R. v. Sanchez-Neria, 2025 ONCJ 209

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

DATE: 2025 03 28
COURT FILE No.: Brampton 23-3947

BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
RODOLFO SANCHEZ-NERIA

Before Justice M.C.T. Lai
Heard on March 7, 2025
Reasons for Judgment released on March 28, 2025

Helena Gluzman................................................................................. counsel for the Crown
Jeffrey Hartman............................................................................... counsel for the accused

LAI J.:

A. OVERVIEW

[1] Rodolfo Sanchez-Neria is 22 years old. He has no criminal record. He agreed to kill Harpreet Hanjra in exchange for money. He planned to do it when Mr. Hanjra was driving his 6-year-old daughter to school. On the morning of December 13, 2023, Mr. Hanjra was driving to school with his daughter in the backseat. Mr. Sanchez-Neria pulled up beside them, discharged four rounds from a handgun into the passenger side window, and drove away. Three rounds struck Mr. Hanjra in the right arm. One round struck him in the left arm. He was taken to hospital and later released. His daughter was not struck.

[2] Mr. Sanchez-Neria has been in custody since December 15, 2023. When these reasons are released, he will have served 470 real days in custody. He has experienced exceptionally harsh pre-trial conditions, including lockdowns, triple-bunking, unhygienic conditions, and anxiety about an ongoing outbreak of a contagious disease.

[3] Crown counsel seeks a sentence of 10 years, less pre-trial credit, with ancillary orders. Defence counsel seeks a global sentence of 8 years, less pre-trial credit at a ratio of 2:1. Defence counsel does not contest the ancillary orders.

[4] For the following reasons, I impose a sentence of 8.5 years. This is the equivalent of 3,102 days. Mr. Sanchez-Neria has already served 470 real days, for which I will credit him with 705 days (at 1.5:1). This leaves Mr. Sanchez-Neria with 2,397 days (about 6 years and 7 months) left to serve.

B. THE ADMITTED FACTS

[5] On December 11, 2023, Mr. Sanchez-Neria sent a message to “T” that read: “Imma drop the [firearm] and go drop my dawgs”.

[6] On December 12, 2023, Mr. Sanchez-Neria sent a message to “T” to the effect that he would be making money tomorrow morning. He then exchanged messages with “Adam Hacker” and “KP” about the shooting, including the price, target, plan, and agreement. KP and Mr. Sanchez-Neria communicated through Adam Hacker. In short:

• KP wrote, “Let me know asap if you want to do it I get you info. Will pay you 40, bro. passed you 10 already. If not all good bro Ill get someone else. But let me know asap”.
• KP wrote, “Indian uncle leaves to drop his kid off every morning. He doesn’t leave the house otherwise because he knows he is in trouble”.
• Mr. Sanchez-Neria wrote, “let’s get it done”.

[7] Adam Hacker then sent Mr. Sanchez-Neria details about Mr. Hanjra’s address and vehicles, and instructions to be there at 7:30 a.m. because Mr. Hanjra left at 8 – 8:30 a.m. to drop off his kid.

[8] Mr. Sanchez-Neria sent “Skeng” a screenshot of Adam Hacker’s instructions and provided further instructions to be there early, “don’t miss him”, and “Yo call me the plays ready”.

[9] On December 13, 2023, Mr. Hanjra was driving west on Mayfield Road. His 6-year-old daughter was sitting in a booster seat in the back. He was driving her to school. Around 8:20 a.m., he stopped at the intersection of Torbram Rd. to make a left turn. Mr. Sanchez-Neria pulled up beside him. He discharged 4 rounds into the passenger side window, striking Mr. Hanjra four times.

[10] The shooting was captured on the rear-facing dash camera of a civilian witness whose car had been just in front of Mr. Hanjra in the left-turn lane. The footage shows other vehicles driving in both directions on Torbram Rd. The civilian witness’ vehicle is inching forward into the intersection when Mr. Sanchez-Neria drives up beside Mr. Hanjra, holds a firearm out of his driver’s side window, fires shots into Mr. Hanjra’s passenger side window, and continues forward. The shooting causes the civilian witness to swerve into the path of oncoming traffic, almost causing a collision. The civilian witness turns his head from side to side to look behind him, and abruptly pulls over onto the right-hand shoulder as Mr. Sanchez-Neria drives past him and out of sight.

[11] Mr. Hanjra suffered one penetrating gun shot wound and two gun shot abrasions to his right arm, and one non-penetrating gun shot wound to his left arm. He was transported to hospital and later released. His daughter was not struck.

[12] Later that day and into December 14, 2023, Mr. Sanchez-Neria conducted internet searches and sent messages relating to the shooting. The following are of particular note:

• On December 13, 2023, Mr. Sanchez-Neria messaged “Keesha”:
  • (11:55 a.m.) “Like bro they telling me bc I hit him and he didn’t pass that I may not get no money”
  • (11:56 a.m.) “I was told to wait outside his crib and then now I should’ve done it at the school”
  • (4:18 p.m.) “This nogga survived and is mocking me”, “Bout oh he missed you’re a good my daughter was in the back seat. Pham nah it’s personal now next one I won’t miss”
• On December 14, 2023, Mr. Sanchez-Neria messaged “Khaliyah Clarence”: “I can’t be on iMessage”, “I’m doing bigger plays now and I deadass can’t have contact wit anyone unless it here”.

[13] Mr. Sanchez-Neria was arrested on December 15, 2023.

C. MR. SANCHEZ-NERIA’S CIRCUMSTANCES

(i) Mr. Sanchez-Neria’s childhood and upbringing

[14] Mr. Sanchez-Neria was born in Mexico City. He has a younger sister, Rollini Sanchez, who was also born in Mexico City, and a half-brother, Romano Moreno, who was born in Canada.

[15] Mr. Sanchez-Neria’s childhood surroundings were characterized by significant poverty, violence, and state corruption. His biological father abused him and his mother, Ms. Rocio Neria Ordaz. Mr. Sanchez-Neria described his biological father as “very violent” with “ties in high places”, who was “overconfident” and treated Ms. Neria Ordaz like property. Ms. Neria Ordaz tried to leave the relationship several times before she brought Mr. Sanchez-Neria and his sister to live with their maternal grandparents. Their uncle and aunt also lived there. The adults would sacrifice meals to ensure the children ate. They did not have regular access to hot water or electricity. Mr. Sanchez-Neria’s maternal family descends from Indigenous peoples whose traditional lands are in or near Mexico City, and in areas that experienced great economic deprivation following the colonial period.

[16] In 2007, when Mr. Sanchez-Neria was 5 years old, Ms. Neria Ordaz brought him and his sister to Canada, with the financial assistance and support of his stepfather, Ricardo Moreno. Mr. Moreno is the brother of Mr. Sanchez-Neria’s biological father. Due to threats made by Mr. Sanchez-Neria’s biological father, Ms. Neria Ordaz decided that remaining in Canada was best for the children’s safety. Mr. Moreno and Ms. Neria Ordaz married in 2015.

[17] The family spent two years in the Guildwood area of Scarborough before moving into public housing at Danzig Street and Morningside Avenue. His experiences were reminiscent of his time in Mexico City. He experienced food insecurity. He was surrounded by violence. He was often surrounded by gang-affiliated individuals. His associations put him at risk. He had been in knife fights, fist fights, and been shot at. In Grade 11, one of his best friends was stabbed to death. A month later, another close friend was shot and killed. After a “war” broke out in 2019, he started losing 1-2 close friends on a monthly basis. By the time he was 18 years old, he decided he did not want to end up in jail, and focussed on leaving that past behind him.

[18] Mr. Sanchez-Neria also experienced “tremendous” abuse between the ages of 7 and 15 years old at the hands of an undisclosed individual, which made him desperate to leave the home environment. Child welfare authorities were involved but the issue was not resolved. When Mr. Sanchez-Neria was 15 years old, he became unhoused. He survived by self-reliance. By the time he was 20 years old, he was either residing with a partner or in a vehicle he had purchased.

(ii) Education and employment

[19] Mr. Sanchez-Neria successfully completed Grade 12. He had a good rapport with his teachers and was a self-described “class clown”. He was bullied in elementary school and, by high school, chose to fight back. He became associated with “a bad crowd”, but team sports kept him out of trouble. He was a talented rugby player and played at the provincial level. He received a rugby scholarship to attend a post-secondary institution, but had to leave after 2 weeks because of financial difficulties.

[20] When he was as young as 14 years old, Mr. Sanchez-Neria began working at his stepfather’s landscaping company and doing odd jobs in order to help make ends meet – especially after his stepfather had a health crisis in 2015. Mr. Sanchez-Neria has been employed in a number of areas, including auto shops, restaurants, photography, and club promotion. He also started his own interlocking business, although its growth has been hampered by financial constraints. He is interested in trade school.

(iii) Physical and mental health

[21] Mr. Sanchez-Neria began using alcohol as a coping mechanism in Grade 11, after the violent deaths of his two close friends. His alcohol use became daily. He started combining it with other substances, including Percocet, ecstasy, and marijuana. When he was 20 years old, he experienced suicidal ideation and began using fentanyl. He explained, “Once fentanyl came into my life, I took a turn for the worse, that drug basically controlled me”. He used it to forget, to alleviate suicidality, and to be able to “get up in the morning and go to work”. He described himself as a “functioning user”. He said his usage “wasn’t a problem until it was too late”. He was under the influence of substances at the time of the offence.

(iv) Personal life and support system

[22] Mr. Sanchez-Neria has a positive relationship with his mother. He describes her as “the strongest person I know” and his “saviour”. Ms. Neria Ordaz writes that Mr. Sanchez-Neria has always been a protector for his family. She speaks about his leadership skills, social skills, and business skills – culminating in his own entertainment group. She knows Mr. Sanchez-Neria to be a respectful, empathetic, honest, and hardworking young man who is full of life and joy. She told the author of the pre-sentence report that she was in disbelief and did not understand how the son she knew could do such a thing.

[23] Mr. Sanchez-Neria respects and looks up to his stepfather, Mr. Moreno, for taking care of his family and treating his mother well. Mr. Moreno writes that he is “super proud” of Mr. Sanchez-Neria, and particularly of his work ethic, drive, and ability to get along with other people. He knows Mr. Sanchez-Neria to be thoughtful, caring, honest, helpful, patient, social, responsible, and hard working.

[24] Mr. Sanchez-Neria has a close relationship with his younger sister, Rollini. He “took most of the beatings for her” when they were in Mexico and will always look out for her. Ms. Sanchez-Neria writes that Mr. Sanchez-Neria has always been there for her, through the good and the bad, and that he would always listen if she was upset or feeling down. He always has a smile on his face. He is generous, funny, and helpful. She told the author of the pre-sentence report that “the person I know, as my brother, I didn’t know he could do such a thing and for me, it’s hard; there is a piece missing at home”.

[25] Mr. Sanchez-Neria’s half-brother, Romano, writes that Mr. Sanchez-Neria takes time to support and take care of him whenever he needs it – including helping him deal with bullying, helping with homework, cooking, or just spending quality time together.

[26] Mr. Sanchez-Neria is committed to his girlfriend, and wishes to build a family with her in the future. She writes that Mr. Sanchez-Neria is driven to achieve his goals, that he is supportive and caring, and that he has a genuine soul and a golden heart.

[27] Mr. Sanchez-Neria remains involved in the community through his participation in youth rugby. Amanda Neale-Robinson and Andrew Buchoon write that Mr. Sanchez-Neria was dedicated, hard-working, respectful, polite, and a pleasure to work with. Other members of the community, Monica Ramudo-Palmeiro and Alexis McMillan, describe him as polite, helpful, and responsible.

[28] Mr. Sanchez-Neria also has the support of his best friend, Tristan Plaz, who shares his passion for music, life, and art. Mr. Plaz writes that Mr. Sanchez-Neria is outgoing, intelligent, and a really nice person who listens and wants to help.

(v) Mr. Sanchez-Neria’s conditions in pre-trial custody

[29] Mr. Sanchez-Neria filed an affidavit setting out the conditions of his pre-trial custody at Maplehurst Correctional Centre (“MCC”). He kept contemporaneous records. Those records describe the same state of affairs described by in-custody accused persons on a daily basis in this courthouse. Where his records conflict with the information contained in the MCC records, I accept Mr. Sanchez-Neria’s account as more reliable. In particular:

• Lockdown.

  • Mr. Sanchez-Neria has spent 373 days on lockdown, with 230 full lockdown days and 143 partial lockdown days. He has spent as much as nine straight days in lockdown.
  • Most days, Mr. Sanchez-Neria spent 20-24 hours a day in his cell. Yard access was rare. He went as long as six months without fresh air.

• Hygiene.

  • Access to shower program was unpredictable, especially but not exclusively during lockdown.
  • When shower program was offered, Mr. Sanchez-Neria had to choose between a shower or a phone call, because time constraints did not permit both. Inmates fought over phone access constantly.
  • Hygiene products were not available during lockdowns. He did not regularly receive a change of clothes or a change of bedding. He went as long as a month and a half without clean clothes. He went as long as four months without clean sheets.
  • There were silverfish and cockroaches in the cells.

• Triple-bunking.

  • Mr. Sanchez-Neria was triple-bunked for most of his time at MCC. He slept on a mattress on the floor. The cells are small. He had to choose between putting his head near the toilet or underneath his cellmate’s bunk. It was very cold and uncomfortable at night. Bugs would crawl on him at night.

• Physical and mental health.

  • In August 2024, October 2024, and February 2025, Mr. Sanchez-Neria was injured due to being triple-bunked. All three injuries took place while he was trying to navigate around his cellmates at night to use the washroom. All three injuries caused him significant pain. On two occasions, he requested but did not receive medical attention. On one occasion, he was taken to the hospital for an x-ray and given Advil when the x-ray came back normal.
  • In mid-January 2025, Mr. Sanchez-Neria had a severe eye infection for about two weeks. He requested but was not examined by a medical professional. He was eventually given antibiotics.
  • Mr. Sanchez-Neria’s mental health has deteriorated during his time in custody, which has been dehumanizing. He feels depressed and worthless:
    • He has been distanced from his family. His step-father has significant health issues that make him constantly anxious and afraid to hear bad news.
    • Correctional staff searched their cells and destroyed his personal belongings, including his family pictures.
    • Correctional staff subjected Mr. Sanchez-Neria to racially-motivated taunts. They mocked inmates for filing a complaint (“a blue form”) about lockdown frequency. When Mr. Sanchez-Neria told them to back off, one of the correctional officers replied, “why don’t you write a blue form you fat Mexican fuck”. Mr. Sanchez-Neria wrote down what happened and gathered witnesses’ signatures. Despite multiple requests, no sergeant has spoken to Mr. Sanchez-Neria about his complaint.

D. THE FIT AND APPROPRIATE SENTENCE

(i) The fundamental purposes and principles of sentencing

[30] Section 718.1 of the Criminal Code provides that proportionality is the fundamental principle of sentencing. Mr. Sanchez-Neria’s sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of his offence and to his degree of responsibility.

[31] Section 718 of the Criminal Code provides that the fundamental purpose of Mr. Sanchez-Neria’s sentence is to protect society and to impose a just sanction that has one or more of the following objectives:

(a) to denounce Mr. Sanchez-Neria’s unlawful conduct and the harm that his conduct did to the community;
(b) to deter Mr. Sanchez-Neria and other persons from committing offences;
(c) to separate Mr. Sanchez-Neria from society, if necessary;
(d) to assist in rehabilitating Mr. Sanchez-Neria;
(e) to provide reparations for the harm Mr. Sanchez-Neria did to the community; and
(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in Mr. Sanchez-Neria, and acknowledge the harm he did to the community.

[32] Section 718.2(d) provides that Mr. Sanchez-Neria should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate, and s. 718.2(e) requires me to consider all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to the community.

[33] Section 718.2(a) of the Criminal Code requires me to increase or reduce a sentence to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to Mr. Sanchez-Neria or to his offences.

(ii) Aggravating Circumstances

[34] There are a number of significant aggravating circumstances.

[35] First, the offence was planned and deliberate. This was a murder-for-hire. The details (e.g., target, location, window of opportunity, compensation) were discussed up front. The offence was executed in accordance with the agreed-upon plan. Mr. Sanchez-Neria’s primary concerns, reflected in his messages and internet searches following the offence, were that he would not be paid because Mr. Hanjra did not die, and that he would be arrested. After the offence, Mr. Sanchez-Neria expressed the chilling sentiment that “it’s personal now next one I won’t miss”.

[36] Second, the use of a firearm. Crown counsel filed an affidavit setting out Peel Regional Police statistics concerning the prevalence of gun violence in this jurisdiction as of January 10, 2025. The numbers are abysmal. Since 2018, there have been more than 100 shootings each year. In 2023, there were 115 shootings where 697 rounds were fired; 9 of 20 homicides were gunshot homicides. In 2024, there were 168 shootings where 1249 rounds were fired; 13 of 20 homicides were gunshot homicides.

[37] Third, the offence was carried out in circumstances that posed great risk of injury to unrelated members of the public. Mr. Sanchez-Neria chose to fire multiple shots, in broad daylight on a weekday morning, on a public roadway that was being actively used by others. The reaction of the civilian witness who was driving in front of Mr. Hanjra demonstrates that the risk was not limited to stray bullets, but extended to the fearful reaction that the shooting would provoke in those nearby, and to the behaviour of the impacted vehicles (e.g., if Mr. Hanjra had lost control of his vehicle).

[38] Fourth, the offence was carried out in circumstances that posed great risk of injury to Mr. Hanjra’s 6-year-old daughter. Mr. Sanchez-Neria knew she would be in the car. That was a key part of the plan. She could have been injured by a stray bullet. And if Mr. Hanjra had lost control of the vehicle, been incapacitated, or been killed as Mr. Sanchez-Neria intended, she would have been in the backseat of a rudderless, running vehicle in a major Brampton intersection.

[39] Fifth, the physical injury to the victim. Mr. Hanjra was struck four times, with injuries to both arms. It was fortunate that Mr. Hanjra’s injuries were not more severe.[1]

[40] Sixth, the severe psychological impact on Mr. Hanjra and his family – in particular, his daughter:

This event has affected me and my family, specifically my daughter. This event changed our life a lot my family lives in fear all the time, a balloon pop would scare us all, my heart beats go wild hearing a pop sound. My daughter gets scared by firework sound, balloon pop sound, tire burst or anything. Going out of the house we all keep looking at our surroundings if someone is following us, any vehicle following us for longer would concern us. Anyone looking at us from any car scares us, my mom gets scared of anyone looking at us. … we are scared always. … My daughter and me are in trauma. From that day the rest of my family is always scared of surroundings. …My daughter is fond of cars but will say Papa which ever car we buy next please make sure its bullet proof so that we are all safe. This incident has effected us all mentally. ….This event took our freedom.

(iii) Mitigating Circumstances

[41] There are also a number of meaningful mitigating circumstances.

[42] First, Mr. Sanchez-Neria has no criminal record.

[43] Second, Mr. Sanchez-Neria is youthful. He was only 21 years old at the time of the offence.

[44] Third, Mr. Sanchez-Neria pleaded guilty, conserving judicial resources and court time. I accept, based on his comments to the author of the pre-sentence report and his allocution in court, that he has insight into the choices he made, that he is taking accountability for his actions, and that he is genuinely remorseful. His plea is entitled to significant weight.

[45] Fourth, Mr. Sanchez-Neria’s personal circumstances attenuate his moral blameworthiness, and provide context for the decisions he made that bring him before the court. Those decisions were made against the backdrop of an upbringing marred by community violence, personal trauma, loss, and grief, in Mexico and in Canada.

[46] There is a clear nexus between his experiences and his history of substance use and mental health issues, culminating in suicidal ideation and a dependence on fentanyl. However, the manner in which addictions and mental health constrain individual choice and therefore impact individual blameworthiness will vary from case to case. For example, there is no evidence that Mr. Sanchez-Neria needed to commit murder in order to access his drug of choice. Rather, Mr. Sanchez-Neria agreed to commit murder as a commercial venture. Although I accept that his decision-making was affected by his addiction and mental health challenges, the fact remains that he exercised a substantial degree of volitional choice in accepting a murder-for-hire arrangement. Indeed, KP explicitly said that it was “all good” if he did not want the job, and Mr. Sanchez-Neria chose to accept that job after learning that the window of opportunity was when Mr. Hanjra left to “drop his kid off” in the morning.

[47] Fifth, Mr. Sanchez-Neria has strong rehabilitative prospects. He has a solid support network – including his mother, his step-father, his siblings, his girlfriend, and his friends. They will provide stability and accountability as he moves forward from this matter. He is driven to succeed. He has demonstrated leadership qualities and a willingness to give back to his community. From May – October 2024, Mr. Sanchez-Neria successfully completed eight courses through New Life Ministries, including for addictions, anger, and grief. From April – July 2024, Mr. Sanchez-Neria successfully completed 13 Men’s Educational Sessions through the Ministry of the Solicitor General, including for substance use, anger, and life strategies. In August 2024, Mr. Sanchez-Neria successfully completed the Crossroads Prison Ministries “Who are You” course. He has insight into his behaviour. His participation in programming while in pre-trial custody shows his commitment to positive change.

[48] Sixth, Mr. Sanchez-Neria experienced atrocious pre-trial conditions. As I wrote in Dooley:[2]

Defence counsel raised a sophisticated philosophical argument characterizing those conditions as, in effect, a suspension of the rule of law. He is not wrong. The state is demanding legal compliance from Mr. Dooley while flouting the basic guidelines for the humane treatment of prisoners. This hypocrisy imperils public confidence and challenges the state’s moral authority to inflict deprivations of liberty as a legal consequence. What Mr. Dooley has suffered is a disgrace to the administration of justice. The jurisprudence is clear that this factor cannot justify the imposition of a sentence that is disproportionate. I do, however, give this factor significant weight in deciding the appropriate sentence.

[49] The same reasoning applies to Mr. Sanchez-Neria. Further, on February 27, 2025, my colleagues in this Region were told to expect a significant number of delays or refusals from MCC because a number of wings/ranges had declared an outbreak of Group A, Streptococcus (GAS) overnight. Upon being notified by defence counsel about additional public health concerns witnessed and experienced by Mr. Sanchez-Neria, Crown counsel made efforts to ascertain more information. She conveyed that Mr. Sanchez-Neria was housed in protective custody, but not in any of the wings with the outbreak. He had not been identified as a close contact of a suspected or actual case of GAS. That outbreak has since been communicated to the judiciary as an iGAS (invasive Group A Streptococcus) outbreak which, in its most severe form, can cause death or serious illness. As of March 20, 2025, MCC had confirmed two deaths to our Regional Senior Justice.

[50] Defence counsel requested pre-sentence credit at a ratio of 2:1. Crown counsel is strongly opposed. Her opposition is firmly grounded in the Court of Appeal jurisprudence cautioning against treating the mitigating effect of harsh pre-trial conditions “as a deduction from the appropriate sentence in the same way as the ‘Summers’ credit’”, and expressing a strong preference for treating it as a mitigating factor to be considered, although quantification was not necessarily inappropriate.[3] As the Court of Appeal recently wrote in Brown:[4]

Put simply, judges must recognize that where an offender has already experienced particularly punitive conditions during their pre-sentence custody, the punishment they receive should be reduced to take this into account, but the degree of mitigation is a matter of discretion in all the circumstances, and not a matter of mathematical precision.

[51] But defence counsel’s position also has jurisprudential support, perhaps exemplified by Molloy J.’s articulation of the quantification approach in Shaikh:[5]

With the greatest of respect for the guidance provided by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Marshall, I consider it preferable, not merely acceptable, to quantify the period of time by which a sentence is reduced to reflect the harsh and punitive conditions of pre-trial custody provided for in Duncan. I take no issue with this being properly characterized as a mitigating factor, nor that it should not be used so liberally as to make a sentence unfit. However, in my opinion, the Duncan credit by its nature, lends itself to being expressed numerically, which is not the case for other kinds of mitigating factors, such as remorse, youth, and the like.

Transparency and consistency are two important underlying principles of sentencing that are best served by specifying the amount of the Duncan credit. If a sentencing judge merely states that the punitive pre-trial custody conditions have been factored in, without specifying how, neither the accused, the public, the government, nor correctional officials will know the extent to which this has been done. In the result, there will be no public knowledge of the impact deplorable conditions in the prisons are having on the sentences served by offenders, providing little incentive to those in authority to fix the problem. While the amount of credit to be given is a matter of discretion to which deference would typically be afforded, sentencing judges being transparent about the amount of the sentence reduction given will also provide a better opportunity for appellate oversight and error correction.

Consistency in sentencing is enhanced in two ways by specifying the amount of the Duncan credit. First, individual sentencing judges will have a better sense of the extent to which other judges are taking the Duncan credit into account. …

Second, if the sentence that would have been imposed without the Duncan credit is clearly stated, this will assist in determining consistency in sentencing for any given offence. Otherwise, sentences for particular offences may seem completely out of proportion to other sentences, a difference which might be fully explainable by the difference in the circumstances of pre-trial incarceration.

[52] I do not consider it advisable or necessary to weigh in on this debate. My views about the proper analytical approach will not change the reality that I am bound by appellate jurisprudence that recently and unambiguously favours not quantifying the mitigating effect of particularly punitive pre-trial incarceration conditions. Further, as defence counsel submits, that debate is largely academic from Mr. Sanchez-Neria’s perspective, whose primary concern is the mitigating weight afforded to what he has suffered while in pre-trial custody. I give this mitigating factor substantial weight.

(iv) Collateral consequences

[53] The law gives trial judges “sufficient manoeuvrability to tailor sentences to the circumstances of the particular offence and the particular offender”.[6] In Suter, the Supreme Court affirmed that examining collateral consequences “enables a sentencing judge to craft a proportionate sentence in a given case by taking into account all the relevant circumstances related to the offence and the offender”.[7] There is no rigid formula. A collateral consequence “includes any consequence arising from the commission of an offence, the conviction for an offence, or the sentence imposed for an offence, that impacts the offender.”[8] However, collateral consequences “cannot be used to reduce a sentence to a point where the sentence becomes disproportionate to the gravity of the offence or the moral blameworthiness of the offender.” The fundamental principle of proportionality must prevail in every case.[9]

[54] Mr. Sanchez-Neria has no status in Canada. He will likely be deported upon the completion of any fit sentence. He will likely be barred from Canada for life unless he applied for and received authorization to return. This collateral consequence is relevant in tailoring the sentence and carries some weight in Mr. Sanchez-Neria’s case. He has many loved ones in Canada. I am mindful, however, that the collateral consequences flowing from the statutory scheme are an expression of Parliament’s will.[10]

(v) The fit and appropriate sentence

[55] Mr. Sanchez-Neria attempted to murder Mr. Hanraj. That conduct comes with a heightened degree of moral culpability. As the Court of Appeal wrote in McArthur, “The moral culpability of the attempted murderer is at least equal to that of a murderer. He or she avoids a murder conviction and the automatic sentence of life imprisonment not because of any mitigating factor, but because through good fortune, the victim was not killed.”[11] The primary sentencing objectives are deterrence and denunciation.[12]

[56] Double digit prison sentences have been imposed in cases of planned executions using firearms.[13] In Small, Schreck J. reviewed the range of sentences imposed for attempted murder:[14]

In Forcillo, at para. 131, the Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed the sentencing range for attempted murder of six years to life imprisonment that had been set in R. v. Tan, 2008 ONCA 574, 268 O.A.C. 385, at para. 35. That range can be broken down into three subcategories:

• in rare cases, single-digit sentences, such as the six-year sentence imposed in the unusual circumstances in Forcillo, where a police officer attempted to kill an individual after justifiably shooting him in the execution of his duties…;
• sentences of 10 to 16 years in cases involving the use of a firearm in a public place, “planned executions” and domestic situations: … ;
• higher sentence of up to life imprisonment in cases of “stark horror,” very serious and permanent injuries to the victim, or a lengthy criminal record; ….

[57] Section 718.2(b) of the Criminal Code sets out the principle of parity. Mr. Sanchez-Neria’s sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances. Crown counsel and defence counsel both provided a number of cases supporting their position, as well as helpful sentencing charts summarizing the salient cases. Although each case is captive to its own facts, these sentencing precedents reflect “the range of factual situations in the world and the plurality of judicial perspectives. … They are the practical expression of both parity and proportionality.”[15] I have reviewed these cases in situating Mr. Sanchez-Neria among the spectrum of conduct and offenders reflected in the jurisprudence. I will not summarize them all, but by way of example:

• In R. v. Guedez-Infante,[16] a young man with no criminal record left the bar, returned, and then shot the victim, leaving them severely and permanently disabled. The physical consequences of Mr. Sanchez-Neria’s offence were less serious, but had other additional aggravating features (e.g., the presence of a child, the degree of planning). Mr. Sanchez-Neria’s mitigating circumstances are substantially more compelling than for Mr. Guedez-Infante (e.g., guilty plea, harsh pre-trial incarceration conditions, attenuated moral blameworthiness). Mr. Guedez-Infante received a sentence of 10 years.

• In R. v. Hernandez-Viera,[17] a young man with a related and serious criminal record shot a former friend in an underground parking lot for unclear reasons, leaving her with permanent nerve damage. The physical consequences of Mr. Sanchez-Neria’s offence were less serious, but had additional aggravating features (e.g., the presence of a child, the degree of planning, the degree of risk to unrelated parties). Like Mr. Sanchez-Neria, Mr. Hernandez-Viera had mitigating factors that attenuated his moral blameworthiness. However, Mr. Sanchez-Neria has compelling mitigating circumstances that Mr. Hernandez-Veria did not (e.g., guilty plea, no criminal record, positive strong prospects). Mr. Hernandez-Veria received a sentence of 10 years, five months and 1 week.

• In R. v. Ljeskovica,[18] a 29-year-old first offender left the victim’s home, returned, and then stabbed the victim multiple times, including twice in the chest. The victim nearly died. The physical consequences of Mr. Sanchez-Neria’s offence were less serious, but had additional aggravating features (e.g., the presence of a child, the sophistication of the planning, the use of a firearm, the degree of risk to unrelated parties). Like Mr. Sanchez-Neria, Mr. Ljeskovica pleaded guilty, was genuinely remorseful, and had strong rehabilitative prospects. Mr. Sanchez-Neria has significant mitigating factors that Mr. Ljeskovica did not (e.g., attenuated moral blameworthiness, harsh pre-trial incarceration conditions). Mr. Ljeskovica received a sentence of 8 years.

[58] In the absence of the mitigating factors, and most significantly his guilty plea, his attenuated blameworthiness, his strong rehabilitative prospects, and the atrocious pre-trial incarceration conditions, I would have situated Mr. Sanchez-Neria’s case at the low end of the second subcategory identified in Small. In all the circumstances, and considering the sentencing precedents, I find that a sentence of 8.5 years would give proper weight to the aggravating and mitigating features of this case, and would be proportionate to the gravity of Mr. Sanchez-Neria’s offence and his moral blameworthiness.

[59] Mr. Sanchez-Neria, you are here because you chose to accept money in exchange for killing Mr. Hanraj, and because you fired four rounds at him intending to accomplish just that. It may not feel that way today, but you are lucky that you failed. If you had succeeded, a superior court judge would be sentencing you to a life sentence, and you would probably not be eligible for parole until you were well into your 40s. What a tragedy that would have been for Mr. Hanraj and his family, and what a waste that would have been of your potential. You have seen and experienced more trauma than anyone should. But you also have a lot going for you that not everyone does. Every time I see you in court, your family and friends are here to show you love and support. They wrote me sincere letters about the kind of person they know you are. The person they know is not a person who would literally kill for money. And yet, here we are. You told me in court last time that you can’t believe how close you came to taking a life, that you were sorry to let your friends and family down, that you want to prove you are not a cold-hearted monster. I know you are not a monster. I know you are sorry. I know you can tell right from wrong. Your sister writes that you have spent your life keeping her away from the wrong path, and your mother writes that you spent much of your life on the right path. They are among the people who are offering to help you. Hard as it may be, you must learn to accept that help if you want anything to change. You will still be a young man when you are released. You control your choices and your path after that. I believe you have the ability to build a life you and your family can be proud of, if that is what you choose. I wish you good luck.

[60] The warrant of committal should read as follows. On the sole count of Attempted Murder, the sentence would have been 3,102 days. Mr. Sanchez-Neria has served 470 real days, for which I will credit him with 705 days (at 1.5:1). This leaves Mr. Sanchez-Neria with 2,397 days left to serve.

F. ANCILLARY ORDERS

[61] There will be a DNA order pursuant to s. 487.051(2) of the Criminal Code. There will be a weapons prohibition for life pursuant to s. 109(2) of the Criminal Code. There will be an order pursuant to s. 743.21(1) of the Criminal Code prohibiting Mr. Sanchez-Neria from communicating, directly or indirectly, with Harpreet Hanjra or members of his immediate family during the custodial portion of his sentence. I waive the victim fine surcharge.

[62] I thank both counsel for their excellent assistance.

Released: March 28, 2025
Justice Mabel Cheuk Ting Lai

[1] This is not a mitigating factor. It is merely the absence of an aggravating factor.
[2] R. v. Dooley (6 March 2025), Brampton 23-1871 (Ont. C.J.); see also R. v. Crawford, 2025 ONSC 345, at paras. 182-186.
[3] R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344, explaining R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754, at paras. 51-53; see also R. v. Smith, 2023 ONCA 500, at para. 37. Indeed, in varying the sentence imposed in R. v. Williams, 2024 ONCA 508, at para. 29, the panel explicitly quantifies the deduction attributable to the particularly harsh pre-trial conditions.
[4] R. v. Brown, 2025 ONCA 47, at paras. 3-4.
[5] R. v. Shaikh and Tanoli, 2024 ONSC 774, at paras. 22-25.
[6] R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13, at para. 38.
[7] R. v. Suter, 2018 SCC 34, at para. 46.
[8] Suter, supra, at para. 47.
[9] Suter, supra, at para. 56; R. v. Pham, 2013 SCC 15, at paras. 14-16.
[10] Pham, supra, at paras. 13-16.
[11] R. v. McArthur (2004), 2004 ONCA 8759, 182 C.C.C. (3d) 230 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 47.
[12] R. v. Mohamed, 2014 ONCA 814, at para. 5.
[13] R. v. Chevers, 2011 ONCA 569, at para. 8, citing R. v. Tan, 2008 ONCA 574.
[14] R. v. Small, 2023 ONSC 6841, at para. 40 [Citations omitted.]
[15] R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, at para. 33.
[16] R. v. Guedez-Infante, 2009 ONCA 739 (10 years).
[17] R. v. Hernandez-Viera, 2022 ONSC 3776 (125.25 months, less Summers credit).
[18] R. v. Ljeskovica, 2008 ONSC 63569, [2008] O.J. No. 4935 (S.C.), per Trotter J. (as he then was) (8 years, less pre-trial credit).