ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
CITATION: R. v. Bhaskar, 2026 ONCJ 478
DATE: 2026 08 13
COURT FILE No.: Central West, Peel Region
988 26 31103309
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
VIJAY BHASKAR
Before Justice S. Robichaud
Heard on August 13, 2026
Reasons for Judgment released on August 13, 2026
J. Thilakaratne..................................................................................... counsel for the Crown
The defendant V. Bhaskar........................................................................ on his own behalf
[1] Mr. Bhaskar has entered a guilty plea to one count of careless storage of a firearm contrary to s. 86(1) of the Criminal Code.
[2] The Crown seeks a fine of $1,000. Mr. Bhaskar asks that the court grant a discharge.
[3] The offence arose after police attended Mr. Bhaskar's residence in response to a family dispute. No charges resulted from that incident.
[4] During the investigation, Mr. Bhaskar’s son advised police that Mr. Bhaskar kept a shotgun in the residence. When police made inquiries, Mr. Bhaskar immediately directed officers to its location. The firearm was found in a black zippered gun bag.
[5] The shotgun was unloaded. Police determined that it was not secured with the locking mechanism required by law. There is no evidence that ammunition was stored nearby or was readily accessible. There is also no evidence that the firearm was used, displayed, threatened to be used, accessed, handled, or misused by anyone.
[6] Parliament has imposed strict requirements governing the storage of firearms in order to protect public safety. Firearms are inherently dangerous instruments. Those who choose to possess them must comply carefully with the statutory and regulatory requirements governing their storage.
[7] Mr. Bhaskar failed to do so. His guilty plea acknowledges that his storage practices fell below the standard required by law. Nevertheless, sentencing remains an individualized exercise. The fundamental principle of sentencing requires that the sentence imposed be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. In my view, this offence falls at the lower end of the spectrum of conduct captured by s. 86(1).
[8] I do not regard the presence of younger family members in the residence as a significant aggravating factor on these facts. There is no evidence that the firearm was accessed, handled, or misused by anyone other than Mr. Bhaskar.
[9] I have also considered Mr. Bhaskar's personal circumstances. He is 57 years old, employed, has no criminal record, has resided in Canada for approximately thirty years, and is otherwise a law-abiding citizen. He lawfully possessed the shotgun as a licensed firearm owner and explained that he originally obtained it for protection from animals while at a northern property.
[10] Mr. Bhaskar accepted responsibility for his conduct through his guilty plea and expressed insight into the importance of complying with firearm-storage requirements in the future. He advised the court that he completed the required firearms safety training, understood the seriousness of the matter, and would ensure that such circumstances do not arise again.
[11] I attach significance to the fact that Mr. Bhaskar has agreed to the forfeiture of both the shotgun and the ammunition seized by police. This was his only firearm. The permanent loss of the firearm and ammunition is itself a meaningful consequence flowing from this prosecution.
[12] The authority to grant a discharge is found in s. 730 of the Criminal Code. A discharge may be granted where it is in the offender's best interests and is not contrary to the public interest.
[13] In R. v. Critch, 2012 CanLII 53507 (NL PC), the offender was convicted of three breaches of s. 86(1) after police located two firearms and three boxes of ammunition in an unsecured state. A conditional discharge, probation, and a weapons prohibition were imposed.
[14] In R. v. Beck, 2016 CanLII 22556, police located five firearms that were not secured with trigger locks and were stored with ammunition. An absolute discharge was granted and the firearms and ammunition were forfeited. In R. v. Young, [2019] N.J. No. 85, the court granted an absolute discharge for firearm-storage offences involving multiple firearms and ammunition, observing that where probation serves no meaningful rehabilitative or supervisory purpose, an absolute discharge may be preferable to a conditional discharge.
[15] Ontario courts have likewise concluded that discharges may be appropriate in firearm cases. In R. v. Snobelen, [2008] O.J. No. 6021 (OCJ), the offender pleaded guilty to careless storage of a firearm and possession of a restricted firearm with readily accessible ammunition. The court emphasized that such offences are serious but that this fact alone does not preclude the judicious use of the discharge provisions and granted an absolute discharge. In R. v. Milotte, 2021 ONCJ 281, the court imposed a conditional discharge for careless storage and related firearm offences after concluding that a discharge was in the offender's best interests and not contrary to the public interest.
[16] I am satisfied that a discharge is in Mr. Bhaskar's best interests. A criminal conviction would carry consequences that would be disproportionate to the gravity of this particular offence and to Mr. Bhaskar's degree of moral blameworthiness.
[17] I am equally satisfied that a discharge is not contrary to the public interest. Public confidence in the administration of justice is promoted by a sentencing process that remains proportionate and responsive to the actual circumstances of the offence and offender before the court.
[18] This is not a case involving a loaded firearm, accessible ammunition, criminal purpose, threats, violence, or deliberate disregard for public safety. It is an isolated incident involving a lawful firearm owner who accepted responsibility, cooperated with police, and has agreed to forfeit his only firearm and ammunition.
[19] I am also satisfied that an absolute discharge, rather than a conditional discharge, is appropriate. The principal distinction between an absolute and a conditional discharge is the presence of probation. In determining which disposition is appropriate, I must consider whether probation would serve any meaningful sentencing purpose.
[20] In this case, there is no evidence of any rehabilitative need, any requirement for monitoring, or any ongoing public-safety concern that would justify probationary supervision.
[21] This disposition should not be understood as minimizing the importance of firearm-storage requirements. Those requirements exist to protect public safety and must be strictly observed. Rather, this disposition reflects the particular circumstances of this case and the principle that sentence must remain proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.
[22] Having regard to all of the circumstances, I conclude that an absolute discharge is in Mr. Bhaskar's best interests and is not contrary to the public interest.
[23] Mr. Bhaskar is granted an absolute discharge. The shotgun and ammunition shall be forfeited to the Crown.
Released: August 13, 2026
Justice S. Robichaud