# Ontario Court of Justice — Toronto
**DATE:** March 27, 2026
**BETWEEN:**
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
MATTHEW JACKSON
**For the Crown:** A. Kwan
**For the Defendant:** C. Zeeh
**Submissions heard:** January 30, 2026
---
# REASONS FOR SENTENCE
**RUSSELL SILVERSTEIN, J.:**
## A. INTRODUCTION
[1] On November 25, 2025, after a trial, I found the defendant, Matthew Jackson, guilty of 24 weapons related offences: possession of two loaded unlawful handguns, possession of a loaded unlawful rifle, possession of nine prohibited devices, unlawful possession of approximately 1000 rounds of ammunition for the purpose of transferring that ammunition and finally, eight counts of breaching various s.109 prohibition orders.
---
## B. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENCE
[2] What follows is a summary of the details of these offences. My trial judgment, R. v. Jackson, [2025 ONCJ 617](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2025/2025oncj617/2025oncj617.html), sets out the circumstances of the offences in greater detail.
[3] Police obtained a warrant to search Mr. Jackson's apartment. When they arrived to execute the warrant, Mr. Jackson refused to cooperate with the search and initiated a tense lengthy standoff with the officers that required the evacuation of the apartment building and the deployment of the Toronto Police Emergency Task Force.
[4] When that standoff was finally resolved, police entered the apartment and found a cache of unlawful weapons, prohibited devices and over 1000 rounds of ammunition.
---
## C. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENDER
[5] Mr. Jackson, now aged 39, was born in the Greater Toronto Area on January 25, 1987. He reported to the probation officer who completed his pre-sentence report that his father, whom he witnessed from time to time beating his mother, left their home when Mr. Jackson was two years old. He never spoke to him again. His mother, who later became an alcoholic, was physically abusive to him. She died in 2006. Mr. Jackson grew up with a close relationship with his maternal grandparents.
[6] Mr. Jackson left home at age 14 or 15. He has few if any friends. According to him, survival and housing have always been his central concerns. His formal education ceased in grade 8. He has one 15-year-old son named Carlos and maintains a cooperative parenting arrangement with Carlos's mother. He has a keen interest in art and is a skilled jeweler with a steady employment history that has been often interrupted by imprisonment and parole. There is no evidence of gang affiliation on his part.
---
## D. THE POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
[7] Ms. Kwan seeks a global notional sentence of 19 years which, after applying notions of totality and R. v. Duncan credit, she says should be reduced to 16 years with further credit of 1,028 days (2.8 years) pursuant to R. v. Summers, i.e. a further 13.2 years to serve.
[8] Mr. Zeeh seeks a global notional sentence of 9 years to be reduced by 3.5 years, which he says is the proper total credit pursuant to R. v. Duncan and R. v. Summers. That would leave 5.5 years to serve.
---
## E. THE PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCING
[9] The principles of sentencing are set out in Part XXIII of the [Criminal Code](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html).
[10] According to [s. 718](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html) of the [Criminal Code](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html), the "fundamental purpose" of sentencing is to contribute to "respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society" by imposing "just sanctions" that have one or more of the following objectives, namely: (a) to denounce unlawful conduct; (b) to deter the offender and others from committing offences; (c) to separate offenders from society where necessary; (d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders; (e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or the community; and (f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and the community.
[11] Further, according to s. 718.1 of the Code, the "fundamental principle" of sentencing is that a sentence "must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender."
[12] Section 718.2 of the Code also dictates that, in imposing sentence, the court must also apply a number of principles including the following:
- A sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender;
- A sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances;
- Where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh;
- An offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and,
- All available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders.
[13] When it comes to firearms possession, the primary aim in sentencing is denunciation and general deterrence. R. v. Sturge, [2001] O.J. No. 3923 (C.A.) at para. 6. and R. v. Popovics, [2005] O.J. No. 2456 (C.A.) at para. 7. While general deterrence is important, it must not be allowed to entirely eclipse relevant factors personal to the individual offender. This sentencing goal, as well as denunciation, must not overwhelm the analysis. As noted by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Lacasse, [2015 SCC 64](https://www.minicounsel.ca/scc/2015/64), sentencing is first and foremost an individualized process.
---
## F. THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
[14] The most aggravating feature of this case is the offender's prior criminal convictions, especially for firearm offences: there are firearm convictions in 2009 resulting in a lengthy penitentiary term; 2012 and 2014 drug offences, then 2018 convictions for various firearm possessions including firearm trafficking resulting in the equivalent of an 11-year penitentiary sentence. Mr. Jackson's escalating criminality has not been checked by prior imprisonment.
[15] Other aggravating circumstances include the growing prevalence of gun violence in our community, the large number of loaded weapons and prohibited devices in his possession, and Mr. Jackson's dangerous behaviour in resisting the police search.
---
## G. THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
[16] The most significant mitigating factor is the deplorable pre-sentence custody conditions endured by Mr. Jackson. Mr. Jackson has spent 685 days in pre-sentence custody at the Toronto South Detention Centre in circumstances that are set out in his affidavit of January 29, 2026, the contents of which are not disputed by the Crown. As he describes them, the conditions of his pre-sentence incarceration have been harsh, damp and unhygienic. Medical and dental issues have gone unaddressed. Frequent lockdowns and triple bunking have ensued. Staff shortages have given rise to a tense and hostile environment.
[17] Also mitigating is Mr. Jackson's agreement that gave rise to an agreed statement of fact that significantly abridged the proceedings.
[18] I reject Mr. Zeeh's submission to the effect that Mr. Jackson was operating under some form of compulsion short of supporting a defence of duress. That mitigating circumstance would have to be proven by Mr. Jackson's testimony (and other evidence) on a balance of probability. For the reasons articulated in the reasons for conviction, his testimony does not convince me that Mr. Jackson was other than an enthusiastic possessor of the contraband found in his apartment, regardless of its source. The text message of questionable origin does not convince me otherwise.
---
## H. THE STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
[19] In 2023, Parliament, in Bill C21, increased the maximum sentence for possession of a loaded firearm to 14 years, signaling Parliament's intention that sentences for this crime increase in length.
---
## I. THE JURISPRUDENCE
[20] It is a well settled principle of criminal law that similar sentences should be imposed on similar offenders for similar offences in similar circumstances. [Criminal Code](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html), s. 718.2 (b); R. v. Lacasse, supra at para [2](https://www.minicounsel.ca/scc/2015/64).
[21] I have reviewed the caselaw filed by both parties in support of their positions.
[22] The Crown relies on the following cases: R. v. Ward-Jackson, [2018 ONSC 178](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2018/2018onsc178/2018onsc178.html); R. v. Slack, [2015 ONCA 94](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2015/2015onca94/2015onca94.html); R. v. Graham, [2018 ONSC 6817](https://www.minicounsel.ca/scj/2018/6817); R. v. Wisdom, [2024 ONSC 4047](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc4047/2024onsc4047.html) and R. v. Owusu, [2024 ONSC 671](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc671/2024onsc671.html).
[23] Defence counsel relies on the following cases: R. v. Barton, [2017 ONSC 4039](https://www.minicounsel.ca/scj/2017/4039); R. v. Dunkley, [2014 ONSC 4893](https://www.minicounsel.ca/scj/2014/4893); R. v. Burgher, [2014 ONSC 7519](https://www.minicounsel.ca/scj/2014/7519); R. v. Fletcher, 2008 ONSC 697; R. v. Mohamed, 2008 ONSC 5492 and R. v. Kift, [2014 ONCJ 625](https://www.minicounsel.ca/oncj/2014/625).
[24] It is important to note that none of the cases referred to are sentencing cases in the new post-2023 regime of a 14-year maximum sentence.
[25] I derive the following main principles from these authorities:
- The appropriate range of sentence for a repeat s.95 offender prior to the 2013 increase in the maximum sentence to 14 years was 8 – 10 years.
- That range must be increased because of Parliament's increase in the maximum sentence.
- It stands to reason that the new range of sentence for a repeat s. 95 offender should be 10 – 14 years.
---
## J. CONCLUSION
[26] Mr. Jackson has proved to be incorrigible when it comes to the unlawful possession of loaded guns. His prospects for rehabilitation are weak. In my view his sentence must be more severe than his last sentence from 2018, even though those latter offences, which involved trafficking in illegal weapons, might be considered more serious.
[27] Considering the principles of sentencing outlined above, the circumstances of the offences and the offender, the proper notional global sentence before applying any Duncan or Summers credit, is 12 years. I would then credit the defendant one year of Duncan credit reducing the sentence to 11 years. I would then credit the defendant with 2.8 years (1,028 days) of Summers credit (1.5 x 685 days) leaving a total of 8.2 years (2,993 days) to serve. The total of 2,993 days will be apportioned as follows:
- 2,693 days concurrent on each s. 95 count (counts 4-6)
- 300 days concurrent on each prohibition breach, consecutive (counts 17-24)
- 1500 days concurrent on counts 1-3, 7-12 and 14-16, concurrent.
- 1825 days concurrent on count 25.
[28] I will hear submissions from counsel as to whether any counts should be stayed pursuant to R. v. Kienapple.
[29] There will be a s.109 order for life and a DNA order.
---
Released on March 27, 2026
Justice Russell Silverstein
minicounsel