Ontario Court of Justice

Date: September 29, 2025

Court File No.: Toronto, 23 10000533-00; 24 48114070-01

Between:

His Majesty the King

— and —

Yassin Bassey

Sentencing Judgment

Before: Justice Brock Jones

Heard on: June 6, July 24, and September 23, 2025

Reasons for Judgment released on: September 29, 2025

Counsel

A. Rudra — counsel for the Crown

G. Grill and A. Kleiman — counsel for Y. Bassey

Jones J.:

Introduction

[1] Yassin Bassey pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a loaded, restricted firearm (Criminal Code section 95(1)); one count of careless use of a firearm (Criminal Code section 86(1)); and one count of possession of a schedule I substance (cocaine) for the purpose of trafficking (CDSA section 5(2)). The Crown proceeded by indictment.

[2] Following the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, I reserved my decision. These are my reasons.

Facts In Support of the Guilty Pleas

[3] On September 18, 2022, at approximately 4 a.m., Mr. Bassey, Ms. H. Habib, and Ms. R. Watson were occupants in a parked motor vehicle near Queen St. West and Spadina Avenue in downtown Toronto. Mr. Bassey was seated in the rear of the motor vehicle. Ms. Watson was in the front passenger seat, and Ms. Habib was in the driver's seat.

[4] Mr. Bassey had a loaded handgun. While he was handling the firearm, he unintentionally discharged it. The bullet went through his upper thigh and then into Ms. Watson's back, through the front passenger seat. Ms. Habib called 911 to assist her friends.

[5] Ms. Watson was treated for her injuries at a nearby hospital. She was released a few days later.

[6] Mr. Bassey was located by police officers at Scarborough General Hospital as they received a report of a gunshot injury. He was not initially forthcoming about what happened. He was not arrested at that time.

[7] On April 30, 2024, Mr. Bassey was located at #2208 – 252 Victoria Street, Toronto. This is the residence of Ms. K. Hirsi. Video footage obtained by the investigating officers demonstrated him exiting and entering this condominium unit over a period of two weeks.

[8] Officers attended and located Mr. Bassey and Ms. Hirsi inside a bedroom. The officers conducted a search of the apartment and seized a loaded handgun and one kilogram of cocaine. The officers also seized $2115 in Canadian currency.

[9] Mr. Bassey did not accept responsibility for the handgun but did for the cocaine when he entered his guilty pleas.

Background of the Offender and Social Context Evidence

[10] Mr. Bassey is 33 years old and was born in Toronto. He has two older brothers. His mother, Ms. S. Mahdi, emigrated to Canada from Somalia with her two older sons before Mr. Bassey was born. His father arrived in Canada a few years later.

[11] Often, Ms. Mahdi was the only provider for her children. She moved the family to Windsor when Mr. Bassey started grade 1. He recalled realizing he was financially worse off than most of his childhood friends. He was also one of the few Black children in his class, which led to him being bullied. Both he and his brothers faced many acts of racism.

[12] One day, when Mr. Bassey was still a child, he was at home and heard a knock at the door. He opened it, and five men rushed into the house. One punched him in the jaw. They ransacked the townhouse and stole various items. That event was traumatizing for the whole family. Ms. Mahdi decided they would move to Guelph.

[13] There, the racism Mr. Bassey experienced grew worse. He was the only Black child in his new class. Again, he experienced cruelty from other children due to his race.

[14] Ms. Mahdi ultimately sent Mr. Bassey's brothers to a boarding school. When Mr. Bassey was twelve, he and his mother moved to Toronto. They lived by themselves.

[15] He attended school and was talented at basketball. He tried out for the Grassroots Toronto 50, a program started by the Toronto Police Service. He made the team but soon learned that he could not afford the costs of a uniform and travelling to other cities for away games. As a result, he was unable to participate, which was very hard on him emotionally.

[16] As he began high school, Mr. Bassey became more aware of his social status and the disadvantages he faced compared to his peers. He admitted to committing theft-related offences during this period, as he felt it was unfair that he could not enjoy what many of his peers had.

[17] He was also frequently subjected to the practice of "carding," which was a common police procedure at the time. He felt humiliated each time he was stopped and searched. At 15, he was falsely accused of a serious criminal offence because contraband was found on one of his friends. He was arrested, charged, and brought to youth court. The charges were eventually dropped. However, he never felt the same afterwards. He was kicked off his high school basketball team due to the charges, which led him to lose hope that his life would improve.

[18] Shortly afterward, his brothers returned to the household. His oldest brother became involved in criminal activity. Then, tragically, a close friend of his was stabbed to death. Mr. Bassey was overwhelmed, failed his classes, and then dropped out of school.

[19] At 17, he met Ms. I. Djaffar, with whom he fell in love. At 19, he moved to Alberta to find work and start anew. He worked in the Alberta oil fields as a general labourer. For a time, he was successful.

[20] On one occasion, he visited his aunt and uncle in Saskatoon. As he got off the Greyhound bus, police officers grabbed him and asked questions for no apparent reason. They accused him of lying about his identity, and he was arrested for obstructing justice. He pleaded guilty just to avoid jail.

[21] Seeking more emotional support in his life, he asked Ms. Djaffar to move to Alberta. She agreed, and they married on September 20, 2014. A year later, their first son was born. This changed Mr. Bassey's life. A year after that, his second son was born. Being a husband and father brought him great happiness. He worked at various jobs to support his family.

[22] In 2019, his family visited Toronto. He was in a car with his cousin when police officers pulled him out violently and forced him to the ground. He was later charged with attempted murder. It was eventually revealed that the officers mistook the car he was in for another one linked to a shooting. His charges were dropped within six months of his arrest. He described this experience as "traumatizing."

[23] He returned to Edmonton. His third son was born in 2021. Driven by a desire to prevent his sons from facing the financial hardships he experienced as a child, he chose to engage in criminal activity for profit. He accepts that this was a mistake. As he stated in his affidavit, "I failed my wife and I failed my children."

[24] Mr. Bassey spoke to me in court on the final day of the sentencing hearing. He apologized for his crimes and convinced me he had insight into why what he did was wrong. He wants to focus on being strong for his children and to be present in their lives. His experience in jail has changed him. I found him to be sincere and heartfelt.

[25] Mr. Grill submitted 11 letters of support for Mr. Bassey from his family, friends, and community members. Each author acknowledged Mr. Bassey's crimes and did not try to excuse them. Instead, they focused on describing the man they know in their lives, offering a different perspective on Mr. Bassey as a person.

[26] His mother described him as a "loving, loyal family man" who has always displayed "kindness, compassion," and "generosity." He is a proud father to his three boys, and the time he has spent in jail has been very hard on his children. Her son has been praying regularly since his arrest and has spoken to her about his desire to become a better person. In her view, he has great potential.

[27] Other letters mention how Mr. Bassey has consistently been a positive influence in the lives of the authors. For example, his niece, Ms. Ebyan Bassey, wrote that he always showed her unconditional love and support. A close friend, Mr. Manal Osman, described Mr. Bassey as a "tremendous friend and supporter" who has stepped in during critical moments in someone's life to offer help when needed.

[28] Nearly all the authors noted that Mr. Bassey has a strong affection for his children and is actively engaged in their lives.

[29] Ms. Djaffar wrote a notably heartfelt letter of support. She has known him for 15 years and describes him as a "kind, loving and devoted" man. He has consistently supported his children and maintained a steady presence in their lives. His dedication to their well-being has never wavered. She believes he sincerely regrets his criminal actions and the time lost with his children due to being incarcerated. Recently, she has noticed changes in him: he has become "more reflective, more intentional and committed to his personal growth." She believes he has made these changes both for himself and their children. She is confident he will continue to make every effort to be a committed father once he has served his sentence.

[30] A letter from a representative of Midaynta Community Services, Ms. Amina Noor, dated July 22, 2025, confirmed that Mr. Bassey is eligible to participate in Project Turn Around. That is a program designed to support his rehabilitation and successful reintegration into the community upon his release from custody. Midaynta Community Services is a non-profit, community-based organization dedicated to empowering marginalized populations. Their mandate is to deliver culturally responsive and trauma-informed programs and services that promote social inclusion, mental and physical well-being, and economic empowerment. Mr. Bassey will receive tailored support from a team of workers, including in-house clinicians trained in culturally sensitive care.

[31] The plan developed for Mr. Bassey includes one-on-one counselling, mental health support, and guidance to help him build essential life skills for successful community reintegration. Staff from Midaynta will also assist him in connecting with stable housing programs, if needed, as well as employment services. These services are designed to support Mr. Bassey during the critical transition he will face as he returns to the community after custody.

Prior Criminal Record

[32] Mr. Bassey has a prior criminal record. On November 14, 2011, he pleaded guilty to the offence of obstructing a peace officer. The CPIC document filed by the Crown only states he received "time served."

[33] On February 4, 2019, he was found guilty of resisting arrest and failing to comply with a recognizance. He received a $200 and $500 fine, respectively.

Experience in Pre-Sentence Custody

[34] Since his arrest on April 30, 2024, Mr. Bassey has accumulated 519 days of pre-sentence custody ("PSC") at the Toronto South Detention Centre ("TSDC"). Mr. Grill filed an affidavit sworn by his client about his experiences at the TSDC on July 24, 2025, and a supplementary affidavit on September 23, 2025. Mr. Rudra did not challenge the contents of these affidavits.

[35] Mr. Bassey spent over half of his time in custody in full or partial lockdown. On a full lockdown day, inmates are not allowed to use the shower. They may also have to forfeit their ability to make a 15-minute phone call. Mr. Bassey has regularly gone up to 72 hours without a shower, access to the telephone, or even hot water.

[36] Partial lockdown days are not much better. The unit where he was placed at the TSDC has 20 cells, each designed to hold two inmates. Two officers are assigned to this unit and can unlock no more than 40 inmates at a time. When the unit exceeds capacity, units are only unlocked through a "tier program," which involves officers taking turns releasing specific tiers of cells. His unit typically houses 49 to 52 inmates, which necessitates the implementation of the "tier program." Normally, he is allowed to leave his cell for up to four hours per day. Some days, he is only released for two or three hours.

[37] Overcrowding remains a constant concern. He has been triple-bunked in his cell since January 20, 2025. He must sleep on a thin mattress on the floor near a shared toilet.

[38] The lack of basic amenities can sometimes worsen unexpectedly. On August 26, 2025, a search and laundry sweep was conducted of his cell. Correctional officers took everything that the cellmates were not wearing on their bodies, including their extra clothing, blankets, sheets, and towels. During search days, the guards are supposed to replace what was taken during the same day by returning clean sheets, a blanket, and a towel. This did not happen. Mr. Bassey did not receive the returned linens and clothing until September 10, 2025, which was 16 days after the items were taken. He had to wear the same clothes and sleep on a bare mattress. He did not have a towel to even take a "birdbath" during this period.

[39] Mr. Bassey is rarely able to exercise. He "has not seen the sky since his arrest." He has become depressed. He feels he is no longer the same person. He is attempting to stay strong for his family, but Mr. Bassey has lost contact with them. He is only allowed one face-to-face visit per month with anyone other than his lawyer. Since his incarceration, he has only been able to see his youngest child, who is four years old, twice. He has not seen his other two sons at all. While he prefers to keep them from knowing the full truth about where their father is held, the lack of contact has taken a toll on him emotionally. Even scheduled visits with his wife or youngest child can provide false hope, as family visits are often cancelled at the last minute and are difficult to reschedule. Some months, he has had no family visits whatsoever.

[40] At the start of this year, his ability to even read books was restricted. The rules in the jail changed. Previously, inmates could receive books from Amazon ordered by friends or family. Now, this practice has been banned. Books are only available at the jail library, which he can access once a month. During a library visit, over 40 inmates have to share about 50 books among themselves. Inmates have no control over which books are offered to them. Reading has been "one of the only escapes" he can turn to when locked in his cell.

[41] In Mr. Bassey's assessment, the conditions at the TSDC are "inhumane." Even when he is allowed out of his cell, it is difficult for him to gain access to a telephone. When he does, he must decide whether to call his children, his mother, or his lawyer. There are many days when he is unable to speak to anyone at all, as there are only four phones on his unit, and access is far from guaranteed. There is an "informal" way inmates decide if you are permitted to use the phone on any given day.

[42] Yet it is the potential for violence that makes time at the TSDC the most dangerous and difficult to endure. On February 12, 2025, a new inmate arrived in Mr. Bassey's unit. That inmate punched Mr. Bassey and used an object to slash Mr. Bassey from his upper left collarbone down to his right upper chest, leaving a five-inch-long scar. The inmate also slashed Mr. Bassey's left upper forearm and the back of his right hand, leaving additional scars. This was a terrifying experience. He is now understandably anxious when he is released from his cell.

[43] Tempers frequently flare among inmates because they are confined in their cells for long hours each day. Violent incidents, such as the one involving Mr. Bassey, are not rare. Fights can erupt over something as simple as access to the shower. For example, on March 26, 2025, Mr. Bassey learned of another inmate whose face was slashed over tensions related to shower use.

Positions of the Parties

[44] Mr. Rudra submits that a global ten-year sentence would normally be required for Mr. Bassey's offence. However, given the mitigating factors present, he submits that an eight-year prison sentence is appropriate. He does not dispute that this sentence should be reduced by an appropriate credit for Mr. Bassey's time spent in pre-sentence custody.

[45] He cited several authorities that state a sentence range of three to five years exists for an offender convicted of possessing a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm. Sentences at the higher end of this range are common when there is evidence that the firearm was involved in the illicit drug trade: see, for example, R. v. George, 2024 ONSC 6016, at para. 74. In his written materials, Mr. Rudra correctly pointed out that all crimes involving firearms pose a "real and substantial danger to the public's safety" and have been described as a persistent "blight on the city and its residents": see R. v. Vijaykumaran, 2025 ONSC 886, at paras. 38-9. There was no innocent purpose for Mr. Bassey possessing the firearm in this case and his actions should be deemed to fall near the "true crime" end of the spectrum for a section 95 offence.

[46] While Mr. Bassey did not intentionally discharge his firearm, he caused that to happen through his own carelessness. He caused serious injury to himself and Ms. Watson. A sentence as high as seven years could be appropriate for this offence alone: see R. v. Jama and Farah, 2021 ONSC 4871, at paras. 42-45.

[47] Regarding the drug trafficking offence, Mr. Rudra submits that case law establishes that a "mid-level" trafficker will generally receive a sentence of five to eight years, even if he is a first-time offender: R. v. Bryan, 2011 ONCA 273, at para. 1. Cocaine is an inherently dangerous drug that can have a significant impact on its users.

[48] Mr. Rudra agrees that the conditions at the TSDC may be considered as a mitigating factor. But a detention centre is not meant to be pleasant every day either, and I should not let any reduction in sentence I consider beyond Summers credit distort what must remain an otherwise proportionate sentence.

[49] Mr. Grill submits that the drug trafficking offence should result in a three-year sentence, and the section 95(1) offence for possession of a loaded firearm should result in a 2.5-year sentence. A further one-year sentence for the offence of careless use of the firearm should be imposed, given the injuries that occurred. That would produce a total sentence of 7.5 years, but Mr. Grill requests that it be reduced to five years, considering the principles of totality and restraint. Mr. Bassey is effectively a first-time offender, and any period of incarceration should be as short as possible accordingly.

[50] The parties agree that Mr. Bassey has served 519 real days of pre-sentence custody and is entitled to Summers credit of 779 days. Mr. Grill asks me to award his client considerable credit for the harsh conditions he has experienced at the TSDC: see R. v. Raymond, 2024 ONSC 2786, at paras. 57-61. He submits a credit of one day for each day his client has served at the TSDC (in addition to Summers credit) would be entirely justified. If I were to agree, the net sentence Mr. Bassey would be required to serve from today's date would be approximately 18 months' custody, followed by an appropriate term of probation.

[51] Mr. Grill asks me to consider that the firearms offences, while serious, are not entirely at the "true crime" end of the spectrum as suggested by Mr. Rudra. The possession offence by itself may justify a sentence in the reformatory range: see R. v. Gordon-Brown, 2024 ONSC 1300, at para. 43. There is no evidence linking the earlier firearms offences to the later drug offence, and there is no evidence of any additional criminal activity at the time Mr. Bassey was in possession of the firearm. Moreover, this was not a case of intentionally discharging a firearm. It was an accident. That demonstrates a very different degree of moral culpability for Mr. Bassey.

[52] Regarding the drug offences, Mr. Grill does not dispute that the quantum of cocaine is aggravating. However, he submits that the absence of evidence of Mr. Bassey's role in the drug trade should also be considered, and I should not draw an inference that he occupied a highly significant role that the evidence does not support. That would be speculation.

[53] Mr. Grill reviewed the most emotionally powerful elements of his client's affidavit during his submissions, which detailed his difficult life experiences. His client, like many disadvantaged people, has gone through life "with one hand tied behind his back": see R. v. J.G., 2021 ONSC 1095, at para. 27. The systemic racism he has experienced has limited his opportunities, and that should be considered when I determine his degree of moral culpability, even for offences of this nature.

[54] Despite all his personal challenges, Mr. Bassey has achieved a great deal in his life. The most important of these accomplishments is that he was a loving husband and remains a loving father to his three children. Mr. Bassey's affidavit and the letters of support filed on his behalf make it clear that his separation from his family (including his ex-wife, with whom he co-parents) is taking a toll on all of them. Mr. Grill reminded me that the absence of Mr. Bassey's father from his life when he was a child had an impact on him, too. I should consider how to diminish this very serious collateral consequence when sentencing Mr. Bassey so that his children do not suffer similarly.

[55] Mr. Grill also asks me to condemn the conditions Mr. Bassey has faced while in pre-sentence custody. They are so appalling that they may well demonstrate a violation of his client's Charter rights on a near-daily basis. Years of court decisions in Ontario have condemned these conditions, yet the situation appears to remain unchanged. He urges me to use my decision to serve a communicative purpose and to state that the government's ongoing refusal to address these conditions must be met with a strong judicial response.

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

[56] The following aggravating factors are present in this case:

• Mr. Bassey possessed a loaded, prohibited firearm in a motor vehicle parked in a busy section of downtown Toronto;
• He discharged the firearm, causing significant injuries to himself and Ms. Watson;
• His decision to possess the firearm was intentional;
• He had no lawful basis for possessing this weapon;
• He has a prior criminal record (although entirely unrelated to the index offences);
• He possessed a significant quantity of cocaine for drug trafficking; and
• He possessed $2115 in proceeds of crime.

[57] There are also several mitigating factors:

• Mr. Bassey pleaded guilty, sparing the court the need for a potentially lengthy trial;
• He has expressed remorse for his crimes;
• He has strong family support;
• His time spent in pre-sentence detention has been harrowing; and
• Social context evidence presented to the court demonstrates the impact of systemic discrimination on him as a child and young adult, which somewhat diminishes his moral culpability for these offences, as I will explain.

Firearms and Drug-Trafficking Offences

[58] General deterrence and denunciation are typically the primary sentencing principles applied to firearms-based offences. The unlawful possession of a loaded, restricted or prohibited firearm in downtown Toronto often results in a penitentiary sentence of at least two to three years, even for an offender without a prior criminal record: see, for example, R. v. Mansingh, 2017 ONCA 68 at paras. 21-24. That range is not set in stone, however, and the existence of mitigating factors may justify a departure from it.

[59] Nevertheless, I agree with Mr. Rudra that Mr. Bassey's firearms-related offences were quite severe. In R. v. Hills, 2023 SCC 2, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that the seriousness of an offence "should be measured by taking into account the consequences of the offender's actions on victims and public safety, and the physical and psychological harms that flowed from the offence": see para. 58. When a firearm is discharged and someone is injured, significant prison sentences should be expected. If a firearm was discharged intentionally, the Ontario Court of Appeal has established a general range of 7 to 11 years in custody as an appropriate sentence: see R. v. Bellissimo, 2009 ONCA 49.

[60] Furthermore, section 718.2(a)(iii.1) of the Criminal Code states that "evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances, including their health and financial situation, … shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances". The injuries Mr. Bassey caused to Ms. Watson, even if she recovered from them, were unquestionably significant.

[61] While the firearm was confined to a motor vehicle when it was discharged, the vehicle was parked near a busy intersection in downtown Toronto. An innocent member of the public could have been walking nearby at that moment. Previous court decisions have highlighted the increasing danger of gun violence in Toronto, especially in public places where people would reasonably expect to feel safe: see, for example, R. v. Bezabeh, 2025 ONSC 422, at para. 40. It is also well established that carelessly storing a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle increases the seriousness of Mr. Bassey's offences: R. v. Bashir, 2012 ONCA 793, at para. 9. Firearms in vehicles are often linked to ongoing or planned future criminal activities.

[62] Moreover, this case underscores the paramount importance of handling firearms with care and responsibility. They have the potential to inflict life-changing injuries or even cause death. Fortunately, both Mr. Bassey and Ms. Watson recovered from this incident. Others might not have been so lucky. Had the firearm been discharged at a slightly different angle, the bullet could have potentially struck an innocent person in the nearby area. All of this was entirely foreseeable to Mr. Bassey. His actions were not only reckless but also demonstrated a startling lack of appreciation for the extreme danger he posed to himself, his friends, and those near the vehicle when he mishandled the firearm.

[63] But there is something very qualitatively different about an offender who accidentally discharges a firearm as compared to an offender who does so intentionally: see Jama at para. 44. I agree with Mr. Grill that Mr. Bassey's moral culpability is lessened accordingly, and reported decisions focused on offenders who intentionally discharged a firearm are of limited assistance.

[64] Approximately 18 months after committing the firearms offences, Mr. Bassey engaged in a different form of serious criminal activity when he was caught in possession of a kilogram of cocaine. General deterrence and denunciation should also be given strong consideration as sentencing principles for an offender found guilty of possessing a significant quantity of cocaine for trafficking. In R. v. Lynch, 2022 ONCA 109, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the range of sentences for mid-level cocaine traffickers can be as high as five to eight years: see para. 14. The perils of hard drugs such as cocaine are well-documented in our jurisprudence.

Social Context Evidence

[65] Sentencing is a highly individualized process that must consider more than just the objective gravity of the offences themselves. Proportionality, the fundamental principle of sentencing, requires the sentencing court to also consider the degree of responsibility of the offender: Criminal Code section 718.1. To fully assess the degree of responsibility of the offender, a sentencing court must consider any evidence presented that speaks to his "status and life experiences": R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46 at para. 44. One's background and personal circumstances are always relevant to their "individual moral responsibility": R. v. I.M., 2025 SCC 23, at para. 164.

[66] Social context evidence is a form of evidence that may inform this analysis. In I.M., the Supreme Court of Canada held that social context evidence can be considered when assessing an offender's moral culpability, especially for "offenders who belong to racialized groups who face overt and systemic discrimination." In R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, the Ontario Court of Appeal explained that social context evidence can shed light on how "an offender's choices were limited or influenced by his disadvantaged circumstances", which in turn "speaks to the offender's moral responsibility for his acts: see para. 76.

[67] Mr. Bassey is a Black Canadian, and through his affidavit, he described his experiences with systemic racism. The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Spence, 2005 SCC 71, accepted that "racial prejudice against visible minorities is… notorious and indisputable", and a "social fact not capable of reasonable dispute": see para. 5. Evidence of the impact of anti-Black racism on an offender may be relevant to the paramount objective of the court in determining a fit and appropriate sentence: Morris at para. 56.

[68] Mr. Rudra does not dispute that Mr. Bassey's moral culpability must be assessed in the context of his life experiences and the discrimination he has faced. However, he argued that Mr. Bassey "made his bed, and now he must lie in it." I understood this submission to mean that Mr. Bassey made a conscious decision to engage in criminal activity, regardless of his prior life experiences, and there are consequences that must inevitably follow.

[69] While there is no need for an accused to draw a direct causal link between his life experiences and the offences, there must be some connection between the fact of systemic racism and "the circumstances or events that are said to explain or mitigate the criminal conduct in issue": Morris at para. 97; R. v. S.M., 2023 ONCA 417, at para. 27. As noted by the Supreme Court of Canada in I.M., the social context in which someone grows up "can often affect the trajectory of their life. Understanding that trajectory helps place the [offender's] decisions in context": see para. 166. Mr. Rudra's position, in my view, thus mischaracterizes the relevance of this evidence. Systemic racism will rarely be said to have compelled someone to "choose" crime. Instead, it operates in a less visible but equally damaging way by reducing the quality of pro-social opportunities available to those who experience its effects. This, in turn, increases their exposure to harmful conditions or environments, which raises their chances of engaging in criminal activity. One's moral culpability may therefore be diminished because the alternative, pro-social lifestyle choices that would normally be accessible to them are significantly limited by the material impact of anti-Black racism on them, their families, and their larger communities.

[70] That being said, the relevance of social context evidence must be carefully assessed on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Bassey was approximately 30 years old at the time of the shooting and 32 when he was arrested while in possession of a considerable quantity of cocaine. He was not a youthful first-time offender. As a mature man in his 30s, his moral culpability for these offences must be assessed accordingly. Without diminishing, for a moment, what the social context evidence presented during this hearing has revealed about Mr. Bassey's difficult upbringing and the injustices he and his family faced, I find that this evidence has limited weight when applied to these particular offences. Mr. Bassey chose to arm himself with a loaded firearm, while unprepared to handle it, leading to serious injuries to himself and Ms. Watson. Nearly a year and a half later, he subsequently chose to engage in the illegal drug trade. When he made these choices, he knew right from wrong.

[71] Importantly, as explained by Justice Loparco in R. v. Mugodo, 2025 ABKB 500, "the notion that society's complicity in anti-Black racism somehow diminishes the need to deter and denounce serious criminal conduct" must be rejected. Rather, sentencing judges must "acknowledge both the existence of systemic racism and that the sentencing process may perpetuate societal complicity in anti-Black racism", and incorporate that important factor into their decisions: see para. 34; Morris at para. 86. As I will explain, I have attempted to do that with how I have structured the sentence I impose today for Mr. Bassey.

Difficult Conditions of Pre-Sentence Custody

[72] In R. v. Crawford, 2025 ONCJ 385, Justice Fraser wrote the following at paras. 78-9:

The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.

What happens inside our prisons matters. The conditions inside our penal institutions reflect upon our society at large. They demonstrate, for better or worse, our collective commitment to the most fundamental of human rights. Our prisons are a statement, rendered in concrete and steel, of the dignity we afford to every person, no matter how marginalized, misguided, or lost.

[73] As a judge sitting at 10 Armoury Street in Toronto, I regularly hear evidence of the terrible conditions facing inmates at the TSDC. It is challenging to accurately portray the daily realities for inmates at this institution in written form to those unfamiliar with the criminal justice system. The most accurate description to date comes from Justice Molloy's powerful and moving account in R. v. Shaikh and Tanoli, 2024 ONSC 774. Justice Molloy made the following observations about the Toronto South Detention Centre at paras. 73-79, which I wish to highlight:

The biggest problem at the Toronto South is that there have been frequent lockdowns, both partial and full. During those lockdowns, inmates have restricted access to everything: rehabilitation programs; religious observance; fresh air; showers; cleaning products; laundry; visits and telephone calls with loved ones; and meetings and telephone calls with their lawyers. Inmates are locked up in small spaces for hours, sometimes days on end. Prison is already an anxiety producing environment. The lockdowns have the impact of exacerbating these problems and tensions frequently spill over into actual conflicts. I have been hearing these stories, and many varieties of them, for years. Conditions got worse during COVID (which is not wholly unexpected), but they have not improved much since. The most disturbing feature is that the reason for the lockdowns, almost exclusively, is staff shortages. Based on what I have been seeing in numerous cases over that year or two, the lockdowns at the Toronto South are typically between 50 to 60% of the total days in custody. This is shameful.

The Toronto South cells are solid concrete. There are no windows. There is no yard. There is merely a small area off the cell block which is bounded by concrete, and uncovered at the very top, so there is some air that can come in that way. During lockdowns, even that "privilege" is lost.

Medical care for inmates housed in these institutions is also inadequate, particularly during periods of lockdown.

These conditions are not humane. If the Canadian public heard that one of our citizens was being held in similar conditions in a foreign prison, especially while presumed innocent of any charges against them, they would be outraged, as they should be. And yet, these dehumanizing conditions have continued unchecked and unimproved.

In 2020 the Ontario Human Rights Commission conducted an investigation into the conditions at the Toronto South and issued a report as to its findings. I will not comment here on the Commission's findings with respect to human rights concerns and the use of segregation and restrictive confinement. However, the Commission commented on many problems that judges of this court are now finding to be routine, including: prisoners not being able to make contact with friends and family; public health concerns related to infrequent changes of bedding and clothing and outbreaks of skin conditions such as scabies; and stressful conditions caused by frequent lockdowns. The Commission noted that the Toronto South was not operating at full capacity at that time due to staff shortages and that the frequent lockdowns were also attributable to staff shortages, including staff making extensive use of "sick days" due to occupational stress-related injuries and long-term leaves due to disability. I am not aware of any follow-up taken by the Ministry of the Solicitor General in response to this report. However, I can certainly attest that my experience and that of many of my colleagues is that the conditions at the Toronto South have not improved.

[74] The well-documented list of court decisions condemning conditions at the TSDC includes various published rulings from this court and the Superior Court of Justice. However, even by the terrible standards inmates regularly face at this institution, Mr. Bassey's experience in pre-trial detention is particularly troubling. The evidence presented during this sentencing hearing demonstrates that despite years of court rulings bringing the deplorable state of affairs at the TSDC to the attention of the provincial government, the conditions have worsened, not improved.

[75] In R. v. Crawford, 2025 ONSC 345, Justice Mirza emphasized that courts must never allow the deplorable conditions in provincial remand facilities to become "normalized" and accepted as an unfortunate but unavoidable reality for those in custody: see para. 182. Justice Mirza noted that despite ongoing developments in jurisprudence from both trial courts and the Court of Appeal, no improvements have been made by those responsible for the state of our jails. As stated in para. 184 of Crawford (S.C.J.):

It is important to acknowledge that the reported decisions are a fraction of the total annual sentencing decisions which are mostly unreported at all levels of trial courts, that are required to factor unacceptable pre-trial custody conditions. Our system has come to expect that unusually harsh conditions are part of sentencing but these cruel circumstances must not continue. They are contrary to the public interest for multiple reasons by fostering violence, restricting access to support, and complicating sentencing hearings.

[76] It should be unimaginable that a wealthy, progressive society would allow its citizens to be treated this way. If we expect offenders to show a commitment to their rehabilitation and ultimately lead a pro-social life, we must provide them with an environment where achieving those goals is not only realistically possible but actively encouraged. Instead, we have done the opposite, allowing our provincial jails to fall into such disrepair that every day an inmate spends there almost certainly makes it more difficult for them to reform themselves. When inmates are forced to spend most of their waking hours locked in a small, overcrowded cell, filled with anxiety about whether they will be continuously deprived of their most basic human needs or subject to acts of violence, we should not be surprised by the adverse outcomes that inevitably follow.

[77] The conditions at the TSDC that Mr. Bassey has experienced are so appalling that it is hard to find words to adequately condemn them. Mr. Bassey has not seen the sky since his arrest, except when travelling to and from court. His cell lacks a window. Inmates are not given any chance for outdoor exercise. He cannot have meaningful, regular contact with his family, including his children, through visits. He goes days without basic human necessities. He must sleep on a thin mattress on the floor in his cell, next to a shared toilet, due to overcrowding. He has been subjected to physical violence, through no fault of his own, leaving him physically and emotionally scarred. His mental health continues to worsen. If he is lucky, he may have one face-to-face visit with his family each month. Due to a new policy introduced this year, his ability to even read books has been greatly restricted.

[78] Those responsible for this tragic and inexcusable situation should have taken meaningful steps to address it long ago. As Justice Fraser noted, these conditions are "unworthy of us as a society and diminish all the people of this province": see Crawford (O.C.J.) at para. 100. I note that during the sentencing hearing in Crawford (O.C.J.), Justice Fraser asked the Crown to provide evidence of how the state has responded to these concerns. It chose not to do so: see para. 97.

[79] A sentencing court may consider particularly punitive conditions during an offender's pre-sentence custody, and a reduction in the overall sentence may be appropriate accordingly: R. v. Brown, 2025 ONCA 164, at para. 4. In R. v. Jogiyat, 2024 ONSC 3498, and R. v. K.P., 2025 ONSC 3286, Justices Schreck and Mandhane held that "significant credit" must be awarded to an offender "in the face of the government's continued indifference to the situation risks bringing the administration of justice into disrepute": see Jogiyat at para. 107; K.P. at para. 47.

[80] Treating inmates in this manner may also raise constitutional issues. In R. v. Sanchez-Neria, 2025 ONCJ 209, Justice Lai observed that the offender before her had "experienced atrocious pre-trial conditions" at Maplehurst Correctional Centre. She also referenced an earlier, unreported decision of her own, R. v. Dooley, released on March 6, 2025 (Brampton 23-1871 (Ont. C.J.)), in which she commented on the potential Charter implications of the ongoing mistreatment of detainees in provincial jails: see para. 48 in Sanchez-Neria. In Dooley, Justice Lai stated the following:

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.

[81] I find this analysis compelling and persuasive, and note that in K.P., Justice Mandhane of the Superior Court of Justice reached the same conclusion as Justice Lai at para. 48. When an offender has been forced to endure particularly appalling mistreatment while in pre-sentence custody, Charter remedies are available. See, for example, R. v. Boles, 2025 ABCA 236, where an offender received inadequate medical care in custody, resulting in a violation of her section 12 Charter right against cruel and unusual punishment. Her sentence was reduced by one year.

[82] If the provincial government continues to do nothing despite repeated judicial decisions condemning the inhumane conditions in our jails, and these conditions worsen rather than improve, courts must consider alternative remedies to what have become standard sentence reduction calculations. Justice Fraser stated that it was "abundantly clear by now that the state has failed, through mismanagement or simple lack of funding, to fulfill its fundamental obligations to prisoners who are detained in the remand facilities of Ontario": see Crawford (O.C.J.) at para. 97; see also the Report of Ontario Ombudsman Paul Dubé, June 25, 2025.

[83] I leave the question of an alternative remedy for another day, as I was not asked to formally consider it in this case. Importantly, the Court of Appeal has cautioned sentencing courts that any reduction in sentence based on harsh pre-sentence conditions cannot skew the court's overall analysis and justify imposing an unfit sentence: R. v. Westcott, 2025 ONCA 291, at para. 13. However, I note that with every passing year, the provincial government has had yet more time to address this ongoing human rights crisis. Its refusal to act is revealing. Over time, the courts in this province may need to seriously reconsider their existing approach to a state of affairs that simply cannot be condoned.

Likely Experience in Federal Custody for Black Canadians

[84] When determining the appropriate period of any further incarceration, I must consider how that sentence will likely impact Mr. Bassey while he is serving it. Both parties in this case agree that a penitentiary sentence is necessary. In Hills, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that Black Canadians are overrepresented in the criminal justice and correctional systems. At para. 105, the Court observed that "Black offenders are often released later in their sentences and experience lower parole grant rates (Department of Justice, Spotlight on Gladue: Challenges, Experiences, and Possibilities in Canada's Criminal Justice System (2017), at p. 7; Office of the Correctional Investigator, A Case Study of Diversity in Corrections: The Black Inmate Experience in Federal Penitentiaries (2013), at para. 84)."

[85] Mr. Grill filed with the court a copy of the "Office of Correctional Investigator Annual Report 2016-2017", authored by Ivan Zinger. His office's conclusion as of June 2017 was that Black Canadians in federal custody continue to experience poorer outcomes on many important correctional indicators. These include that Black inmates are more likely to be classified as maximum security, are over-represented in admissions to segregation, and are disproportionately associated with incidents involving of use of force: see pp. 59-60.

[86] Mr. Grill also filed the "Office of Correctional Investigator Annual Report 2021-2022." In this report, also authored by Mr. Zinger nearly five years later, he concluded that Black Canadians continued to be over-represented in federal custody. Their placements were unsurprisingly similarly distorted. Black Canadians were overrepresented within maximum security in the federal correctional system and underrepresented in minimum security. Black inmates were more likely to be the subject of the use of force while in custody, regardless of their risk level, age, sentence length or gender: see pp. 39-76. See also R. v. Rurimirije, 2024 ONSC 4984, at para. 45.

[87] In Crawford (S.C.J.), Justice Mirza explained how this stark reality should be factored into sentencing decisions at para. 189:

All of this information must be situated in the broader reality that Black people are already treated more harshly in jail regarding racist mistreatment, higher security designations, lack of cultural programming and disparate treatment for parole eligibility. These long-standing systemic discrimination problems are further impetus for sentencing courts to be vigilant to ensure that long jail sentences be as exacting as possible. To the extent possible, denunciation, deterrence, and restraint must be carefully calibrated so as not to contribute to these systemic problems by imposing a sentence longer than necessary.

Family Separation Concerns

[88] In R. v. Habib, 2024 ONCA 830, the Ontario Court of Appeal noted that the impact of a lengthy custodial sentence on an offender's family must be considered. Sentencing judges must "preserve the family as much as possible," and when incarceration is necessary, they must give "serious and sufficient consideration to family separation consequences": see para. 44. Although these considerations should not overpower other principles of sentencing, depending on the evidence before the court, family separation consequences "may justify a sentencing adjustment – even a significant one – or a departure from the range" that would otherwise be appropriate: see para. 45.

[89] This principle applies even for "grave offences that require deterrence and denunciation": see para. 45. In R. v. D.L., 2025 ONCA 533, the accused was convicted of 17 charges of intimate partner violence that involved the use of weapons, choking, and bodily harm to his victim. The sentencing court imposed a conditional sentence. A factor that weighed heavily in that decision was that the accused had children and, if incarcerated, he would not be able to provide them with financial or other forms of support. The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed a Crown appeal against sentence, noting that the "trial judge's concerns about the impact of incarceration on this offender were justified, as were his concerns about its impact on D.L.'s family (including his ability to pay child support)": see para. 47.

[90] The letters of support for Mr. Bassey, including that of his ex-wife, Ms. Djaffar, demonstrate that he is a loving father who has had a profoundly positive influence on his children's lives. Every day that he remains in custody deprives them of his love and support. Evidence that demonstrates an offender, while out of custody, cares for and provides for family members has been recognized by the Ontario Court of Appeal as a factor indicating good character and proof of positive rehabilitative prospects: see R. v. Ali, 2022 ONCA 736, at paras. 41-42.

[91] Depriving children of regular contact with their parents can severely affect their long-term development. The negative effects of family separation are well-known. They include children facing higher risks of anxiety, depression, and other mental health issues. They are also more likely to experience diminished self-esteem and poorer academic outcomes over time. Children whose fathers are imprisoned may endure what has been described as a "potent life-course disruption" that increases the chances of them developing behavioural problems of their own. That, in turn, often results in these children interacting with the criminal justice system themselves in the future.

[92] These damaging outcomes are more commonly associated with historically disadvantaged communities due to the pervasive effects of systemic racism. The Government of Canada has recognized that Black Canadians are overrepresented in Canada's criminal justice system generally and the federal offender population in particular. At the provincial level, it is worth noting that Black Canadians have traditionally been subjected to disproportionately high levels of investigation by child welfare services and Black children are significantly overrepresented in Ontario's child welfare system. I recognize that Mr. Bassey's children are cared for by their mother, and I did not hear that his continued incarceration would place them at risk for being apprehended by a children's aid society. Nevertheless, his absence from their lives is felt by them every day, and his continued incarceration is indirectly harming them. Their well-being and long-term potential must not be forgotten during the sentencing process.

[93] Collateral consequences of this nature are tragically inevitable when sentencing an offender for serious offences. Consideration of them, while important, cannot overwhelm the sentencing court's ultimate decision, and there is no requirement that collateral consequences reduce a sentence: see R. v. Aiken, 2024 ONCA 326, at para. 13. But they can and must be factored into the court's analysis, especially for Canadians for whom the adverse effects of child separation have historically been more acutely felt. Returning Mr. Bassey to his children's lives as quickly and realistically as possible will mitigate these negative outcomes for his dependent children, which is not only in their best interest but also in the best interest of society at large. Reunification will also provide Mr. Bassey with the greatest possible source of strength and motivation to guide him into a productive, pro-social life in the future: his demonstrated commitment to being a loving and involved father.

Conclusion

[94] Mr. Bassey's crimes were grave and cry out for a meaningful sentence. Those who become involved with the illegal drug trade and/or carry dangerous firearms with them for their selfish purposes will be met with an appropriate response from the court. However, I note that in this case, the firearms-based offences and the drug trafficking offence were committed on entirely different occasions, over a year and a half apart. No evidence was presented connecting Mr. Bassey's possession of a firearm on September 18, 2022, to the drug trade, and the Crown did not require that he accept responsibility for the firearms located when the search warrant was executed on April 30, 2024, as part of the global plea deal presented to the court. The linkage between the firearms and drug-based offences is therefore not established on the evidence, as it is in many of the reported decisions relied upon by the Crown. There is therefore an absence of that otherwise potentially significant aggravating factor.

[95] Nevertheless, I acknowledge primacy must be placed on the sentencing principles of general deterrence and denunciation for firearms-based offences and drug-trafficking, no matter how impressive the offender's rehabilitative prospects: see, for example, Boles at para. 34; R. v. Marshall, 2015 ONCA 692, at para. 49. At the same time, even in cases where the primary sentencing principles are deterrence and denunciation, "to ensure respect for human dignity, the door to rehabilitation must remain open": R. v. Bertrand Marchand, 2023 SCC 26, at para. 123.

[96] I conclude that Mr. Bassey has extremely promising rehabilitative prospects. His family and friends are a source of strength and support that will inspire him to maintain a crime-free lifestyle. He has a comprehensive plan to reintegrate himself into society with the assistance of Midaynta Community Services. He is an excellent father and family member, supported by those who love and care for him.

[97] As noted by the Supreme Court of Canada in Hills, the assessment of a proportionate sentence is "not merely some abstract mathematical calculation but involves precious time that an offender" will have to spend in prison: see para. 134. In my view, an appropriate global sentence in this case is a five-year prison sentence, as submitted by Mr. Grill. That appropriately respects the totality principle and the principle of restraint.

[98] I apportion three years to the firearms offences: two years for the section 95 offence and one year consecutive for the section 86 offence. I impose two years, consecutive, for the drug-trafficking offence. While the quantum of cocaine was considerable, I may still place considerable emphasis on the principles of restraint and rehabilitation for someone who has no prior drug convictions: see, for example, R. v. Gordon, 2025 ONSC 2597, at paras. 72-80.

[99] Applying Summers' credit, I reduce Mr. Bassey's sentence by 779 days, or the equivalent of approximately 2 years and 2 months. Considering the difficult conditions Mr. Bassey has faced in pre-sentence custody, which I consider to be a very significant mitigating factor in this case, I adjust the further period of incarceration required to give effect to the global sentence and impose a two-year sentence today, to be followed by three years of probation. Both Mr. Bassey's long-term rehabilitation and the protection of the public will be better served by his receiving ongoing supervision after his release from custody while he reintegrates into society. This sentence will furthermore enable him to reconnect with his family within a reasonable period, thus restoring his pro-social relationships and facilitating his access to vital community supports.

[100] The informations will be endorsed as follows with respect to the jail sentences:

• CDSA 5(2) offence: 2 years in jail;
• Section 95(1) offence: 519 days of PSC (credited for 779 days) and 1 year jail, concurrent;
• Section 86(1) offence: 1 year in jail, concurrent.

[101] While he is on probation, he will take appropriate counselling or programming as directed by his probation officer, make reasonable efforts to secure employment, obey a curfew, and complete 240 hours of community service over the first 18 months of the order. These conditions will assist him with his reintegration into the workforce and require him to contribute back to society for what he has done: see Criminal Code section 732.1(3)(f).

[102] There will be a forfeiture and destruction order with respect to the seized firearm and ammunition pursuant to Criminal Code section 491(1). I order forfeiture of the seized funds as proceeds of crime pursuant to Criminal Code section 462.38.

[103] I issue a Criminal Code section 109 order for life on all offences.

[104] These are secondary designated offences, and I find it is in the best interests of the administration of justice to impose a DNA order: Criminal Code section 487.051(3)(b).

[105] The victim fine surcharges are waived. Mr. Bassey will remain in custody and it would cause him undue hardship to pay the fines.

Released: September 29, 2025

Signed: Justice Brock Jones