Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CR-22-91105409 DATE: 2024-03-15 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN: HIS MAJESTY THE KING – and – MIKE VUKMANOVIC Defendant

COUNSEL: M. Park, for the Crown A. Craig, for the Defendant

HEARD: November 2, 2023

Reasons for Sentence

CAMERON J.:

[1] Mike Vukmanovic plead guilty to 16 offences related to the possession and manufacturing of firearms, as well as the possession of ammunition.

[2] Specifically, Mr. Vukmanovic plead guilty to:

• four counts of manufacturing firearms pursuant to s. 99(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada;
• one count of possession of a loaded prohibited firearm pursuant to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code;
• five counts of possession of firearms while on a firearms prohibition order pursuant to s. 117.01(1) of the Criminal Code;
• five counts of possessing non-restricted firearms without holding a licence to possess them pursuant to s. 92(1) of the Criminal Code and finally,
• one count of possessing a prohibited device (20 overcapacity magazines) contrary to s. 92(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Facts Which Gave Rise to the Offences:

[3] On January 25, 2022, the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) examined a parcel at the UPS facility in Windsor, Ontario, containing prohibited firearm components for Glock-style handguns. These components were capable of completing two Glock handguns when combined with “lower receiver” frames. The parcel arrived from Utah, United States, for Mike Vukmanovic at 176 Cedar Street, Keswick, Ontario. According to UPS records, the same exporter previously sent a similar parcel to Mike Vukmanovic at the above address on December 3, 2021.

[4] The CBSA conducted surveillance at 176 Cedar Street, Keswick. This house was located in a residential neighbourhood with schools and shops within walking distance. Officers saw Mr. Vukmanovic coming and going from this address.

[5] On February 17, 2022, CBSA executed a Customs Act search warrant for the Keswick address and discovered a cache of guns and ammunition. Specifically, CBSA seized the following firearms-related items located throughout the residence:

• An AR - 15 rifle (Smith & Wesson M&P- 15) – this is the subject of count 13, the s. 95 offence;
• An SKS semi-automatic rifle; a Pars Silah Sanayi semi-automatic 12 gauge shotgun; a Mossberg 12 gauge pump-action shotgun; a Savage Arms Axis bolt-action 22-250 caliber rifle; and a Howa Model 1500 “Sniper Rifle”. These five guns are the subject of counts 18-22, the s. 92 offences;
• A black Glock-style 3D-printed lower receiver frame; a grey Glock-style 3D-printed lower receiver frame; another Black Glock-style 3D-printed lower receiver frame; and a partially completed black Glock-style 3D-printed lower receiver. These form the basis of the charges in counts 2-5, the s. 99 or manufacturing counts.

[6] Police also located a 3D printer; Glock 3D printing manuals; 20 over-capacity magazines, 16 of them loaded, which are the subject of count 23. Finally, police discovered over 3,600 rounds of ammunition (along with 14 spent casings for the Howa 1500 rifle).

[7] The CBSA investigation revealed that Mike Vukmanovic did not possess a firearms licence. Furthermore, he was on a prohibition order for possessing any prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device and prohibited ammunition.

[8] The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Canadian Firearms Program, analysed the above firearms, prohibited devices, and ammunition. The analysis rendered the following results:

• Both semi-automatic rifles; the semi-automatic shotgun; the pump action shotgun; and both bolt action rifles functioned properly.
• All four Glock lower receivers when fitted with other components seized from the investigation functioned properly.
• The 20 over-capacity magazines were loaded with 20 cartridges. All magazines were classified as prohibited devices within the meaning of s. 84(1) of the Criminal Code.

[9] Mr. Vukmanovic was not present when CBSA executed the search warrant. The CBSA learned that he was in Ottawa attending a trucker convoy protest. On February 17, 2022, Ottawa Police Service arrested Mr. Vukmanovic at the site of the protest. He was not in possession of any firearm or weapon.

[10] Mr. Vukmanovic admitted that he bought the AR-15 rifle from “someone on the street.” He knew that he was supposed to have a licence to possess firearms. He was a self-proclaimed anarchist who believed that people could rule themselves.

[11] A search of Mr. Vukmanovic’s cell phone found a deleted email from Mr. Vukmanovic to an unknown person that said:

Thank you for the support and the chat yesterday. I can no longer sit there and play nice and think that a peaceful protest is going to accomplish anything. I’ve seen way too many vids from your country where peaceful protests were met with violence and gas. I fear it is only a matter of time before this happens here….I’ve spoken with my loved ones, my mother is in shock, but understands that when shit flies, I’m going into the shit. I’m 56…what the fuck have I got left of life? A few years?? 2 decades at best… nah. As the old saying goes. I’D RATHER DIE ON MY FEET LIKE A MAN THAN ON MY KNEES AS A SLAVE…I’ll keep you informed….Mikey V.

[12] The same phone contained a chat conversation between Mr. Vukmanovic and an unknown person named Limey. In this conversation, Mr. Vukmanovic advised Limey that he was heading to Ottawa. When asked why, Mr. Vukmanovic said – “not sure yet”, and then sent a photo of a Glock magazine. The person replied with a photo of a coffee table and several guns. Mr. Vukmanovic then sent Limey a photo of an assault rifle underneath a mattress and a photo of a rifle magazine. Mr. Vukmanovic then said “Let them try to take my rights. I know I’m damned but I’m not going down alone.”

The Position of the Parties:

[13] The Crown submits that an appropriate sentence after a consideration of the principle of totality is one of 10 years in jail along with a number of ancillary orders. It is the Crown’s position that the sentence should be apportioned as follows: 6 years concurrent on each count of manufacturing firearms (the four s. 99 offences); 4 years consecutive to that for possession of the loaded prohibited firearm (the s. 95 offence); 2 years concurrent on the five counts of possession of firearms without a licence; 2 years consecutive for the five counts of breaching a prohibition order; and 2 years consecutive for possession of a prohibited device. This equates to a total of 14 years which the Crown submits ought to be reduced to 10 years for totality, which would be further reduced for time spent in custody on a 1.5:1 scale. Any reduction for harsh conditions while in custody should be considered as a mitigating fact on sentence.

[14] The Crown seeks a s. 109 order for life, a DNA order and a forfeiture order for items which include the guns, gun parts, magazines and ammunition.

[15] Ms. Craig, on behalf of Mr. Vukmanovic, seeks a sentence of time-served. As of today, Mr. Vukmanovic has served 752 days in custody. On a 1.5:1 scale, that equals 1,128 days or approximately three years. It is her position that consecutive sentences should not apply in this case, although she agrees that the sentence for breaching the prohibition order is properly consecutive to any sentence I may impose. Mr. Vukmanovic has served approximately 337 days of his time in jail in full or partial lockdown. Therefore, there ought to be some mitigation on sentence for this. Mr. Vukmanovic does not oppose the ancillary orders sought by the Crown.

The Principles of Sentencing:

[16] In fashioning a fit sentence, I must weigh all of the aggravating and mitigating factors in this particular case. The principles of sentencing are set out in ss. 718, 718.1 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code. I am bound by these principles. The most fundamental principle of sentencing is proportionality. The sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offences and the degree of responsibility of the offender. I must also consider the principle of restraint, recognizing that an offender should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances. All available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community, should be considered for all offenders.

[17] The Crown seeks sentences on the manufacturing firearms counts that are consecutive to the possession of firearms counts. He submits that these groups of offences amount to separate transactions which attract distinct culpability as contemplated by s. 718.3(4)(b) of the Criminal Code, where it states that consecutive terms of imprisonment shall be imposed where the offences do not arise out of the same event or series of events.

[18] In order to determine if consecutive sentences should be imposed, I must determine if the offences are closely related to each other. There is no specific test that has emerged in the jurisprudence as to what constitutes a sufficient “relationship”, “nexus” or “connection” between offences so as to justify concurrent sentences. R. v. Chisholm, [1965] 4 C.C.C. 289 at p. 291 (Ont. C.A.); and R. v. Millard, 2018 ONSC 1299, [2018] O.J. No. 1036 at para. 30. The test is “very flexible” and fact-specific. R. v. W.Q., 210 C.C.C. (3d) 398 at paras. 11-15 (Ont. C.A.), R. v. Maroti, 2010 MBCA 54, 256 C.C.C. (3d) 332 at paras. 12-25 (Man. C.A.); and R. v. Taylor, 2010 MBCA 103, 263 C.C.C. (3d) 307 at paras. 11 and 15-18 (Man. C.A.). The rule that sentences for offences arising out of the same transaction should normally be concurrent, does not necessarily apply where the offences “constitute invasions of different legally protected interests” subject to the principle of totality. R. v. Gummer (1983), 1 O.A.C. 141 at para. 13; R. v. Houle, 2008 ONCA 287; R. v. Gillis, 2009 ONCA 312; and R. v. Fournel, 2014 ONCA 305 at para. 58.

[19] Counsel for Mr. Vukmanovic submits that but for the breach offences, concurrent sentences should be applied. She relies on the decision in R. v. Cook, 2020 ONCJ 374, where concurrent sentences were imposed after Mr. Cook plead guilty to five offences, including both possession of and manufacturing firearms. The Court in that case, however, was not asked to consider this issue. The three firearms he was found guilty to be in possession of were the firearms he manufactured.

[20] In this case, Mr. Vukmanovic plead guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited firearm that he admittedly acquired “on the street”. The five guns he possessed in violation of s. 92 of the Criminal Code were also guns he acquired, rather than made. In comparison, the Glocks he possessed were manufactured by him on his 3D printer. I agree with the Crown that the acquisition and possession of the other weapons is not offensive behaviour that arises out of the same transaction as the creation of firearms on his 3D printer. This conduct constitutes an “invasion of different legally protected interests.” Mr. Vukmanovic’s conduct in manufacturing guns, creating a veritable cache of dangerous weapons that previously did not exist, is sufficiently distinct from his conduct in acquiring weapons that were made by others so as to attract consecutive sentences.

The Circumstances of Mr. Vukmanovic:

[21] Mr. Vukmanovic is 58 years old. He has the support of his loving mother who is 79. Mr. Vukmanovic was born in Toronto. He has one step-sister from who he is estranged. He is not married and does not have children. Mr. Vukmanovic was brought up in a traditional Eastern European household. His father was an alcoholic who was abusive to him physically and psychologically. His parents separated when he was 12 and he was forced to live with his father. In his early teens, he became addicted to heroin. During this time, he decided to fight the war in Yugoslavia. His addiction became worse. Laudably, Mr. Vukmanovic got clean in 2011 and has been clean ever since.

[22] At the time of his arrest, Mr. Vukmanovic was not in the best health and on the Ontario Disability Support Program. He had adopted a survivalist mindset and was preparing for the future. To further this goal, he was collecting and storing food with the aim to one day live off the land. This is still his goal.

[23] Mr. Vukmanovic has a criminal record that begins in 1981 and ends in 2009. His convictions are fraud related, drug related, include breaches of court orders, and include one conviction for assault with a weapon.

The Mitigating Factors:

[24] Mr. Vukmanovic has a considerable gap in his criminal record between his last set of offences and the offences for which I am sentencing him today. Until these charges, he had not been before the courts for over 10 years. His previous convictions occurred during a time of great difficulty in his personal life, having been abused by his father, addicted to drugs and then experiencing the horrors of war.

[25] Most importantly, Mr. Vukmanovic plead guilty to 16 serious offences, accepting responsibility and saving the court significant resources. This guilty plea is an expression of remorse which is a significantly mitigating factor.

[26] The conditions in which Mr. Vukmanovic has spent in custody have been nothing short of deplorable. The amount of time he has spent in lockdown is unacceptable and must be taken into account as a mitigating factor on the sentence I impose.

The Aggravating Factors:

[27] The volume of dangerous weapons acquired and created by Mr. Vukmanovic is quite astounding. The guns that he manufactured would always be untraceable. To amass the size of arsenal that Mr. Vukmanovic did, he must have put a significant amount of time and planning into his collection. The firearms were not properly stored within the home which was in residential neighbourhood in walking distance from schools and businesses.

[28] The email and text messages written by Mr. Vukmanovic that were recovered by the police are very disturbing. On their face, they betray an intention on Mr. Vukmanovic’s part to actually use the guns in protest or in some kind of stance against authority. Thankfully, when Mr. Vukmanovic attended the Freedom Convoy protest he did not have any of the firearms with him. This lends credence to the submission of his counsel that the guns were a collection intended to defend himself should the so-called “end of day” come upon him. That said, this type of bravado, particularly when communicated to others in possession of deadly weapons, calls into question his motive for their collection. To find that this amount of weaponry, and in particular the 3,600 rounds of ammunition, was amassed solely for the purpose of self-defence, is difficult. Whatever the reason Mr. Vukmanovic possessed his arsenal, it was an extremely dangerous enterprise which jeopardized the safety of the public.

The Case Law Related to Firearms:

[29] There is no doubt that firearms are a plague on our community. Year after year, the courts have emphasized the importance of deterrence and denunciation as the paramount sentencing principles when fashioning a fit sentence for gun crimes.

[30] In R. v. Danvers, 201 O.A.C. 138, at para. 78, the Ontario Court of Appeal sent a clear message that those who possess illegal firearms must receive exemplary sentences, stating, “our courts have to address the principles of denunciation and deterrence for gun related crimes in the strongest possible terms”. In R. v. Dene and Telfer, [2010] O.J. No. 5192 (S.C.J.) at para. 33, affirmed by the Court of Appeal at 2010 ONCA 796, the Court echoed this need to deter and denounce the possession of illegal firearms. It is important to note in those cases, the offender was carrying a loaded handgun in a public place.

[31] It is always difficult to find a case that is exactly on point. That is why sentencing is a highly individualized process. Although the sentencing range for like offences is helpful in determining the appropriate sentence, the ultimate question is whether or not the imposed sentence is fit. R. v. S.M.C., 2017 ONCA 107 at para. 7, and R. v. Niyongabo, 2020 ONCA 490 at para. 49.

[32] In R. v. Andall, 2011 ONSC 4300, denunciation and deterrence were found to be the paramount considerations on sentencing even though Mr. Andall was not found to be carrying a loaded weapon in public. In that case, he was convicted of possession of loaded firearms and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. He was sentenced to 4.5 years for the firearms offences.

[33] In R. v. Cook, 2020 ONCJ 374, Mr. Cook was sentenced to four years for manufacturing and possessing three firearms. He was investigated after the police responded to a 911 call that a person had flashed a handgun at the caller while driving in the course of a dispute. A handgun was located in his vehicle in plain view. A search of Mr. Cook’s home yielded other guns, was well as material associated with the kits required to make them and a large quantity of ammunition. Mr. Cook was a youthful first offender.

[34] In R. v. Friesen, 2016 BCSC 1938, Mr. Friesen was sentenced to 10 years in prison. He had a prior criminal record for careless use of firearm, prohibited weapon and ammunition, and an attempted murder with firearm. He plead guilty to selling, exporting and manufacturing handgun switches, possession of restricted and prohibited firearms and breaches of weapons prohibitions.

[35] In R. v. Hurren, 2023 ONCA 148, Mr. Hurren was sentenced to six years in prison. He had a dated criminal record for impaired driving and was suffering from depression. The sentencing judge held, however, at para. 18, that it was Mr. Hurren’s political views that caused him to take the actions he did. Mr. Hurren had armed himself with three loaded firearms, and crashed his pickup truck into the gates of Rideau Hall to gain access to the property serving as the residences of the Governor General and the Prime Minister of Canada. He was arrested after a stand-off with the police. He plead guilty to seven firearms offences and one count of mischief.

Analysis:

[36] Having considered the aggravating and mitigating factors discussed above, as well as having reviewed the appropriate case law and having applied the principles of sentencing set out in the Criminal Code, I find that a just sentence in this case is one of seven years in custody.

[37] The arsenal located in Mr. Vukmanovic’s home was massive. It is difficult to conceive of any need for a single person to possess this number of violent and dangerous weapons, along with the staggering amount of ammunition that was also found. The words of Mr. Vukmanovic in his text messages reveal a disturbing attitude towards the peaceful and just society in which we aspire to live. The fact that Mr. Vukmanovic had the ability and the will to add to his collection by manufacturing even more firearms, those that are untraceable, and those that are equally as deadly as the others, is extremely troubling and cries out for an exemplary sentence.

[38] Although Mr. Vukmanovic has an unenviable criminal record, he has been able to overcome an addiction and live a seemingly pro-social life for the over 10 years between his last conviction and his arrest on these charges. This speaks well for his prospects of rehabilitation. I am confident that the love of and support from his mother will also add to his prospects for rehabilitation.

[39] The sentence will be apportioned as follows:

• 4 years on each count of manufacturing firearms – that is count 2, 3, 4, and 5 to be served concurrently with each other.
• 3 years consecutive to that for possession of the loaded prohibited firearm – that is count 13.
• 2 years concurrent on the five counts of possession of firearms without a licence – that is count 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23.
• 2 years consecutive for the five counts of breaching a prohibition order – that is count 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11.
• 2 years consecutive for possession of a prohibited device – that is count 23.

[40] This equates to a total of eleven years, which in my view must be reduced for totality to a period of seven years. To be clear, I have already considered the mitigating fact of the time spent in lockdown while Mr. Vukmanovic has been in custody in arriving at what is, in my view, an appropriate sentence of seven years. Mr. Vukmanovic is also entitled to a reduction of sentence for the time he has spent in custody, which on a 1.5:1 scale is the equivalent of 1,128 days. Therefore, Mr. Vukmanovic has a remaining three years and ten months left to serve.

[41] There will also be a s. 109 order for life, a DNA order and a forfeiture order for items specified in the Order provided by the Crown.

Signature and Release Date

The Honourable Justice J. Cameron

Released: March 15, 2024