ years’ imprisonment was appropriate. The sentence was reduced to reflect time served, along with a further deduction in light of the serious injuries the offender sustained during a beating while in custody.
41In R. v. Jama, 2021 ONSC 4871, two offenders, Jama and Farah, were convicted of recklessly discharging a firearm. Farah was also convicted of additional firearms and drug-related offences. During the incident, Farah, seated in the passenger seat of a vehicle driven by Jama, fired three shots at a sedan. There was no evidence that anyone in the target vehicle was injured. Jama was 23 years old at the time of the offence. Although he had a prior record for robbery, obstructing a peace officer, and failing to comply with a recognizance, the robbery conviction post-dated the present offence, and he was therefore treated as a first offender. Farah was 19 years old and had no prior criminal record. Farah was sentenced to 6½ years’ imprisonment on the discharge firearm count, while Jama received a sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment.
42In R. v. Osman, 2022 ONSC 648, the offender pleaded guilty to discharging a restricted firearm with intent to wound and possession of a firearm contrary to a prohibition order. The offences arose from an altercation outside a shopping centre involving the offender, his brother, their friend, and two other males. During the incident, one of the other males stabbed the offender’s friend, following which Mr. Osman fired a shot toward them. No one was injured. Mr. Osman was 33 years old and had a dated criminal record. While in custody, he participated in rehabilitative programming, experienced harsh conditions, and contracted COVID. He was sentenced to 6 years’ imprisonment on the discharge offence, with a consecutive 6-month term for breaching the prohibition order.
Cases Submitted by the Crown
43In R. v. Bellissimo, 2009 ONCA 49, the offender fired several shots inside a restaurant, causing serious injury to one victim, minor injury to another, and narrowly missing a third. The Court of Appeal held that the appropriate sentencing range for such serious gun related offences is between seven and eleven years and imposed a total sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment.
44In R. v. Jefferson, 2014 ONCA 434, the offender shot a former friend and fellow drug dealer when he approached in a vehicle following a 40-minute altercation. The Court of Appeal affirmed the range set in Bellissimo and upheld a 10-year sentence.
45In R. v. Weeden, 2019 ONSC 773, the offender was convicted of aggravated assault, possession of a firearm, and discharging a firearm with intent. The offences arose after a dispute outside a club, during which the offender fired toward a group, missing them but striking an Uber driver in the shoulder. The victim was initially released from hospital but later required surgery. The offender was 23 years old, had a dated prior conviction, and was subject to a weapons prohibition at the time of the offence. He also experienced harsh custodial conditions while in pre-sentence detention. The court imposed a global sentence of 9½ years’ imprisonment for the shooting-related offences.
46In R. v. Sauve, 2019 ONSC 960, the offender was convicted of offences arising from his participation, with an accomplice, in firing 13 rounds into a residence. A 10‑year‑old boy, who was not the intended target, was struck in the shoulder. The offender was 20 years old at the time of the offence. The court imposed a sentence of 11 years’ imprisonment for discharging a firearm, along with a consecutive 1‑year term for using a firearm in the commission of an indictable offence.
The Ranges Identified in the Case Law
47The authorities describe a three-to-five-year range for cases involving loaded firearms in situations where "the use and possession of the gun is associated with criminal activity, such as drug trafficking": R. v. Graham, 2018 ONSC 6817, at para. 38, affirmed 2020 ONCA 692; R. v. Beharry, 2022 ONSC 4370, at para. 31; R. v. Varela Granado, 2025 ONSC 1917, at para. 31.
48Mr. Smith’s gun possession was on his own admission related to his drug dealing.
49As noted, the Court of Appeal has established a sentence range of 7 to 11 years for serious gun related offences involving the discharge of a firearm: see Bellissimo, Jefferson, R. v. Jarvis, 2022 ONCA 7, at para. 6, and most recently R. v. Shirizadeh, 2025 ONCA 676, at para. 18.
50The caselaw demonstrates that the presence or absence of injury is a significant, though not determinative, factor in deciding whether the Bellissimo range applies. The range has been applied in numerous cases where no injury resulted (see Derby; R. v. Neliko, 2025 ONSC 1205 at paras. 79–82, and the cases cited therein).
51There are, however, cases in which a lower range has been applied where no injury occurred. In those instances, factors such as whether the offender intended to cause injury and whether a guilty plea was entered appear to be significant considerations.
52Comparison with other cases assists in advancing the objective of parity, which in turn helps calibrate the principle of proportionality. However, given the unique circumstances of each offence and offender, sentencing ranges function as guidelines, not rigid rules: R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, at paras. 58 & 60; R. v. Ruthowsky, 2024 ONCA 432, at para. 173.
The Appropriate Sentences in this Case
53Mr. Smith is a relatively youthful first offender. I must therefore emphasize restraint and make space for rehabilitation as a primary and paramount objective: R. v. Al-Kisadi, 2025 ONCA 229, at para. 84. Where a custodial sentence is required, the length of a first penitentiary term for a youthful offender should seldom be driven solely by the objectives of denunciation and general deterrence. Rather, the sentencing judge must impose the shortest sentence necessary to achieve the relevant objectives: Al‑Akhali, at para. 72; R. v. K.L., 2026 ONCA 300, at para. 52.
54Pursuant to s. 244(3)(a)(i), a five‑year mandatory minimum sentence applies in this case. Recognizing that this is a “serious minimum” (Daliwal, at para. 2), I find that a sentence significantly above the minimum is required in this case.
55Mr. Smith armed himself with a loaded firearm in a public place. I have found that he discharged it with the intent of causing injury and that he demonstrated a high degree of recklessness toward others. His conduct was very dangerous, and his moral blameworthiness is high. It is fortunate that no one was injured as a result of his conduct. While this outcome was largely a matter of chance, it nonetheless distinguishes this case from those in which the Crown’s proposed range has been imposed. Mr. Smith is first offender who was relatively youthful at the time of the offence, and this case involves other mitigating factors, which I have already identified.
56Having considered all of the circumstances, I conclude that a fit global sentence in this case is seven years’ imprisonment. I have determined this to be the least restrictive sentence that is proportionate to the gravity of the offences and Mr. Smith’s degree of responsibility.
57Mr. Smith has spent 602 days in pre-sentence custody for which he is entitled to 903 days of Summers credit.
58I impose the following sentences on the individual counts:
Count 1 (reckless discharge of a firearm): 7 years (or 2555 days) reduced by 903 days Summers credit, resulting in a sentence of 1652 days.
Count 2 (carrying a concealed weapon): 2 years concurrent.
Count 3 (weapons dangerous): 2 years concurrent.
Count 4 (possession of a loaded prohibited firearm): 4 years concurrent.
59I will make a DNA order in relation to each offence. Count 1 is a primary designated offence and the remaining counts are secondary designated offences.
60Pursuant to s. 109(2)(a) Mr. Smith is prohibited from possessing the weapons referred to in that provision for a period of 10 years.
61Pursuant to s. 109(2)(b), Mr. Smith is prohibited from possessing the weapons referred to in that provision for life.
62The victim fine surcharge is waived.
63Pursuant to s. 743.21, Mr. Smith is prohibited from communicating with Sinthusan Shanmuganathan while in custody.
64Finally, a forfeiture order will be issued on the terms agreed to by counsel.
Dated: June 15, 2026
Justice J. Hanna
Ontario Court of Justice.
Footnotes
- R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26.
- R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754.