ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
DATE: 2025-03-12
NEWMARKET
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
ANSON KEUNG
SENTENCING
Submissions Heard: January 14, 2025.
Sentencing: March 12, 2025
Mr. Javier Arvizu .................................................................................... counsel for the Crown
Mr. Joseph Giuliana ......................................................................... counsel for the defendant
KENKEL J.:
Introduction
[1] Mr. Keung was detained just after he stepped out of a vehicle. A pat-down search revealed a loaded firearm concealed on his person.
[2] Mr. Keung was convicted at trial of carrying a concealed firearm s 90(2), occupying a motor vehicle knowing a prohibited weapon was present s 94(2), and possession of a loaded restricted firearm without authorization s 95(2).
[3] The Crown submits that the threat posed by loaded firearms requires a global sentence of 42 months less credit for pre-trial custody and restrictions while on release for a global net sentence of 36 months. The defence submits that a conditional sentence for the maximum term would be sufficient given the accused’s subsequent good behaviour while on bail.
Aggravating Circumstances
[4] Some of the circumstances that aggravate sentence on certain counts are present as elements of the offence on other counts (loaded firearm, concealed, carried and conveyed in public).
[5] The circumstance that aggravates sentence on all counts is the threat posed to public safety when a person decides to carry a loaded handgun in a public place. That poses a risk to this community and significantly undermines the community’s sense of safety and security.
Mitigating Circumstances
[6] There are several mitigating circumstances:
- Mr. Keung has no criminal record.
- He is a youthful offender (20 at the time).
- He was not the target of the investigation that led to his arrest. He was not charged with being a party to any offence other than possession of the handgun.
- It’s been more than 3 years since his arrest. He has obeyed the terms of his house arrest release and has not been charged with any further offences.
- He served 3 days in pre-trial custody.
Analysis
[7] General deterrence, denunciation and protection of the public are the primary objectives of sentencing for possession of a concealed loaded restricted firearm in a public place. Firearms offences have become pervasive in York Region and the Greater Toronto Area. They have had devastating and often fatal consequences. They undermine the safety of everyone in the community.
[8] The sentencing range for a first offender convicted of possessing a loaded firearm in circumstances where there was no other criminal activity falls at the low end of the penitentiary range – R v Burke-Whittaker, 2025 ONCA 142 at para 38.
[9] Other objectives of sentencing are important, especially when sentencing a first offender. The sentence must leave room for rehabilitation. The principle of restraint applies. Yet considering the significant threat handguns pose to public safety these principles must play a lesser role than they would for other offences.
[10] Mr. Keung’s involvement in this offence remains a mystery despite the background provided in the Pre-Sentence Report. He was cooperative with the probation officer, but he provided only brief answers. His responses showed little insight into the gravity of the offence although he was aware of the serious potential sentence that may result.
[11] He left school after grade 11. He mentioned working a few places, but his statements about employment are vague. It doesn’t appear he’s had a steady job since leaving school. He uses marijuana regularly, but there is no evidence of addiction to alcohol or drugs. There’s no evidence of a major mental health disorder although he did receive some counselling in relation to an incident where he was stabbed when he was younger. While his association with negative peers led to his arrest, the probation officer found no current evidence of gang affiliation.
[12] He did not apply for any variation in the house arrest condition on his bail for work or education. He attended some online high school courses then abandoned them, but he seems to have started again. He is content to spend most of his time playing video games. He is socially isolated and doesn’t have a strong connection with his family.
[13] We don’t know why Mr. Keung decided to carry a loaded handgun. The purpose of the weapon is plain. The fact that he carried the gun shows there is still a lot we don’t know about him. Despite the passage of time, there’s little evidence of positive steps taken towards rehabilitation or building a new future. That’s not an aggravating circumstance, but it distinguishes this case from others where the accused has worked hard at reform prior to sentence.
[14] The conditional sentence proposed by the defence is not sufficient to meet the need for general deterrence and denunciation for these offences. It would do little to bring home the gravity of the offence and promote a sense of responsibility in Mr. Keung.
[15] The Crown’s submission is within the range, but for this offence and this offender I find a global sentence in the range of 36 months would be an appropriate starting point. I agree that in determining the final sentence, 6 months should be deducted for the lengthy period of house arrest. The resulting 30-month sentence would also take into account the 3 days spent in pre-trial custody without a formal deduction from the final sentence.
[16] I find a global sentence of 30 months is the least restrictive sentence that would be proportionate to the gravity of the offences and the degree of responsibility of Mr. Keung.
Conclusion
[17] Mr. Keung is sentenced to a jail term of 30 months on each count concurrent for a total global sentence to be served of 30 months.
[18] The firearm and ammunition are ordered forfeit to the Crown for destruction – s 491 of the Criminal Code. The s 95 offence engages s 109 of the Criminal Code. Mr. Keung will be prohibited from possessing firearms or other weapons as set out in that section for a period of 10 years.
[19] The ss 90, 94, 95 offences are Secondary Designated Offences for the purpose of DNA registration when prosecuted by indictment. Considering the serious threat to public safety posed by someone carrying a loaded handgun in public, the strong community interest in the identification of persons involved with firearms offences and the limited intrusion on Mr. Keung’s privacy given the limits on the data collected and limits on access, I find it necessary to order that Mr. Keung provide a sample of his DNA for registration on the national databank.
Delivered: March 12, 2025.
Justice Joseph F. Kenkel