ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
DATE: 2025-03-13
COURT FILE No.: Toronto Region 21-45003667
BETWEEN:
His Majesty the King
— AND —
Saieed Hagi
Before Justice Cidalia C. G. Faria
Heard on November 23, 2023, and February 18, 2025
Reasons for Sentence released on March 13, 2025
Frank Schembri — counsel for the Crown
Cyd Israel — counsel for the accused Saieed Hagi
I. Introduction
[1] On November 23, 2023, Saieed Hagi pled guilty to possessing a loaded firearm on July 24, 2021, in breach of a s. 109 firearm prohibition contrary to ss. 95(1) and 117.01(1) of the Criminal Code.
[2] I received an Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report (EPSR), along with relevant exhibits and heard submissions for sentencing on February 18, 2025. It took over 14 months for the EPSR that provides the relevant social context factors of Mr. Hagi’s life to assist with the sentencing task.
[3] The Crown recommends 5 years in the penitentiary minus pre-sentence custody (PSC) under R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26. He emphasized that denunciation and deterrence are the primary applicable principles, which are particularly supported by the aggravating fact that Mr. Hagi was on parole for a manslaughter conviction at the time.
[4] The Defence recommends 4 years minus PSC. While agreeing that denunciation and deterrence are the primary applicable principles, Counsel argues that R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754 credit and social context factors mitigate in favour of a lower sentence.
[5] The parties agree to the ancillary orders.
[6] I reserved my decision. These are my reasons for sentence.
II. Facts
[7] At about 1:20 a.m. on July 24, 2021, Toronto Ambulance Services called the Toronto Police about an unconscious person in the driver’s seat of a motor vehicle. Officers arrived to see paramedics trying to wake up Saieed Hagi. Once responsive, Mr. Hagi exited the motor vehicle, and the officers began investigating him for impaired driving. While this was happening, a paramedic saw a firearm in the driver’s side footwell of the vehicle and told the officers about it.
[8] An officer seized the firearm. It was a Glock 19 with one round of ammunition in the chamber and a magazine inserted. The officer unloaded the firearm at the scene. A second firearm, a Polymer 80, was found in the vehicle during a subsequent search pursuant to a search warrant.
[9] At the time, Mr. Hagi was prohibited from possessing a firearm pursuant to a s. 109 order that had been made on June 13, 2016.
III. Saieed Hagi’s Circumstances
[10] Mr. Hagi is now 30 years old; he was 27 at the time he committed the offences. He is the eldest of 7 siblings and identifies as a Black man of Somali and Ethiopian heritage and Muslim faith. He speaks 4 languages. His mother first fled Somalia to Kenya, then was sponsored to come to Canada by his father when she was 21 years old. She was a “stay-at-home mother.” His father, 15 years older, had been a teacher in Ethiopia but worked as a long-haul truck driver after he immigrated to Canada.
[11] Because of this job, Mr. Hagi’s father was away from the family for long periods during his childhood. Their relationship is a distant one. Mr. Hagi is close to his mother and his sisters, but he felt the absence of a male role model as he grew up. Though he perceived his upbringing to be “middle class,” his family struggled. All 9 of them lived in a 3-bedroom apartment in Toronto’s “Dixon” neighbourhood. He described his family’s building as “run-down,” “dirty,” and “always under construction.”
[12] He went to the local primary and middle school but got into trouble. He acknowledges responsibility for his behaviours but reflected that the disciplinary measures – multiple suspensions – did not help him. To get away from the negative school environment of the neighbourhood, he attended a private Muslim school for a while. When he returned to the local public system for high school, he was streamed into applied classes. This undermined his confidence, and he quit in grade 10. After an educational hiatus, he returned to school. When he was 19, he enrolled at George Brown College, but that endeavour was curtailed by an arrest for charges that were ultimately withdrawn.
[13] Mr. Hagi has been gainfully employed at times. When he was 17, he worked at Hudson’s Bay while participating in an “at-risk youth” program. At the age of 18, he worked as a baggage handler at Pearson International Airport. Later, as an adult, he worked in a low-paying factory job.
[14] Mr. Hagi is described as goodhearted, helpful, respectful, and loyal.
[15] Mr. Hagi reports being racially profiled by police, including through physical intimidation while in his mother’s presence. Both he and his family reported incidents of police involvement they perceived as unwarranted and particularly aggressive. Notably, his mother’s advice to stay inside was not palatable to Mr. Hagi as a teenager. Mr. Hagi described the Dixon neighbourhood as “toxic,” yet this was his social circle.
[16] Street gangs call Dixon home, and some residents live anti-social lifestyles. In an interview with the EPSR author, a family friend discussed the vulnerability of the youth in this neighbourhood due to poverty, absent fathers, and poor conditions. Youth are exploited by older people who recruit them into criminal activity for financial gain.
[17] There is also gun violence and frequent crime, resulting in a longstanding heavy police presence in the area. Mr. Hagi recalled being questioned by police when he was as young as 12 years old, and he was just 15 when he witnessed a shootout while leaving a Mosque. He was shot at twice between the ages of 15 and 17.
[18] By age 15, Mr. Hagi began suffering from anxiety and symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) because of his experiences. This continues today. Both his sister and his mother confirm that he is constantly anxious, worried, paranoid, scared, looking over his shoulder, and afraid of noises. In addition to mental health needs, Mr. Hagi requires medication for chronic shoulder pain from an injury he sustained in a car accident when he was 17.
[19] He recognizes that gun violence both became normalized for him and made him afraid, admitting he dealt with this by choosing to carry a gun by age 19. It was his involvement in relationships with anti-social peers and in neighbourhood conflicts that led to his 2016 guilty plea to manslaughter. That offence “involved a firearm.”
[20] He was sentenced to a 9-year jail sentence minus his pre-sentence custody, requiring him to serve 7 years in federal prison. During his incarceration, Mr. Hagi lost contact with previous associates. Once released, he tried to maintain that distance, started a carpentry apprenticeship, and changed his life.
[21] He was successful for a year and a half; then, he was not. Mr. Hagi spoke in detail to the EPSR author about what happened in the days leading to the current offence. His life was threatened. As a result, he couldn’t sleep, and he was paranoid. So, he returned to what he knew. He drank alcohol to relieve the anxiety and then obtained two firearms to “protect” himself – leading to the offences before the court.
IV. Legal Principles
[22] Sections 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code guide sentencing judges with the complex task of sentencing.
[23] Every sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender (s.718.1).
[24] The sanction imposed should have one or more of the following objectives (s.718):
- to denounce unlawful conduct;
- to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;
- to separate offenders from society, where necessary;
- to assist in rehabilitating offenders;
- to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community;
- to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community.
[25] Sentences for similar offences committed by similar offenders should receive similar sentences (s. 718.2 (b)).
[26] Aggravating and mitigating factors relating to the circumstances of the offences and the offender must be considered (s. 718.2 (a)).
[27] The evidence filed at the sentencing hearing calls for the consideration of the harsh pre-sentence incarceration conditions (R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754).
V. Analysis
[28] On the one hand, the aggravating factors in this case are clear and the determination of a sentence may appear to be easy: deterrence and denunciation are the primary considerations that overwhelm all others, so a 5-year jail sentence is fit. Indeed, the two cases the Crown provided, R. v. Omar, 2015 ONCA 207 and R. v. Owusu, 2019 ONCA 712, support a higher sentence.
[29] These aggravating factors are:
i. Mr. Hagi was on parole at the time of the offences.
ii. The prior offence requiring parole was manslaughter that “involved a firearm.”
iii. He had not one but two firearms.
iv. The firearms were in a public place – in a motor vehicle on a public street.
v. One of the firearms was easily accessible to him in the footwell of the driver’s seat where he was sitting.
vi. There was an increased danger of him accessing one of the firearms while impaired – he was so intoxicated that he needed the assistance of paramedics.
[30] Neither party chose to provide details of Mr. Hagi’s admission that his manslaughter conviction “involved a firearm.” Therefore, the weight of that factor is no more and no less than what it appears on its face to be.
[31] However, there are significant mitigating factors that also merit serious consideration, and upon which I will elaborate. They are:
i. Mr. Hagi pled guilty.
ii. Mr. Hagi was in lockdown for a significant period of his pre-sentence incarceration.
iii. His social context attenuated his moral culpability.
iv. He has demonstrated good rehabilitative potential.
Guilty Plea
[32] Mr. Hagi’s guilty plea was not an early one. In fact, he set trial dates. However, he also indicated to his prior counsel, several times, that he did want to plead. As his counsel Ms. Israel stated, sometimes it takes time for an accused to find his “fit” with a lawyer. His eventual guilty plea nonetheless obviated the Crown from having to meet its burden and the witnesses from being inconvenienced. It also provided a benefit to the criminal justice system. In this jurisdiction, resources are tight, and several trials are stacked into every trial court. The plea is meaningful in this way.
[33] In addition, guilty pleas generally demonstrate accountability and remorse. In this case, it is particularly so. This is because Mr. Hagi has demonstrated specific remorse and insight as follows:
i. All those who met with the EPSR author spoke of Mr. Hagi as being remorseful – he spoke to each of them about his regret for having committed the offences. This included his sister, his mother, his Imam, a family friend, and the Facilitator of Urban Rez Solutions.
ii. While in custody, he mentored Dixon youth through a program aimed at guiding young people in his community away from a life of crime. The program was facilitated by the Director of his Mosque.
iii. He was forthcoming and direct with the EPSR author about the offences he committed. He admitted how he committed them, why he committed them, the options he had and the choices he made. He made no excuses and gave no justifications. That is unusual.
iv. He also articulated that while incarcerated “I’m not the only one doing time, my family is too.”
v. During his opportunity to address the court, Mr. Hagi was straightforward in his apology, acknowledged his risk factors, and articulated a plan to minimize those risk factors upon release.
[34] Therefore, the guilty plea is particularly significant as a demonstration of remorse.
Duncan credit
[35] The Defence filed a document provided by the Toronto South Detention Centre (TSDC) describing Mr. Hagi’s incarceration conditions following his arrest for the current offences. The period documented between October 26, 2022 and February 11, 2025, is the period after serving his previous sentence, and awaiting this sentence. The numbers show that:
i. He was in lockdown on 274 days – 32.6% of the time.
ii. For 32.6% of this incarceration, he only had 30 minutes total per day to access a shower, exercise in the yard, and make phone calls. This is lockdown protocol.
iii. He also spent 46 days triple-bunked – being one of three men living in a cell made for two.
iv. On 9 occasions, he was both in lockdown and triple-bunked.
v. The reason, or one of the reasons for lockdowns for 97% of the time spent in lockdown was due to “staff shortages,” 266 of 274 days.
[36] Mr. Hagi describes not knowing if it is day or night, the bright lights feeling like torture, the hygienic standards deteriorating, and having no access to hot water during lockdowns.
[37] When not in lockdown, the jail is often overpopulated, and there are insufficient amenities such as benches, tables, showers, and telephones for the inmates to use.
[38] In addition, Mr. Hagi’s health was not properly attended to. He requires pain medication but did not always get it on time. He also requires mental health care but got none.
[39] As I and other courts have previously stated, the number of these lockdowns, and particularly, “staff shortages” being the main reason for these lockdowns, demonstrates a persistent institutional disregard to the human resource requirements of running this jail. It is a decision that deprives inmates of liberty and dignity within the institution, contrary to the institution’s own expectations and standards. These deprivations, imposed on a regular basis negatively impacts the physical and mental health of those awaiting trial, and those serving their sentence. Mr. Hagi is just one example of the impact of these deprivations.
[40] Serving time under these conditions warrants a meaningful reduction in sentence.
Social Context
[41] Mr. Hagi’s social context has a direct link to his offending. In the first instance, at the age of 20, he was involved in the context of the violent conflicts in his neighbourhood. The second time, for these offences, he was: first, threatened because of those old relationships, and second, resorted to the familiar option available to deal with the threat within his social context – gun possession.
[42] This EPSR is relevant to understanding what choices Mr. Hagi made and why. The additional value is that this report allowed him to reflect and then communicate those reflections to the court.
[43] Mr. Hagi appears to understand that his social context was a disadvantaged and challenging one that put him in an environment with limited choices. But unlike many, he appreciates his agency and options. He understands the choices he made, but also that he could and should have chosen differently. He does not spend time justifying his choices but rather reflects on the fact that, nonetheless, he is capable of choosing a positive, pro-social path. For instance, he explained:
“that if he could go back and do things differently, he would not secure a firearm and would ‘do the normal thing’ and report his safety concerns to the police. In hindsight, Saieed regrets not leaving the province to avoid potential danger. He disclosed that he would rather fall victim to gun violence than risk reincarceration because of the detrimental effects it has had on him and his family.” [Exhibit 3: Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report, Saieed Hagi, January 29, 2025, by Leah Kay, at pg.7.]
[44] These reflections are not frequently made by young men, who grew up in a community where gun violence and police distrust, stemming from racial profiling, is prevalent. Social context and Mr. Hagi’s engagement in understanding his own social context, is a significant mitigating factor.
[45] Mr. Hagi’s EPSR in this case, is an example of how valuable the work of the Sentencing and Parole Project is to the task of sentencing. An EPSR can have a valuable role in changing or contributing to change, in the lives of Black people. Particularly, young Black men involved in the criminal justice system in Ontario. For this reason, as I and other courts have stated, 14 months is too long to wait for this essential information. Lack of funding for these reports is affecting both individuals and the efficiency of the sentencing process in the criminal justice system in this jurisdiction.
Rehabilitation Efforts
[46] Mr. Hagi has put his time while incarcerated to good use, which is not easy to do. In addition to participating in the Dixon youth mentoring program with his Imam, he has:
i. Participated in the 16-week Black Employment Support Program with Urban Rez Solutions, including one-on-one employment coaching.
ii. Completed the Overdose Prevention program by Parkdale/PASAN.
iii. Participated in the Forgiveness Project Team Building program.
iv. Completed the John Howard Anger Management program.
v. Completed 27 different programs in areas such as problem-solving, life skills, relationships, substance abuse, planning, Black identity, media, parenting, and employment.
vi. Obtained his Ontario Secondary School Diploma.
vii. Enrolled in Principles of Marketing at Centennial College, with the expectation of completing the course in April 2025. He is one of only two enrolled students.
[47] The breadth and volume of this work are both unusual and impressive. He also has strong family support – the family has moved away from the Dixon area, and many of his sisters attended court. Mr. Hagi’s plan on release will place significant geographical distance between him and his previous environment.
[48] This all speaks to his positive rehabilitation potential. Rehabilitation does not override the primacy of denunciation and deterrence, but it is still a relevant consideration.
Balancing
[49] The Supreme Court stated in R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64 at para. 11:
This Court has on many occasions noted the importance of giving wide latitude to sentencing judges. Since they have, inter alia, the advantage of having heard and seen the witnesses, sentencing judges are in the best position to determine, having regard to the circumstances, a just and appropriate sentence that is consistent with the objectives and principles set out in the Criminal Code in this regard.
[50] The Supreme Court recognizes the sentencing judge’s task in determining a fit sentence requires one to: balance and weigh the facts; reflect on the role and impact of the offence in the community; consider the jurisprudence; and ensure the uniqueness of the individual before the court is reflected in the sanction.
[51] Mr. Hagi caused a man’s death. He was on parole for that and in contravention of his prior s. 109 order, when he possessed two firearms in a motor vehicle, while intoxicated. Firearms are made to hurt and kill human beings. In Toronto, they are doing just that in the hands of many. Gun violence is a plague in our community. It is causing tragedy after tragedy, and inflicting unspeakable pain on individuals, families, and our city. Those who possess illegal loaded firearms must be sanctioned firmly to reflect the denunciation of that conduct and to deter others from engaging in that conduct.
[52] Mr. Hagi is remorseful and has done his best to demonstrate that remorse. He has reflected and vocalized important insights. He has improved himself while incarcerated in unacceptable conditions, and within a context of racial and socio-economic disadvantage. Furthermore, he has done this while experiencing mental and physical health challenges.
[53] In my view, the balancing of all the factors leads to a sentence on the low end of the range for these offences.
VI. Sentence
[54] Mr. Hagi, I sentence you to a global 4 years in jail minus PSC. You will serve another 5 months in jail. It will be apportioned as follows:
- Count 6: Possession of a loaded firearm, s. 95(1): 3 years jail
- Count 9: Possession of a firearm while prohibited, s. 117.01(1): 1 year jail, consecutive to Count 6
[55] I will order that you provide a DNA sample and another s. 109 order prohibiting you from possessing weapons for life.
[56] I thank both counsel for their assistance, particularly Ms. Israel’s thorough submissions.
Released: March 13, 2025
Signed: Justice Cidalia C. G. Faria
Footnotes
[1] R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26
[2] R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754
[3] Ibid.
[4] Exhibit 3: Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report, Saieed Hagi, January 29, 2025, by Leah Kay, at pg.7.
[5] Pre-Sentence Custody is 869 days x 1.5 = 1304 days, or 43 months.
[6] Pre-Sentence Custody of 730 x 1.5 = 1095 days, or 3 years + 1 day.
[7] Pre-Sentence Custody of 139 days x 1.5 = 209 days.