Superior Court of Justice
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
v.
TAHJAI HANNAY
Reasons for Sentence
DELIVERED BY THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE C. CONLAN
on September 13, 2023, at BRAMPTON, Ontario, for a MILTON proceedings
Appearances:
N. Galaszewicz Counsel for the Crown
V. Mistry, Agent for C. Levin Counsel for Tahjai Hannay
Reasons for Sentence
The facts of these offences are as follows: In September 2021, members of the Halton Regional Police Service commenced a drug and firearm investigation into Mr. Hannay. Throughout the course of the investigation, Mr. Hannay was observed engaged in activity consistent with drug trafficking.
On November 25, 2021, Mr. Hannay was arrested by the police for possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine. A search incidental to the arrest revealed a loaded 9 mm Glock 19 GEN4 firearm that was tucked into Mr. Hannay’s underwear. The barrel length of the firearm was 102 mm and, therefore, it was a prohibited firearm. The magazine inside the firearm was loaded with 15 rounds of 9 mm ammunition. Due to the capacity of the magazine, it was a prohibited device.
A query was conducted that revealed that Mr. Hannay was not in possession of a valid firearms licence and was therefore not authorized to possess the firearm in question.
A Controlled Drugs and Substances Act search warrant was executed at Mr. Hannay’s residence in Milton, Ontario. A search yielded a relatively small amount of cocaine, some drug packaging materials, three digital scales, cutting agents and Canadian currency.
The Agreed Statement of Facts is Exhibit 1 on the pleas.
In terms of the circumstances of the offender, Exhibit 2 on the pleas is Mr. Hannay’s criminal history. It is quite extensive. It does contain numerous convictions between 2013 and 2019. The sorts of prior criminal convictions range from assault, assault with a weapon, breach of recognizance, break and enter, possession of stolen property, theft, robbery, obstruct police, mischief among others. I do know that Mr. Hannay does not have prior convictions for these specific types of offences that he is being sentenced for today.
This Court has the benefit of a pre-sentence report. The report indicates, among other things, that Mr. Hannay experienced a very difficult childhood. The difficulties in Mr. Hannay’s upbringing were not limited to but included a tragic circumstance when his stepbrother was killed after a shooting in 2010.
The pre‑sentence report indicates that Mr. Hanny has four children. The report also indicates that he did not complete high school and worked for a fairly lengthy period of time for his partner’s father’s carpentry business. The report indicates that substance use does not appear to be an area of chief concern for Mr. Hannay.
It is worth noting that Mr. Hannay was cooperative and forthcoming with the author of the pre-sentence report and, consistent with his guilty pleas, he did accept responsibility for the offences. He did clearly admit to the author of the report that he was in possession of the firearm in question.
On p. 5 of the pre-sentence report, the author writes that:
“Mr. Hannay presented as polite, respectful and engaged throughout the interview process. He readily provided information and attempted to give as much detail as possible for any questions asked of him.”
I think in all of the circumstances, the joint submission that has been put forward is a reasonable one. I do think that it is within the range of acceptable sentences for these offences, keeping in mind that Mr. Hannay pleaded guilty to the charges which is the strongest mitigating factor to his credit.
The test on a joint submission is that the Court should generally accept the joint submission unless it is clearly outside the range such that it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Put another way, unless it would shock the public conscience and cause a loss of confidence in the administration of justice on the part of the public. I don’t think that this joint submission would run afoul of that test. I think it is a reasonable one put forward by two counsel who have given a good deal of thought to the matter. So the Court will accept the joint submission.
I am going to deal first with the corollary orders and then with the custodial aspect of the sentence. The corollary matters are disposed of as follows:
- First of all, the victim fine surcharge is waived for each of the three convictions, and that is because Mr. Hannay has been in custody for a lengthy period of time already and will be sentenced to more custody.
- Next, the order for forfeiture has been signed with the amendment that I mentioned earlier.
- Next, there is a s. 109 Criminal Code of Canada firearms and weapons prohibition order for a period of life.
- Finally, there is a DNA order. This is a secondary designated matter.
To summarize on the corollary matters, the DNA, the 109 for life, the forfeiture order which I have signed subject to the minor amendment, and the victim fine surcharges are waived.
In terms of the custodial aspect of the sentence, the sentence is as follows:
- On count 5, the matter under s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code, the sentence is 1277 days’ imprisonment less credit for pre-sentence custody in the total amount of 352 days, leaving a net sentence from today of 925 days’ imprisonment.
- On count 2, the conviction under s. 92(1) of the Criminal Code, the sentence is 925 days’ imprisonment concurrent.
- On count 3, the conviction under s. 94 of the Criminal Code, the sentence is 925 days’ imprisonment concurrent.
It means that the total sentence from today is 925 days’ incarceration.
On the remand warrant, in terms of the calculation of pre-sentence custody, it will show the following: that it is 149 actual days in pre‑sentence custody credited up to 352 days.
Counsel, are there any questions that you have about the sentence or anything that I left out?
MS. GALASZEWICZ: No, Your Honour.
MS. MISTRY: No, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Okay, thank you. I need to ask Mr. Hannay a few questions. Mr. Hannay, there has been an order for forfeiture that I signed. You understand that you are not getting back those items that were seized by the police, the handgun and the ammunition? They have been forfeited. You understand that?
TAHJAI HANNAY: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: I have made an order that you provide a sample of your DNA. Do you understand that you must comply with that order? You must cooperate with the police. If you do not, you could be charged with a criminal offence of disobeying that order, and if found guilty, you could go to jail for that. Do you understand?
TAHJAI HANNAY: Yes.
THE COURT: I have made an order under s. 109 of the Criminal Code prohibiting you from possessing certain firearms and ammunition and other items. Do you understand that you must comply with that order? If you do not, you could be charged with a further criminal offence of breaching that order, and if found guilty, you might go to jail for that.
TAHJAI HANNAY: Yes, Your Honour.
THE COURT: I’d like to thank counsel for your hard work in coming prepared today to deal with the matter. For what it’s worth, I will say, Mr. Hannay, you still have a lot of life to live, sir, and it’s never too late to change things. I know that you’ve had a lot of challenges. I think you should focus on your family, your children, your partner and so on, and I hope that you don’t come back to court.
TAHJAI HANNAY: Thank you, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. So, Madam Registrar, I will be available to help with the paperwork, if you wish, and I will send you the endorsement as well which also breaks down everything. Okay?
THE REGISTRAR: Thank you.
THE COURT: You can start packing up, counsel, go ahead.
MS. MISTRY: Thank you, Your Honour.
MS. GALASZEWICZ: Thank you, Your Honour. Just if I can ask one question. Were the remainder of the charges dealt with at the guilty plea?
THE COURT: No, they weren’t and that’s a good point because they were put over to the sentencing and then they kept on getting put over. So I am going to mark the endorsement – there’s the forfeiture order; thank you – I am going to mark in the endorsement that the remaining counts are marked withdrawn at the request of the Crown.
MS. GALASZEWICZ: Yes, please. Thank you.
MS. MISTRY: Thank you, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you very much.
Certificate of Transcript
FORM 3
EVIDENCE ACT, subsection 5(2)
I, Lynn Carrière, Authorized Court Transcriptionist, ACT ID 2366775200, certify that this document is a true and accurate transcription, produced to the best of my skills and ability, of the recording of R. v. Tahjai Hannay in the Superior Court of Justice held at Brampton (for Milton), Ontario, taken from Recording No. 1211_BramptonCourtroom_20230913_080832__10_ CONLANC, which has been certified in Form 1 by Niveda Rajakumar.
October 23, 2023
Date Electronic signature of
Lynn Carrière, ACT ID 2366775200
Ontario, Canada
A certificate in Form 3 is admissible in evidence and is proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the transcript is a transcript of the certified recording of evidence and proceedings in the proceeding that is identified in the certificate.
Transcript Ordered: October 17, 2023
Transcript Completed: October 23, 2023
Approved by Conlan J.: October 24, 2023
Ordering Party Notified: October 24, 2023