COURT FILE NO.: CR-19-10000390-0000
DATE: 20210723
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
IAN REID
C. Lindo-Butler, for the Crown
M. MacGregor, for Mr. Reid
HEARD: 30 June 2021
S.A.Q. AKHTAR J.
BACKGROUND FACTS AND OVERVIEW
Introduction
[1] Ian Reid was convicted, after trial, of the following offences:
• Possession of a loaded restricted firearm namely a Glock 17 handgun without being authorised or a holder of a licence contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46
• Possession of a restricted firearm knowing that he was not the holder of a licence contrary to s. 92(1) of the Criminal Code
• Possession of a prohibited device namely an over capacity magazine without being a holder of a licence contrary to s. 92(2) of the Criminal Code
• Carrying a concealed firearm contrary to s. 90(1) of the Criminal Code
• Being an occupant in a motor vehicle knowing there was a restricted firearm contrary to s. 94(2) of the Criminal Code
Background Facts
[2] Sometime in July 2018, police received information from two confidential informants that Mr. Reid was in possession of a firearm. Further investigation led to the issuance of warrants on 20 July 2018 to search the accused’s residence at Unit 310, 3266 Weston Road in the City of Toronto, and a car he was known to drive, a black Ford F-150.
[3] On 21 July 2018, a team from the Guns and Gangs Task Force were briefed on plans to locate and arrest Mr. Reid and execute the warrants.
[4] Later that day, Mr. Reid was observed leaving 3266 Weston Road to enter his car situated in the building’s parking lot. Police approached Mr. Reid who had entered his car on the driver’s side. Both officers issued commands telling Mr. Reid to exit the vehicle and get on the ground.
[5] A struggle ensued and as the officers took Mr. Reid to the ground, one of them discovered a sock containing an object in the accused’s waistband. The sock was removed and was found to contain a Glock handgun and ammunition in the form of an over capacity magazine.
Positions of the Parties
[6] The Crown seeks a sentence in the range of three to four years with the following ancillary orders: a DNA order pursuant to s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code; a s. 109 Criminal Code order prohibiting Mr. Reid from the possession of any weapons for life; and the forfeiture and destruction of the seized firearm and ammunition.
[7] Counsel for Mr. Reid takes no issue with the ancillary orders but diverges from the Crown’s sentence request asking that the court impose a sentence in the two and a half to three year range.
Personal Circumstances
[8] Mr. Reid is now 43 years old. He was born in Jamaica and is a permanent resident of Canada having lived here since 1992. This conviction will have significant immigration implications with a potential deportation likely.
[9] Mr. Reid left school after Grade 12 and found work in the construction industry. At the time of sentencing he was employed by National Concrete for whom he continued to work whilst on bail for these offences. He has been in a lengthy and stable five year relationship with his partner and has a 12 month old daughter.
[10] Mr. Reid’s father, who was seriously ill at the time of the offence recently succumbed to cancer. Mr. Reid spent a significant amount of time taking care of him.
[11] Mr. Reid has a criminal record, having been convicted for drug offences. However, he has no antecedents for crimes of violence or those involving firearms.
The Range of Sentencing
[12] As with all sentencing cases, I am guided by the principles set out in s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code which lists the factors that a sentencing judge must consider before imposition of the punishment on an offender found guilty of crimes. Deterrence and denunciation must be balanced against Mr. Reid’s prospects of rehabilitation. Any sentence must be proportionate to the seriousness and gravity of the offence.
[13] Recent appellate authority confirms the seriousness with which firearms offences are treated.
[14] In R. v. Nur, 2015 SCC 15, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 773, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the mandatory minimum sentences then existent for offences committed under s. 95(2) of the Criminal Code. In doing so, however, they upheld the 40 month sentence imposed by the sentencing judge, after the offender had pleaded guilty, noting the seriousness of possessing a loaded prohibited firearm. Nur was 19 years of age and had no criminal record.
[15] In R. v. Marshall, 2015 ONCA 692, 340 O.A.C. 201, another s. 95(2) case, the trial judge imposed a sentence of three and a half years which was upheld on appeal. There, the firearm was discovered in the offender’s apartment. Like Nur, he was young and had no previous record. In upholding the sentence, the court wrote, at para. 53:
[16] While the sentence imposed would be the appellant's first penitentiary sentence, his crime was serious and committed in the course of his commission of other admitted drug-related crimes. Although the courts should impose the shortest possible sentence in cases involving a youthful first time offender, the sentence must be consistent with the relevant sentencing principles, including proportionality to the gravity of the offence. As I have already said, the appellant's offence was on the true crime end of the s. 95 spectrum. A sentence of three and one-half years is fit in the circumstances.
[17] As has already been noted, the appellate authorities emphasise the need for a severe sentence to meet the gravity of the offence even when the offender is young and is a first time offender: see also R. v. Mansingh, 2017 ONCA 68, at para. 24 (43 months); R. v. Samaniego, 2020 ONCA 439, (4 years); R. v. Mahamet-Zene, 2018 ONSC 1050 (4 years); R. v. Mohidin, 2020 ONSC 47 (38 months).
[18] Much judicial ink has been spilt over the appropriate sentences for the possession of loaded restricted firearms. This is because gun crime has become a disturbing recurring event in everyday life in Toronto. Despite a lengthy line of jurisprudence in sentencing, the possession of firearms continues to be a blight on the city and its residents.
[19] Guns maim, threaten and kill. They end some Canadian lives and ruin others. The impact of gun crime goes well beyond the immediate victims: spouses, partners, parents, children and friends suffer the trauma of a loved one lost by the mindless use of these weapons. The impact does not stop with those persons known to the victim. Witnesses to gun violence may suffer traumatic effects that linger for their lifetime.
[20] Courts have sought to send an unambiguous message to those involved in gun crime that convictions will inevitably bear severe consequences: R. v. Danvers (2005), 2005 CanLII 30044 (ON CA), 199 C.C.C. (3d) 490 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 78; R. v. Brown, 2010 ONCA 745, 277 O.A.C. 233, at para. 14; R. v. Morris, 2011 ONSC 5206, at paras. 10, 58, aff'd, 2013 ONCA 223, 305 O.A.C. 47; R. v. Chambers, 2012 ONSC 817, at paras. 15-17, aff'd, 2013 ONCA 680, 311 O.A.C. 307; R. v. Scarlett, 2013 ONSC 562, at paras. 13-14; R. v. Peterkin, 2013 ONSC 2116, at paras. 22, 24.
Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
[21] Counsel for Mr. Reid concedes there are aggravating features in this case: Mr. Reid was carrying a firearm with an overcapacity magazine. He was in possession of that firearm in a parking lot where other members of the public would also be present, creating a level of public endangerment.
[22] In mitigation, as noted, Mr. Reid has no prior record for gun offences or crimes of violence. The absence of a criminal record for these types of offences indicates good prospects for rehabilitation.
[23] It is trite law that Mr. Reid’s choice to exercise his constitutional right to plead not guilty and proceed to trial is not an aggravating factor. In these circumstances, however, he would also not be entitled to the significant discount in sentence available to a remorseful offender who pleaded guilty.
[24] However, I also recognise the manner in which this trial was conducted: both expeditiously and efficiently. Mr. Reid made appropriate concessions and focussed the trial on the specific issues he sought to raise. He should be commended for doing so and I take that into account when determining sentence.
[25] I also note that Mr. Reid was under house arrest conditions with a curfew and that he should be given some credit for that even though that credit is somewhat diminished by the fact that the population as a whole has been living under pandemic restrictions for almost 16 months.
The Sentence
[26] Taking into account all of the above factors, I find the appropriate sentence in this case to be 3 years to be served concurrently on all counts.
[27] Mr. Reid also served 8 days of pre-sentence custody and pursuant to R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 575, he is to be credited with a 14-day deduction from his total sentence leaving 2 years 11 and a half months to be served.
[28] I also order a DNA sample to be taken from Mr. Reid pursuant to s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code. Mr Reid is prohibited from possessing any weapons for life under s. 109 of the Code. Finally, there will be an order for the forfeiture and destruction of the firearm and ammunition seized from Mr. Reid.
S.A.Q. Akhtar J.
Released: 23 July 2021
COURT FILE NO.: CR-19-10000390-0000
DATE: 20210723
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
IAN REID
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
S.A.Q. Akhtar J.