Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2025-05-30
Docket: COA-24-CR-0422
Before: David M. Paciocco, J. George, D.A. Wilson JJ.A.

Between

His Majesty the King
Appellant

and

R.M.
Respondent

Appearances:
Holly Loubert, for the appellant
Maija Martin and Stephanie Brown, for the respondent

Heard: In writing

On appeal from the disposition imposed on March 19, 2024 by Justice Anastasia M. Nichols of the Ontario Court of Justice (Youth Justice Court)

Reasons for Decision

[1] The respondent pleaded guilty to first-degree murder. The trial judge imposed the maximum youth sentence: six years in custody and four years of conditional supervision. She also imposed a two-year weapons prohibition, among other ancillary orders, under s. 51(3) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, S.C. 2002, c. 1 (the “YCJA”). Two years is the maximum prohibition under that provision.

[2] The appellant submits that the sentencing judge erred by imposing the weapons prohibition under s. 51(3) of the YCJA, since, by its terms, a s. 51(1) prohibition order must be imposed for offences subject to mandatory prohibition orders pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. First-degree murder is one of those offences. Section 51(2) provides that s. 51(1) prohibitions must not end until two years after the custodial portion of the sentence. Although an eight-year prohibition order would therefore be a legal prohibition in the appellant’s case, given the relevant aggravating features the appellant asks that a 12-year weapons prohibition be imposed.

[3] The respondent agrees that the sentencing judge erred in imposing the weapons prohibition under s. 51(3) and that the applicable section was s. 51(1). The respondent does not oppose the two-year weapons prohibition being struck, as it must be, and does not oppose imposing a 12-year weapons prohibition in its place. The appeal therefore proceeded in writing.

[4] We agree with the positions taken by the parties. The trial judge ordered the prohibition under the wrong section and a 12-year prohibition is clearly warranted. The respondent had purchased a handgun and frequently carried it with him. He shot 16 bullets at close range into the deceased, who was in his driveway. The respondent had planned the murder over a period of months after a dispute between the two, which culminated in the deceased assaulting the respondent and injuring him. The respondent tried to persuade others to assist in the murder and planned his alibi carefully.

Disposition

[5] The appeal from sentence is allowed. The two-year weapons prohibition under s. 51(3) is set aside, and a 12-year weapons prohibition under s. 51(1) of the YCJA is imposed in its place.

“David M. Paciocco J.A.”
“J. George J.A.”
“D.A. Wilson J.A.”

Publication Ban

[1] This appeal is subject to publication bans pursuant to ss. 110 and 111 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, S.C. 2002, c. 1.