ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
TIVAUGHN FRASER-MCANUFF
Before Justice M. Sean Gaudet
Heard on June 2, 2026
Reasons for Sentence released on June 18, 2026
Daniel Macadam................................................................................. counsel for the Crown
The accused Tivaughn Fraser-McAnuff .............................................. on his own behalf
Gaudet J.:
Overview
1On November 28, 2025, I found Mr. Fraser-McAnuff guilty of one count of intentional or reckless discharge of a firearm into the Burrell family home, striking Mr. Neville Burrell in his right hip, as well as other firearms-related offences, including being in possession of a firearm and ammunition while under prohibition.
2Following my findings of guilt, Mr. Fraser-McAnuff discharged his lawyer who represented him at trial, Mr. Embry. His application to change lawyers was denied by Legal Aid Ontario, and his appeal of Legal Aid’s decision was unsuccessful. He proceeded with his sentencing hearing without counsel.
3Prior to his arrest in July 2024 for the offences he is being sentenced on here, Mr. Fraser-McAnuff had been found guilty by Justice Corrick of the Superior Court on April 6, 2023 of conspiracy to commit a break and enter with intent and possession of a loaded prohibited firearm. A Pre-Sentence Report was ordered by Justice Corrick, which was dated June 2, 2023. The PSR was also filed on this sentencing, and I have reviewed it in reaching my sentencing decision in respect of these offences.
4Almost a year and a half after being found guilty, Mr. Fraser-McAnuff was sentenced by Justice Corrick on September 25, 2024 to serve 912 days, less 383 days of credit pursuant to 2014 SCC 26 and R. v. Downes, (2006), 2006 CanLII 3957 (ON CA), 205 C.C.C. (3d) 488, leaving him 529 days, (i.e. slightly more than 17 months) to serve. The Crown had argued that Mr. Fraser-McAnuff was not entitled to Downes credit because he had breached the conditions of his recognizance by committing the offences at issue here. In rejecting this argument, Justice Corrick noted that the fact that Mr. Fraser-McAnuff was on judicial interim release at the time of the commission these offences would undoubtedly be considered aggravating circumstances on sentence in this case.
The Circumstances of the Offences
5Just after midnight on June 16, 2024, Mr. Neville Burrell was alerted by his young daughter that someone had rang the doorbell and was at the door. Mr. Burrell went to the main door, opened it and saw someone there he did not recognize. It was Mr. Fraser-McAnuff, who was on his front doorstep asking him repeatedly and in an angry and aggressive tone “Where is Jennell?” Jennell is Mr. Burrell’s eldest daughter, who was at home in the basement at the time. His eldest son Samuel was standing behind his father at the door. The screen door remained locked.
6Mr. Burrell had never met Mr. Fraser-McAnuff before and asked him who he was. When Mr. Fraser-McAnuff moved his hand to his right hip Mr. Burrell saw what he thought was a gun. Mr. Burrell turned around and closed the door.
7Mr. Fraser-McAnuff then fired eight shots into the windows of the Burrell home from a handgun. One of the bullets fired by Mr. Fraser-McAnuff struck Mr. Burrell in the right hip. His son Samuel came up to him crying and asked him “Daddy what happened?”. Mr. Burrell told him he had been shot.
8The entire Burrell family consisting of Mr. Burrell, his wife, and his five children was at home at the time of the shooting. They had been celebrating Father’s Day earlier that day.
9Mr. Fraser-McAnuff had been speaking with his girlfriend Jennell earlier that evening on their cellphone, while she was at home watching TV with some of her siblings. For reasons not adequately explained by Jennell Burrell, Mr. Fraser-McAnuff had made unsuccessful several attempts to call Jennell on her cell phone, starting immediately after midnight.
10Six 40 calibre shell casings were recovered from the scene, and there were 8 bullet holes in the windows.
11It was agreed that at the time of the offences Mr. Fraser-McAnuff was bound by bail conditions that required him to be within his residence between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. (except when in the company of one of his sureties), and which prohibited him from possessing firearms and ammunition.
Mr. Fraser-McAnuff’s Personal Circumstances
12Mr. Fraser-McAnuff’s personal circumstances are set out in the PSR and in Justice Corrick’s Reasons for Sentence.
13Mr. Fraser-McAnuff is 27 years old, and was 25 at the time of these offences in June 2024. He is single, has never been married, and has no children.
14Mr. Fraser-McAnuff was born in Toronto to parents of Jamaican descent. He was primarily raised by his mother and grandfather as an only child, and lived in his grandfather’s home until the age of 17. His mother moved out when he was 8 to live down the street. He spent time at her home but spent most of his time at his grandfather’s. He considers his grandfather as his primary parent. As a child he recalled having weekend visitations with his father.
15Mr. Fraser-McAnuff has a grade 11 education. In December 2022, he earned a certificate from the College of Carpenters and Allied Trades. He has completed 228 hours in concrete framework.
16Mr. Fraser-McAnuff grew up in a “rough” neighbourhood, and experienced violence first-hand. He was jumped outside of a library by a group of assailants and stabbed when he was 16, and had his wounds treated at the hospital. He reported that as a result of this incident he has come to distrust people and the authorities.
17Mr. Fraser-McAnuff also experienced incidents of anti-black racism in his youth, which he described as having had significant impact upon him. He felt that he was treated differently at school and by police because of his race. The violence he has witnessed and the racism he has suffered have caused him to be withdrawn and untrusting.
Impact on the victim and the Burrell family
18The wife of the victim, Mr. Burrell, read from a victim impact statement on her behalf and on behalf of the members of the Burrell family. The written statement was also admitted. Ms. Burrell described this incident as a nightmare for her family that they relive every day. Bullets had been fired into their home by a stranger to them. One of Mr. Burrell’s sons witnessed his father collapsing to the floor in pain after he had been shot. After he was taken to the hospital Ms. Burrell gathered her children together and they all cried. They had to leave their home because they were afraid that the assailant would come back. They remained out of their house for four months. Their sense of security in their own home has been forever shattered.
19Samuel Burrell described the anxiety he experiences every time he leaves the house, fearing that an incident like this could happen again, and explained that he did not want to answer the door for months afterwards because he was afraid of who might be on the other side.
20Thankfully Mr. Burrell was able to recover from his injury. However, the bullet remains lodged near his spine, and he must live with it for the rest of his life.
Sentencing Principles
21In determining the fit sentence for Mr. Fraser-McAnuff, I am governed by the sentencing principles set out in the Criminal Code.
22Section 718.1 of the Code provides that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. Proportionality is the fundamental principle of sentencing.
23The fundamental purpose of sentencing set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code is to protect society and to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful, and safe society by imposing sentences with objectives that include denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, the promotion of responsibility, and the acknowledgement of the harm that criminal activity does to victims and to our community.
24In cases like this one where an offender faces consecutive sentences for multiple offences, section 718.2 of the Criminal Code directs that due consideration be given to the principle of totality. As the sentencing judge, I must ensure that the cumulative sentence does not exceed the overall culpability of the offender.
25A sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any aggravating or mitigating circumstances related to the offence or the offender. It should also be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances.
Position of the Crown and Mr. Fraser-McAnuff
26Mr. Macadam for the Crown sought a global sentence of eleven years of custody, broken down as follows:
a) ten years for the intentional discharge of the firearm knowing or being reckless that there was a person in the place (count 1);
b) 5 years for the counts of possession of a loaded prohibited firearm (count 2), and possession of a firearm in a motor vehicle (count 3), each to be served concurrently with count 1.
c) One year for possession of a firearm contrary to prohibition (count 5) to be served consecutively to count 1.
d) Six months for possession of ammunition contrary to prohibition (count 7), to be served consecutively to count 1 and concurrently with count 5.
e) Thirty days for failure to comply with the conditions of his recognizance (count 6), to be served concurrently with count 1
27The offence of unlawful possession of a firearm (count 2) would be stayed pursuant to R. v. Kienapple, 1974 CanLII 14 (SCC), [1975] 1 SCR 729.
28Mr. Fraser-McAnuff asked me to impose a conditional sentence with an ankle monitor to ensure his compliance.
Analysis
29The maximum sentence for intentionally discharging a restricted firearm into a place knowing or being reckless that a person is present in the place under section 244.2(1) is 14 years in prison. Given Mr. Fraser-McAnuff’s prior conviction for a firearms-related offence his minimum sentence is seven years.
30The maximum sentence for the section 117 offences of possession of a firearm and ammunition contrary to a prohibition order is ten years where prosecuted by indictment.
31I have reviewed all of the cases provided to me by the Crown, although I refer to only some of them.
32In R. v. Bellissimo, 2009 ONCA 49, the Court of Appeal has held general deterrence and denunciation must be given a paramount weight in sentencing for cases of gun violence, and that the range of sentence for gun related offences such as this is between seven and eleven years.
33In R. v Abderazak, Justice Fuerst addressed the fit sentence for an offender who plead guilty to robbery using a restricted firearm; intentional discharge of a restricted firearm at a law office knowing or being reckless whether another person was present in the place; unauthorized possession of a restricted firearm; and possession of a restricted weapon while prohibited by a release order. He was sentenced globally to 12 years – seven years on the reckless discharge of a firearm, and five years for the robbery. Unlike this case, no one was injured.
34In R. v. Weeden, 2019 ONSC 773, the 26-year old offender attended a rap contest at a bar, which his older brother was competing in. After leaving the bar, a dispute occurred between a group of men and the offender, his brother, and the men they were with. The offender ran to his car and retrieved a gun. He returned quickly and brandished the gun at the other group. A short while later, he fired the gun towards the group. He did not hit anyone involved in the dispute. Rather, the bullet went through the car door of an Uber driver and hit the driver in the shoulder. The offender was out on two separate releases at the time of the shooting. He was also on a weapons prohibition order which was considered to be highly aggravating. Following a trial, Justice McArthur imposed a nine-and-a-half year sentence for the discharge firearm, aggravated assault and possession of a loaded firearm offences, less pre-sentence custody.
Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
35Significant aggravating factors are present here:
a) The discharge of the firearm caused actual serious injury to Mr. Burrell. He was struck by a bullet that remains lodged near his spine and cannot be removed. This has had a significant impact on his life, including his physical mobility and his emotional wellbeing.
b) The incident has had a profound impact upon other members of the Burell family. The entire family was at home at the time, including two young children. It is highly fortunate that there were no other victims.
c) Mr. Fraser-McAnuff fired multiple times into the Burrell family home, the place where they should be able to feel most secure. Their sense of safety and security in their home has been shattered. They had to abandon their residence for several months in fear that the shooter would return. They no longer feel safe inside and outside their own home.
d) At the time of the offences Mr. Fraser-McAnuff was bound by a recognizance of bail while awaiting sentence, after having been found guilty of a firearms related offence. In committing these offences he placed himself in breach of his bail conditions by violating his house-arrest conditions, by possessing weapons, and by being in possession of ammunition. As noted by Justice Corrick in his sentencing decision, this is a highly aggravating factor.
e) Mr. Fraser-McAnuff is no longer a first-time offender. At the time he committed these offences he had been found guilty of conspiracy to commit a break and enter with intent and possession of a loaded prohibited firearm before and was awaiting sentencing.
f) The gun he used in the offences has not been recovered and remains potentially available to be used by others. This ongoing risk to public safety is an aggravating factor.
36There are very few mitigating factors present here:
a) Mr. Fraser-McAnuff is relatively youthful. He was 25 at the time of the offences.
b) As noted by Justice Corrick in his reasons for sentence, Mr. Fraser-McAnuff’s background has been marred by violence and racism. For racism to be a mitigating factor, there must be some evidence of a connection between the racism experienced by Mr. Fraser-McAnuff and the circumstances or events that are said to explain or mitigate the criminal conduct in issue (R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680 at para 97). While there was no direct evidence of the effect this has had on him or how it may connect to his criminal behaviour, I share Justice Corrick’s assessment that any impact of this on him could only have been negative.
c) Unlike his earlier charges before Justice Corrick, there is no mitigation because of a guilty plea. This is not an aggravating factor, of course, but merely the absence of a mitigating factor.
d) Mr. Fraser-McAnuff demonstrates few indications of rehabilitative potential. He has not accepted responsibility for his actions or grappled with the harm that he has caused. He has taken no programs while in custody that would demonstrate any prospect of rehabilitation. His submissions were focused on complaints about his current conditions of confinement, his dissatisfaction with his trial counsel. He expressed no remorse for his actions, and did not apologize or recognize the Burrells when they were in Court at his sentencing submissions.
37The seriousness of offences involving the unlawful possession of loaded handguns in public places has been repeatedly emphasized by the Supreme Court of Canada: see, R. v. Burke-Whittaker, 2025 ONCA 142, at para. 35 quoting R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, at para. 68. As the Court of Appeal stated in Bellissimo at para. 5, the objectives of denunciation, general deterrence, and protection of the public are paramount in sentencing for these kinds of dangerous gun-related charges.
38Our Court of Appeal has recognized that gun violence is a scourge in our society and gun crimes must be treated with the utmost seriousness (R v. Akram, 2024 ONCA 892 at para 8).
39The prevalence of handguns-related crimes in the city of Toronto and the serious harms they have caused call out for exemplary sentences.
40In my view, the gravity of the crimes and Mr. Fraser-McAnuff’s moral culpability puts this case at the high end of the range of the seven to eleven year sentencing range set out in Bellissimo.
41Balancing the aggravating and mitigating factors and having regard to the principles and objectives of sentencing, I conclude that the appropriate sentence for reckless discharge of a firearm (Count 1) is ten years in jail. The offence of unlawful possession of a firearm (count 2) is stayed conditionally as per Kienapple. The sentence for possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and possession of a firearm in a motor vehicle (Counts 3 and 4) is five years, each served concurrently with Count 1.
42I am satisfied that the appropriate sentence for the counts of possession of a firearm (count 5) and possession of ammunition contrary to prohibition (count 7) is one year and six months respectively. I will make these sentences consecutive to count 1 (as per R. v. Claros, 2019 ONCA 626 at para 51). Count 7 will be concurrent with count 5.
43The sentence for failure to comply with recognizance of bail is 30 days (count 6). This will be concurrent to count 1.
44In order to calculate the applicable Summers credit to which Mr. Fraser-McAnuff is entitled for his pre-sentence incarceration, I must determine when the sentence imposed on Mr Fraser-McAnuff for the firearms offence and conspiracy to commit a break and enter expired, and when his pre-sentence custody for these offences began. That sentence was 529 days. Assuming that he would have served two thirds of this sentence, he would have spent 349 days in custody. This means his sentence expired on September 9, 2025, and that he has served 282 days in custody, and is entitled to 423 days of Summers credit.
45Mr Fraser-McAnuff also seeks credit for the days he has been subjected to partial or full lockdowns while incarcerated at the Toronto South Detention Centre. Mr. Fraser-McAnuff was admitted to the Conditions of Confinement Unit at the Toronto South Detention Centre on October 2nd 2025 “as it was not feasible for him to be housed with other inmates at that time due to bizarre behaviour and a pending misconduct”. He has been cleared for relocation to a classified unit but he has refused to leave the segregation unit. Because of his refusal to leave segregation, he would not have been impacted by the partial or full lockdowns after that date. Based on the lockdown records submitted between September 9 and October 2 2026 there were 3 partial and 9 full lockdowns. I am prepared to give Mr. Fraser-McAnuff 30 days of Downes credit given the almost universally recognized conditions at the TSDC.
Disposition
46In summary, Mr. Fraser-McAnuff is sentenced to eleven years imprisonment as explained above, less a credit of 423 days for pre-sentence custody and 30 days of Downes credit. The time remaining to be served by Mr. Fraser-McAnuff is therefore 9 years and 277 days.
Released: June 18, 2026
Signed: Justice Gaudet