CITATION: R. v. Veerapen, 2025 ONSC 3322

COURT FILE NO.: CR-24-30000239-0000

DATE: 20250610

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

VISHAN VEERAPEN

Defendant

Bryan Guertin, for the Crown

Trevin David for the Defendant, Vishan Veerapen

HEARD: June 2, 2025

N.J. SPIES J. (Orally)

REASONS FOR SENTENCe

Overview

1On March 13, 2025, the defendant, Vishan Veerapen, was convicted by a jury of the following offences:

a) Count 2 - discharging a firearm with intent to wound contrary to s. 244(1) of the Criminal Code;

b) Count 3 - committing an aggravated assault by wounding Anand Singh contrary to s. 268(2) of the Criminal Code;

c) Count 4 – unauthorized possession of a loaded prohibited firearm contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code;

d) Count 5 - possession of a prohibited firearm knowing he was not the holder of an authorization or registration certificate, contrary to s. 92(1) of the Criminal Code; and

e) Count 6 - occupying a motor vehicle in which he knew there was a prohibited firearm contrary to s. 94(1) of the Criminal Code.

2Mr. Veerapen was acquitted by the jury of the charge of attempted murder while using a firearm contrary to s. 239(1) of the Criminal Code.

3In light of the findings of the jury, after receiving their verdicts, I found Mr. Veerapen guilty of one count, on a separate indictment, of possessing a firearm while prohibited from doing so by court order, contrary to s. 117.01(1) of the Criminal Code.

4Mr. Veerapen is now before me for sentencing.

The Facts

(a) Circumstances of the Offences

5Based on the necessary findings of the jury in reaching their verdicts, I find that Mr. Veerapen drove his Mercedes sedan on August 6, 2022, to the Tropical Nights restaurant and bar (“Tropical”) in Scarborough, where he was involved in a heated verbal altercation with Anand Singh in the early morning hours of August 7, 2022, that culminated in him shooting Mr. Singh twice in the abdomen.

6Before this altercation Mr. Veerapen and Mr. Singh had a friendly exchange inside Tropical after last call, but they knew each other only from both being regulars at Tropical.

7After leaving Tropical Mr. Veerapen went to his vehicle and while standing next to it, he became involved in a loud verbal argument with a much younger male, CB. He was angry with CB and yelling at him because he believed CB was “talking shit” about him. CB shouted back and this shouting match drew the attention of others in the parking lot. When Mr. Singh was told about this, he immediately went to talk to Mr. Veerapen, mistakenly believing that the argument Mr. Veerapen was having was with his young nephew. Once Mr. Singh reached Mr. Veerapen, despite an initial handshake, a heated and loud verbal argument ensued between them that drew a number of males who gathered near Mr. Singh. It was a couple of minutes later that Mr. Veerapen shot Mr. Singh twice.

8Mr. Veerapen testified in his own defence. His position at trial was that during his verbal argument with Mr. Singh, Mr. Singh pushed him and grabbed his shirt to pull him back and that one of Mr. Singh’s friends, Farzad, then pulled out a firearm and grabbed him around the neck. He testified that when he pushed the hand with the firearm away, it accidentally discharged and as a result Mr. Singh was shot twice. In the alternative, if the jury found Mr. Veerapen was in possession of the firearm, he argued that he acted in self-defence given that there were several men standing around Mr. Singh who he believed were friends of Mr. Singh and he was on his own. Clearly based on the unambiguous findings of the jury, both of those arguments were rejected. The jury must have found that Mr. Veerapen was in possession of a loaded firearm in his vehicle, that he used this firearm to deliberately shoot Mr. Singh twice in the abdomen, that he did not act in lawful self-defence and that his intention at that time was to wound Mr. Singh but not to kill him. Although this firearm was never recovered, it was admitted that this firearm was a restricted or prohibited handgun as defined in the Criminal Code.

9There was a lot of evidence as to what led up to the altercation between Mr. Veerapen and Mr. Singh and then the actual shooting, although Mr. Singh had very little memory of this. Mr. Guertin argued that the “half-sit” into his vehicle that Mr. Veerapen admitted to when he saw Mr. Singh walking towards him was in fact when he retrieved the firearm from his vehicle. I agree. Given the security checks before anyone could enter the Tropical, Mr. Veerapen must have left the firearm in his vehicle when he went inside. Based on the video evidence, this “half sit” is when he must have retrieved the firearm from his vehicle. Mr. Veerapen admitted that as can be seen on the video, that he had his right hand behind his back, during his verbal altercation with Mr. Singh, and I find that he was holding the firearm or had it tucked into the back waistband of his pants.

10It is clear that Mr. Veerapen and Mr. Singh were in a heated verbal altercation for a couple of minutes before Mr. Singh was shot. Mr. Veerapen was on his own and there were a number of people standing around Mr. Singh during this altercation. Mr. Veerapen’s evidence about the shooting was clearly rejected by the jury. The only Crown witness who testified about the actual shooting was Krishna Armoogam, Mr. Singh’s friend. He testified that he saw Mr. Veerapen’s right hand behind his back and he had a feeling he might be holding a gun. He testified that Mr. Veerapen aggressively stated: “you don’t want this smoke”, which he said would be understood on the street as “you don’t want to be shot”. Mr. Veerapen did not agree with this and testified that he said “I don’t want no smoke with you” which meant he did not want any trouble with Mr. Singh. I found Mr. Armoogam to be a credible witness, and the most reliable of all the witnesses who testified about what happened immediately before Mr. Veerapen shot Mr. Singh, but since no one else who testified heard what Mr. Veerapen said, I accept that Mr. Armoogam could be mistaken. In any event, this is not significant to my sentencing decision.

11Mr. David, counsel for Mr. Veerapen, submitted on the sentencing hearing that the jury found Mr. Veerapen guilty because he used excessive force, i.e. the third branch of self-defence. It is his position that the video evidence shows that Mr. Singh punched Mr. Veerapen, and that it was that blow that caused Mr. Veerapen to pull out the firearm and shoot him. He submitted that since the two argued for a few minutes before Mr. Veerapen pulled his gun out, that this is what caused Mr. Veerapen to shoot Mr. Singh. In the alternative, he submitted that Mr. Singh moved the car door out of the way by opening it further and moved towards Mr. Veerapen which is what precipitated the shooting.

12I have of course no evidence from Mr. Veerapen, as he denied ever having the firearm in his possession. Furthermore, Mr. Veerapen did not actually testify that Mr. Singh punched him. He testified that Mr. Singh pushed him and grabbed his shirt to pull him back and that it was Mr. Singh’s friend Farzad, who had the firearm and grabbed him around the neck. He did not testify that anyone punched him.

13Mr. Armoogam denied that Mr. Singh grabbed or threw a punch towards Mr. Veerapen. He testified that right after Mr. Veerapen made the comment about smoke, he saw him grab Mr. Singh with his left hand and pull him towards him. At that moment he saw Mr. Veerapen pull out a silver Glock firearm with his right hand which he squeezed into Mr. Singh’s chest and fired twice. No one else testified to seeing the actual firearm in Mr. Veerapen’s hand, but there is no doubt that Mr. Veerapen shot Mr. Singh twice at close range in his lower abdomen.

14Mr. Singh did not see a gun or remember getting shot. The other Crown witnesses either did not see anything physical and all denied that Mr. Singh punched Mr. Veerapen. Some did testify that they saw that their hands were all over the place as they argued and that they were in each other’s faces.

15The video does show Mr. Singh’s arm up high near Mr. Veerapen’s head, right before he was shot but what can be seen is consistent with the evidence of Mr. Armoogam and even the evidence of Mr. Veerapen that Mr. Singh pushed him but that this push was in reaction to seeing the firearm. Considering all the evidence and based on what can and cannot be seen on the video, I do not accept Mr. David’s submission that Mr. Singh punched Mr. Veerapen and that is why Mr. Veerapen pulled out the firearm. I find it more likely that Mr. Singh pushed Mr. Veerapen when Mr. Veerapen went to grab him with his left arm, and he saw the firearm and was shot. I find that Mr. Singh did not do anything physical or threatening towards Mr. Veerapen and that Mr. Veerapen had absolutely no justification for shooting Mr. Singh twice at close range - based on what can be seen on the video they were no more than two feet apart right before Mr. Singh was shot.

16Mr. Veerapen fled the scene after Mr. Singh was shot and he did not call police or 911. He immediately drove across the border well into New York state. Mr. Veerapen did come back and was in Ontario for about ten days before he was arrested at Pearson airport with his son. His evidence was that he was bringing his son to his mother who was living in Florida because he was afraid for his life and the life of his son and that he had a return plane ticket. I do not accept his evidence that he was afraid for his life or the life of his son, but there was no evidence to contradict Mr. Veerapen’s evidence that he had a return ticket and that he would eventually return to Toronto.

17It was admitted and the jury found that at that time Mr. Veerapen was not licensed to possess any firearms, and he did not have an authorization or registration certificate for any firearm.

(b) Circumstances of Mr. Singh

18I did not receive a Victim Impact Statement from Mr. Singh. I have, however, the evidence from the trial. Mr. Singh was taken to the Scarborough Centenary Hospital immediately after he was shot and then he was transferred to St. Michael’s Hospital where he remained until September 17, 2022, a period of almost six weeks. Mr. Singh testified that he was in a coma for three weeks. It was admitted at trial that he suffered two gunshot wounds, and because the bullets went through his body, he suffered four wounds to his lower abdomen. These wounds caused internal injuries including two lacerations to his liver and a hole in his diaphragm which needed to be surgically repaired. Mr. Singh testified that he still experiences some adverse impacts from his injuries including stomach pain, short term memory loss, some mental health issues and difficulty sleeping from time to time. He was working in construction when he was shot. He testified at trial that he was not working, although he did not attribute that to his injuries.

19Mr. Guertin, counsel for the Crown, submitted that it was fortunate that Mr. Singh did not die from his injuries. I do not have expert evidence to support that submission, but clearly two shots at close range in the lower abdomen could have resulted in his death although the jury did not find Mr. Veerapen intended to kill him. Given the fact that the bullets went through Mr. Singh and that there were a number of others standing close to him, it is a matter of pure luck that no one else was injured.

(c) Circumstances of Mr. Veerapen

20Mr. Veerapen is a first offender. He was 34 at the time he committed these offences. He is now 37. Although at trial he identified himself as Guyanese with a West Indian background, he was in fact born in Toronto. He has a 12-year-old son. His parents are still alive. He has no siblings. The mother of his son had moved to Florida for work a couple of months before these offences were committed. Mr. Veerapen testified that their plan was that he and their son would join her once she was settled in. She remains in Florida with his son. I assume his plan to eventually join them has changed not only due to his arrest but also the fact that Mr. Veerapen has had a girlfriend here for the past nine years. In addition, with a criminal record Mr. Veerapen will not be able to travel to the United States.

21Mr. Veerapen did not finish high school but at some point, he did one semester at college as a mature student. He testified at the sentencing hearing that until March of 2021 he was employed at FedEx, but he lost that job. He was not working at the time of these offences and at that time he was living with his parents with his son. He has had some sporadic work while on bail which I will come to when I consider his position on a claim for credit while on bail. It seems that the only skill Mr. Veerapen has is as a general labourer.

22Mr. Veerapen did not file a Morris report or a pre-sentence report. However, he provided the court with 12 character letters which I have reviewed carefully. They are from the mother of Mr. Veerapen’s son, his son, his girlfriend, his parents, an aunt, an older cousin, four good friends and Jeremy Persaud, the founder of The Commitment Program, a resident-led community organization that provides support and mentorship for youth. Mr. Veerapen’s mother, girlfriend, sister and cousin were in court to support him at the sentencing hearing.

23The letters all ask this court for leniency in sentencing Mr. Veerapen and speak generally to his good character and positive impact on those around him. I accept that Mr. Veerapen has the support of his family and friends. Mr. Veerapen is described as kind, caring, selfless, dependable and being there for family and friends and helping them when needed. No letter addresses the fact that Mr. Veerapen was carrying around an illegal firearm or the aspect of his character on display that night. At the Tropical Mr. Veerapen was certainly social, but he seemed quick to anger, given his heated shouting match with CB in the parking lot and he had a loaded firearm readily available if he felt he needed it.

24I accept that Mr. Veerapen is an active and involved father even though he has not lived with his son since this incident. They are in regular phone and video contact, and that support and engagement will not be possible while he is incarcerated. His parents rely on him to pick up medication and help them with errands, and to drive them places, as does his aunt. Mr. Veerapen’s father and some of his friends describe the difficulties he had in school and the racism he experienced as a person of colour in terms of being bullied, singled out for punishment and even expelled and the toughness and presence of gangs in the neighbourhood where he grew up. It is clear, however, that Mr. Veerapen has had the support of both parents while growing up and that they did their best to help him through these challenges.

25Mr. Persaud states that Mr. Veerapen has been a consistent volunteer with his organization on a weekly basis. His letter does not state when this started, but as an independent character reference, Mr. Persaud states: [w]hat stands out most about Vishan is his unwavering desire to serve, even in the face of personal challenges. He also states that Mr. Veerapen has shown “deep remorse through his consistent actions”, but I note this cannot be remorse for these offences as Mr. Veerapen has maintained his innocence, as of course he has a right to do. Nevertheless, Mr. Persaud goes on to state that Mr. Veerapen: “has become a model of perseverance and self-improvement. His contributions to a community he didn’t grow up in speak volumes about his character, compassion, and desire to do good.” Mr. Persaud is of the opinion that Mr. Veerapen has the potential to be a positive force in the community.

26Mr. Veerapen addressed the court after counsel completed their submissions. He is adamant that he is innocent, and he denied possessing the firearm that shot Mr. Singh. This of course is his right and is not an aggravating factor – it is neutral. However, Mr. Veerapen does not get any mitigation in sentencing that would result from a guilty plea or from a sincere expression of remorse.

27Mr. Veerapen does not have a criminal record, but he was charged before with various gun offences arising from a shooting incident on January 31, 2020. He was tried by Di Luca J. who acquitted him and his co-accused on April 22, 2022. Justice Di Luca’s written reasons are not reported but were filed as part of the Crown’s sentencing brief.

28The admissibility of this evidence was vigorously opposed by Mr. David. Mr. Guertin made it clear that he accepted that Mr. Veerapen was innocent of those charges, but he relied on the fact that there was no doubt that shots were fired from his Mercedes sedan at a time when he was driving with two others in his vehicle and that he went through a trial which concluded with his acquittal. He relied in particular on what Justice Di Luca said to Mr. Veerapen and his co-accused, after giving reasons for acquitting them both. I will not set out Justice Di Luca’s precise words here, but he essentially told them that after they left court, they would have a choice to either go back to the lifestyle that led them to being in court or make different choices in life. Mr. Guertin argues that this is relevant to the question of specific deterrence because despite this prudent advice from the court, Mr. Veerapen committed the offences he is now to be sentenced for less than four months later.

29Mr. David relies on R. v. Grdic, 1985 CanLII 34 (SCC), [1985] 1 S.C.R. 810. I do not find that decision to be of assistance as Mr. Guertin is not seeking to relitigate the case that was heard by Justice Di Luca. In my view, the admissibility of this evidence turns on a prejudice versus probative value analysis. Although at first blush there seems to be logic to Mr. Guertin’s position, the difficulty is that the evidence is not relevant and is prejudicial in that it is at odds with Mr. Veerapen’s position that he did not possess a firearm and that he is innocent of the charges related to shooting Mr. Singh. In other words, his position is consistent with an argument that he did heed the advice of Justice Di Luca. I have therefore ignored this evidence.

30When Mr. Veerapen addressed the court after the submissions of counsel, he mentioned for the first time growing up in a bad and troubled neighborhood and spoke of the impact on him of street violence and the resulting loss of friends beaten, shot and stabbed in front of him. He also said that he was the minority at one point and exposed to racism from the principal and teachers, and that he was condemned his whole life for things by police he did not do.

31Mr. Veerapen also told me that he has devoted his time to the community and to youth. He spent a lot of time speaking about the last two and a half months in the TSDC which he described as “total hell”. He has missed the last three years of his son’s life and has decided that his son should remain in the United States. Given his conviction he will not be able to travel to the United States to see his son and so he expects to only see him a couple of times a year. Mr. Veerapen concluded by stating he is a man of Christian faith, and he asked for mercy and that I give him a chance and give him the most minimal sentence I can.

Legal Parameters

32Pursuant to s. 244(2)(a) of the Criminal Code, given that this is Mr. Veerapen’s first conviction for discharge of a firearm with intent to wound and given that he used a restricted or prohibited firearm, the minimum sentence is five years, and the maximum sentence is 14 years. With respect to his conviction for committing an aggravated assault by wounding contrary to s. 268(2) of the Criminal Code, there is no minimum sentence, and the maximum sentence is 14 years.

33The maximum sentence for a first offence of possession of a loaded prohibited firearm is ten years pursuant to s. 95(2) of the Criminal Code. The mandatory minimum of three years is no longer in effect. The maximum sentence for a first offence of possession of a prohibited firearm knowing he was not the holder of a license, is also ten years pursuant to s. 92(3)(a) of the Criminal Code. There is no minimum sentence. Finally, the maximum sentence for Mr. Veerapen’s conviction for occupying a motor vehicle in which he knew there was a prohibited firearm is also ten years pursuant to s. 94(2) (a)of the Criminal Code. Again, there is no minimum.

Positions of Crown and Defence

34Mr. Guertin, submitted that a ten-year sentence less pre-sentence credit (“PSC”) be imposed, allocated as follows:

a) Shooting offences – 8 – 9 years,

b) Firearm possession offence – 4 years concurrent,

c) Occupy motor vehicle with a firearm – 1 year consecutive,

d) Breach of firearms prohibition – 1 year consecutive.

35In addition, Mr. Guertin requested a DNA order on the primary designated offences, a s. 109 weapons prohibition for life and a non-communication order for the Crown witnesses.

36Mr. David does not take issue with the ancillary orders requested. Aggravated assault and discharge firearm with intent are primary designated offences and pursuant to s. 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code a DNA order is mandatory. Further, possession of a loaded prohibited firearm is a secondary designated offence.

37Mr. David takes the position that I should sentence Mr. Veerapen to a global sentence of six years after taking in account an enhanced credit for the conditions Mr. Veerapen experienced while in detention at the Toronto South Detention Centre (“TSDC”).

Sentencing Case Law for Shooting Offences

38There is no issue that despite the short endorsement, the Court of Appeal in R. v. Bellissimo, 2009 ONCA 49, at para. 3, set a range of seven to 11 years for serious firearm offences where a firearm was discharged: see R. v. Jefferson, 2014 ONCA 434, at para. 14.

39A sentencing range is a guideline but not a hard and fast rule. In this case, given the position of both counsel, the issue is where within the range set by Belissimo this case falls. I have reviewed all the cases relied upon by counsel in support of their respective positions as well as their helpful sentencing charts but will only set out those I found closest to the circumstances of this case and thus most helpful. As a general observation although comparisons among offenders is not difficult, I have found that it is difficult to compare the seriousness of the offences as the circumstances vary greatly. For example, in Bellissimo the offender fired several shots into a restaurant. One significantly injured the first victim, another caused minor injury to the second victim, and the third narrowly missed killing the last victim: at paras. 4-5. In this case, only Mr. Singh was injured but he was shot by Mr. Veerapen at close range and although he did not intend to kill Mr. Singh, he could have been killed.

40Mr. Guertin relies on the decision of R. v. Jefferson, 2011 ONSC (unreported), 2014 ONCA 434, where the appellant was convicted by a jury of discharging a firearm with the intention to wound and possession of a loaded restricted firearm. He was convicted on a separate indictment for possession of a firearm while prohibited and four counts of breach of a probation order. The evidence showed that there was a history of animosity and even violence between the two former friends. The trial judge described the genesis of the crime as the involvement with illegal drugs and the relationship between prior offenders who had a previous history of joint criminal activity. On the day of the shooting the two got into a confrontation at a mutual friend’s home. Later, when the offender saw the victim in the passenger-seat of a car, he walked onto the road, stopped in front of the car, and while the car was still moving, he pulled out his gun and shot the victim through a car window from about 15 feet, hitting the victim in the arm. There was only one shot.

41The sentencing judge determined that there were seven aggravating factors, including: the seriousness of the offence; the reckless use of an illegally purchased handgun; the shooting occurred in a residential neighbourhood; the gun was never recovered; and the offender had a prior criminal record. The offender’s age (23 at the time of sentencing), unfortunate background, remorse, albeit late, and future prospects were found to be mitigating factors, though not overwhelming. The judge felt that the minimum sentence that could be imposed was 10 years. He allocated nine years for the discharge less PSC and one year consecutive for possession of a firearm while prohibited with the remaining sentences running concurrently. This sentence was upheld on appeal. The court noted at para. 14 that it was within the 7-11 year range set out in Bellissimo and the fact that the trial judge found that the crime and the offender’s circumstances put him at the upper end of that range.

42I agree that there are many similarities in the case of Jefferson to the case at bar although as Mr. David submitted, the offender was involved in a criminal lifestyle involving illegal drugs and there is no evidence of the involvement of any illegal drugs in the case of Mr. Veerapen. Furthermore, Mr. Veerapen does not have a criminal record. Mr. David argued that another important distinguishing fact was the fact that it was sometime after the confrontation, when the offender saw the victim again, that he took steps to shoot him which Mr. David argued is clearly premeditated.

43Mr. Guertin also relies on R. v. Weeden, 2019 ONSC 773, in support of his position that a fit global sentence in this case is nine years. The offender attended a rap contest at a bar, which his older brother was competing in. After leaving the bar, a dispute occurred between a group of men and the offender, his brother, and the men they were with. The offender ran to his car and retrieved a gun. He returned quickly and brandished the gun at the other group. A short while later, he fired the gun towards the group. He did not hit anyone involved in the dispute. Rather, the bullet went through the car door of an Uber driver and hit the driver in the shoulder. Police later executed a search warrant on the offender’s apartment and found two kilograms of marijuana and cash.

44The offender had one prior drug conviction from years earlier but was out on two separate releases at the time of the shooting. He was also on a weapons prohibition order which was considered to be highly aggravating. The offender was 26 at the time of sentencing. He had some difficulties in his life and grew up in a high crime area but had the support of his mother and sister, had held several jobs, and indicated he wanted to upgrade his schooling and participate in counselling or life skills courses. He expressed remorse at the sentencing hearing. The fact that the gun was never recovered was found to be aggravating, as was the fact that the offender had time to deliberate and that the shooting took place in a public place. The offender had experienced 221 total or partial lockdowns while in custody.

45Following a trial, Justice McArthur imposed a nine-and-a-half-year sentence for the discharge firearm, aggravated assault and possession of a loaded firearm offences less PSC and six months consecutive on the drug conviction.

46Mr. David agreed that this case is distinguishable because the offender left the bar to get his gun which makes it clear his decision to shoot was premeditated. That, however, is not unlike Mr. Veerapen’s decision to retrieve the loaded firearm he had in his vehicle. I found this case to be comparable to the case at bar.

47Mr. David submitted that the decision of Akhtar J. in R. v. Reis, 2017 ONSC 1961 is closest to the case at bar in support of his position that a six-year sentence for the shooting convictions is appropriate. In that case, the offender was convicted of aggravated assault, discharging firearm with intent to wound, using a firearm while committing offence of aggravated assault. The offender and the victim’s friend, Tutu, had a history of prior animus and Tutu had pointed a gun at the offender and his friends before. When Tutu and the victim approached the offender and his friends. Tutu produced the gun, waved it in an intimidating fashion before leaving. The offender was enraged and chased and tackled Tutu to ground, seized the firearm and then shot five times at Tutu and victim. One shot hit the victim in his lower abdomen. The offender then pursued the victim and assaulted him before leaving the scene and disposing of the gun and his clothes.

48The Crown sought a sentence of five to six years. Justice Akhtar imposed a six-year sentence but made no mention of Bellissimo. At that time the minimum sentence for discharge firearm with an intent to wound was four years, not five. In reaching his sentence Justice Akhtar considered that the shooting was an act of retribution, and the fact that the offender followed the victim after he had shot and injured him and continued shooting intending on inflicting further harm. The most significant mitigating factor was that the finding that had the victim not engaged in provocative behaviour, there would have been no shooting. The offender was a relatively young man (28), with no meaningful criminal record, community support, and a positive letter from girlfriend.

49I agree with Mr. David that the shooting itself was much more aggravating than the case at bar, but Justice Akhtar clearly considered the fact the victim brought the firearm and engaged in provocative behaviour which resulted in the shooting. Having found that Mr. Singh and no one else was in possession of a firearm but for Mr. Veerapen and that Mr. Singh did not punch Mr. Veerapen, this case is not of much assistance.

50Mr. David also referred to R. v. Johnston, 2020 ONCJ 272, where a six and a half sentence was upheld by the Court of Appeal, 2021 ONCA 331. In that case after an argument over music, the offender shot the victim in the chest at a distance of five to seven feet. The offender had a criminal record for drug offences and multiple breaches of court orders and was actively involved in drug trafficking. This case is distinguishable, however, because as the Court of Appeal noted at para. 19, the trial judge gave significant weight to the offender's mental health and addiction issues and found that a sentence at the low end of the range indicated in Bellissimo was appropriate especially considering the offender’s untreated addictions and mental health issues.

51Mr. David also referred to the decision of Justice Belobaba in R. v. Larmond, 2011 ONSC 7170. In that case Belobaba J. found the shooting was not planned or premeditated in the sense that the offender ran into the victim spontaneously, and that it was not because the victim owed the offender a drug debt: at para. 9. Justice Belobaba found that was not the reason for the shooting and that the motive for the shooting was unknown, and he queried if it was the result of a momentary lapse of judgment fueled by an excess of alcohol and marijuana. No explanation fit the otherwise very positive profile of the offender. Justice Belobaba considered 22 months of strict house arrest and imposed a seven-year global sentence on the discharge firearm with intent to wound, aggravated assault, and the firearm possession offences. At para. 28, Justice Belobaba acknowledged that this was at the low end of the range set out in Bellissimo but that it was the appropriate sentence - and all the more so because Mr. Larmond as a permanent resident would most likely be deported once the sentence was served, which he considered as a hardship.

52Finally, Mr. David relies on R. v. Harrison, 2024 ONSC 3272 where the offender was sentenced to seven years for aggravated assault and discharging firearm with intent to wound. The circumstances of the offence were more serious in that the offender chased his father down a street and into his house and shot him five times nearly killing him. However, the evidence was that the shooting followed a long history of family conflict and tension, particularly between the father and son and the father struck the offender on the head precipitating the attack. Furthermore, the sentence was after a guilty plea and an apology, both significant mitigating factors. Justice Goldstein also had an Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report which he considered and found the offender, who had a limited and dated criminal record, was an excellent candidate for rehabilitation.

53Mr. Guertin and Mr. David both rely on R v Addow, 2014 ONSC 3225, a case where a group of 20 or so youths were gathered, drinking and smoking, near a group of townhouses in a housing complex in Toronto. There was a confrontation between the offender and the victim, which arose out of an incident earlier that day. The offender shot the victim in the back of his leg. The offender was 23 years old at the time of sentencing and had been enrolled in a trades program prior to his arrest. Support letters submitted to the court attested to the strong role he played within his family and the trial judge found he had some potential for rehabilitation. The offender, however, had a prior criminal record for assault and repeated breaches of court orders going back for six years to when he was a young offender.

54The offender was sentenced to eight years and three months less pre-sentence custody after being convicted after trial of three interrelated sets of offences: (1) discharging a firearm with the intent to wound, aggravated assault, and pointing a handgun; (2) three prohibited firearms possession offences; and (3) two counts of possession of a firearm while prohibited and two breach offences. The longest sentence imposed was seven years and three months for the discharge firearm. The court noted that while a six to eight year sentence may have met the requirements for sentencing on the firearms-related offences, the objectives of sentencing would not be met if it did not impose separate meaningful sentences for the breaches. Accordingly, in total another 12 months consecutive was imposed on the various breaches.

Sentencing Case Law for the Breach of Prohibition Offence

55The court in R. v. McCue, 2012 ONCA 773 at paras. 21-22 held that in sentencing for a breach of a weapons prohibition order I have two options: taking the breach into account as a significant aggravating factor when fixing the appropriate sentence on the firearms convictions and then impose a concurrent sentence on the conviction for breach of the prohibition order. Alternatively, I may ignore the breach of the prohibition order in determining the appropriate sentence on the firearms convictions and impose a consecutive sentence on the conviction for breach of the prohibition order.

56I prefer the second option. In R. v. Ellis, 2013 ONSC 3092 at para. 30, affirmed, 2016 ONCA 598, Campbell J. found that the weight of authority strongly suggests that, as a general rule, a consecutive sentence ought to be imposed for a breach of a weapons prohibition order. He found that in the absence of a consecutive sentence, a defendant would effectively receive no greater punishment as a result of his or her clear violation of a previous court order. The intentional violation of an unequivocal court order requires some effective additional sanction. As he stated, offenders must understand that court orders governing their conduct must be followed or there will be real consequences for their violation. Furthermore, a consecutive sentence recognizes the fact that the breach of a prohibition order is different behaviour than the firearm offences.

57Mr. David pointed out that in other cases the sentence for breach of a prohibition order is as low as three months, but in R. v. Carrol, 2014 ONSC 2063, at para. 30, Molloy J. held that breaching one prohibition order will typically warrant a one-year sentence.

Relevant Sentencing Principles

58The fundamental purpose of sentencing, as set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code, is to protect society and 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: the denunciation of unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or the community; deterrence both general and specific; the separation of the offender from society where necessary; rehabilitation; reparation for harm done to victims or the community; and promotion of a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or the community.

59Section 718.1 of the Criminal Code provides that it is of fundamental importance that a sentence be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

60Section 718.2 of the Criminal Code provides that a sentence should be increased or decreased to account for any aggravating and mitigating circumstances. It also requires that a sentence be similar to those imposed on similar offenders in similar circumstances (parity), that where consecutive sentences are imposed the combined sentence not be unduly long or harsh (totality), that an offender not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances, and that all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or the community should be considered for all offenders (restraint).

61The seriousness of offences involving the unlawful possession of loaded handguns in public places has been repeatedly emphasized by the Supreme Court of Canada: see, R. v. Burke-Whittaker, 2025 ONCA 142, at para. 35 quoting R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, at para. 68. As the Court of Appeal stated in Bellissimo, at para. 5, the objectives of denunciation, general deterrence, and protection of the public are paramount in sentencing for these kind of dangerous gun-related charges.

62Mr. Guertin filed a number of cases dealing with the sentencing for possession of firearms dating back to R. v Danvers, 2005 CanLII 30044 (ON CA), [2005] O.J. No. 3532 (ONCA) up to the most recent case of Burke-Whittaker. Although C. W. Hourigan J.A. in that case gave dissenting reasons, at para. 100 he sets out a helpful list of some of the cases from the Court of Appeal where that court has repeated the same warning for over 20 years regarding the danger of handgun crime on our streets. The most recent is the case of R. v. Akram, 2024 ONCA 892 where at para. 8 the court stated: “gun violence is a scourge in our society and gun crimes must be treated with the utmost seriousness".

63As the Supreme Court stated in R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, at paras 87-105, trial judges are entitled to consider local conditions, including the frequency of a type of offence in a given region into account on sentence. The prevalence of firearms offences has, and continues to be, a serious concern for the citizens of our city. Offences like this only serve to reinforce that fear and undermine feeling safe in our communities. In this regard, Mr. Guertin filed some statistical information that establishes what we see all too often in this court that the city of Toronto continues to be plagued by gun crime.

64Finally, although Mr. Veerapen is not what I would consider a youthful offender, given he is a first offender, I must also consider specific deterrence and rehabilitation.

Analysis

Determination of sentence for the shooting/firearms offences

65Pursuant to s. 718.2(a) of the Criminal Code, a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender. I turn now to the aggravating and mitigating factors in the present case.

(a) Mitigating Factors

66Mr. Veerapen was entitled to a trial and continues to maintain his innocence as he is entitled to do. This is a neutral factor and only means that he does not get the mitigating impact of a guilty plea and expression of remorse.

67Mr. Veerapen does not have a criminal record. He is a first offender and has lived for 37 years without any criminal convictions. He has also complied with his conditions of bail from the time he was arrested to the time of his conviction. He clearly is capable of living a law-abiding, supportive and productive life.

68Mr. Veerapen has considerable family, friends and some community support as evidenced by the character letters filed on his behalf. Those letters describe a family man with many good qualities. Mr. Veerapen’s family and friends clearly see a different side to Mr. Veerapen from what he displayed while he was at the Tropical. Clearly Mr. Veerapen is capable of pro-social behaviour, but at the Tropical he seemed quick to anger, given his heated shouting match with CB in the parking lot and what followed. If Mr. Veerapen deals with what seems to be an issue with controlling his anger while he is incarcerated, although he is not a youthful offender, he is still young enough that there may be a potential for rehabilitation especially given the considerable support from family and friends he enjoys.

69As I have set out, a few of the character letters filed on Mr. Veerapen’s behalf state that he has suffered from racism growing up. This is hearsay evidence. Although, as I will come to, Mr. Veerapen filed an affidavit and gave viva voce evidence at the sentencing hearing, primarily in support of his claim for an enhanced pre-trial credit, he did not give any evidence about any of these issues concerning racism when he was testifying at trial or at the sentencing hearing either in his affidavit or on the stand.

70Mr. Guertin argued that if racism is to be considered as a mitigating factor, there must be some evidence of a connection between the racism experienced by Mr. Veerapen and the offences, relying on Morris, supra at para. 97. He referred to the unreported decision of Justice Nathanson in the Ontario Court of Justice, R. v Rowan Gayle, dated February 13, 2025.

71The Ontario Court of Appeal stated in Morris, at para. 97:

There must, however, be some connection between the overt and systemic racism identified in the community and the circumstances or events that are said to explain or mitigate the criminal conduct in issue. Racism may have impacted on the offender in a way that bears on the offender's moral culpability for the crime, or it may be relevant in some other way to a determination of the appropriate sentence. Absent some connection, mitigation of sentence based simply on the existence of overt or institutional racism in the community becomes a discount based on the offender's colour. Everyone agrees there can be no such discount. [Emphasis added]

72In response, Mr. David referred to R. v. Atkinson, 2024 ONCJ 426. That decision is distinguishable from the case at bar because as Mr. Guertin submitted, there was very extensive evidence from the offender on how racism impacted him and how it led to the offences.

73The evidence about Mr. Veerapen’s experience with racism came primarily in the form of hearsay in his character letters. Mr. Veerapen had the opportunity to speak to it when he gave evidence, but he did not do so. Moreover, Mr. Veerapen does not admit that the firearm was in his possession. Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence that the fact Mr. Veerapen had a loaded firearm in his possession, or for that matter anything that occurred during the altercation with CB or Mr. Singh, was in any way connected to his experience with racism. There is absolutely no link between his experience with racism and the conduct for which I am sentencing him today. I therefore do not accept that any element of anti-black racism has any impact on the offences Mr. Veerapen committed.

(b) Aggravating Factors

74As for aggravating factors, the elements of the offences of course cannot be considered aggravating. It is, however, relevant and aggravating that Mr. Veerapen came to a popular nightclub with a loaded firearm in his vehicle, accessible to him as the driver.

75Mr. Guertin submitted that the sentence for occupying a motor vehicle in which Mr. Veerapen knew there was a prohibited firearm contrary to s. 94(1) of the Criminal Code could be considered separately with a consecutive sentence. In my view, the location where Mr. Veerapen kept his firearm – within arm’s reach of the driver’s seat, in a location that allowed quick access to it, is better treated as an aggravating factor.

76There can be no doubt that the only purpose Mr. Veerapen could have in bringing a loaded firearm in his vehicle to the Tropical would be to use that firearm if he felt he needed to or wanted to. His decision to take this loaded firearm from his vehicle and hide it behind his back was a deliberate decision when he saw Mr. Singh approaching. His decision to shoot Mr. Singh was precipitated only by something Mr. Singh said. Even though Mr. Veerapen must have felt outnumbered, there is no evidence that anyone with Mr. Singh made any threats or threatening moves towards him.

77Although I accept that things happened quickly, and I do not know Mr. Veerapen’s specific motive in shooting Mr. Singh, his decision to do so was premeditated in the sense that he retrieved his loaded firearm from his vehicle when he saw Mr. Singh approaching him and he hid it behind his back and he then had a couple of minutes to deliberate on his actions before he shot Mr. Singh twice. Apart from the inherent risk created from the possession of a loaded illegal firearm, at least from the time he retrieved the loaded firearm from his vehicle, Mr. Veerapen was ready and willing to use the firearm as his argument with Mr. Singh escalated.

78The significant impact of the offences on Mr. Singh and in particular his physical and mental health is a statutorily aggravating factor pursuant to s. 718.2(a)(iii.1) of the Criminal Code. It is also important to recognize the potential for harm not just the actual harm. Shooting Mr. Singh twice in a vital part of his body at very close range could have resulted in his death.

79Furthermore, given that the shooting took place in a busy parking lot with Mr. Singh standing among a number of people with others leaving the Tropical and walking in the parking lot, others could have been injured when Mr. Veerapen shot Mr. Singh even though he shot him at close range, particularly since the two bullets went through Mr. Singh’s body and could have hit others who were close to him. It is sheer luck that no one else was injured. I have no doubt that the bystanders to this shooting must have found it to be a frightening experience – they can be seen scrambling away after hearing the shots.

80Mr. Veerapen did not remain to aid or call 911. He immediately fled from the scene and the country.

81Mr. Veerapen’s firearm was never recovered, which means there may be an ongoing risk to the public.

82The fact Mr. Veerapen was bound by a court order prohibiting him from possessing a firearm, which he ignored, will be considered with a separate sentence, so I have not considered it as an aggravating factor.

83Finally, the statistics filed by Crown counsel show the prevalence of illegal firearms in Toronto.

(c) Claim for Enhanced Credit

84An affidavit sworn by Mr. Veerapen in support of a claim for an enhanced credit was filed on the sentencing hearing. It speaks to both the period while he was on release and while he was incarcerated at the Toronto East Detention Centre (TEDC”) and the Toronto South Detention Centre (“TSDC”). The exhibits included records from the TEDC and the TSDC with respect to the lockdowns and triple-bunking that impacted Mr. Veerapen’s time in custody. Mr. Veerapen was examined on this affidavit. Mr. Guertin then called Mr. Jovan Milosevic, the Deputy Superintendent for Security and Compliance at the TSDC as a witness on the sentencing hearing.

85Mr. Veerapen confirmed the accuracy and truth of his affidavit at the sentencing hearing, and he was then cross-examined and re-examined. In cross-examination, Mr. Veerapen admitted that he knew that he might get more credit because of the conditions of his bail and incarceration. As the cross-examination proceeded, Mr. Veerapen was caught in a few lies and overall, where his evidence is not otherwise corroborated, I find it of little value. He is simply not a credible and reliable witness.

86I will deal with the evidence of Mr. Veerapen for the period he was on bail below when I consider whether he is entitled to a pre-sentence credit pursuant to R. v. Downes (2006), 2006 CanLII 3957 (ON CA), 205 C.C.C. (3d) 488 at para. 33 (“Downes credit”).

87Mr. Veerapen has spent about 300 days in custody which is about ten months. He deposed that for almost half of his time in pre-trial custody he has experienced lockdowns. Out of the 99 days in custody at TSDC (as of May 20, 2025), he was locked down for 52 days and was triple- bunked in a cell for 24 days. Of those 52 days, 22 were full lockdowns and the rest were partial. At TEDC, out of 107 days in custody, he was locked down for 46 days and was triple-bunked in a cell for 62 of those nights. Of the 46 days, only one day was a full lockdown.

88Mr. Veerapen’s position is that he does not believe that the lockdown records accurately detail the times he was locked down. The specific numbers of lockdowns as set out in his affidavit were not challenged in cross-examination, but I do not accept his evidence that he experienced more than this. Mr. Veerapen was not keeping a log and so he is not able to contradict the lockdown records save for his own recollection which I find unreliable and untrustworthy. In this regard I prefer the evidence of Mr. Milosevic as to how the records are prepared which supports their reliability.

89Mr. Veerapen makes a number of statements in his affidavit about the loss of privileges that were challenged in cross-examination and contradicted by the evidence of Mr. Milosevic. I will not review this evidence in detail save for one example. Mr. Veerapen deposed that when there are lockdowns at the TSDC, they have not been able to use the shower at all until the lockdown has ended. The TSDC records state that during all day lockdowns they generally run all programs for showers, phone calls etc., but under a more restrictive protocol. Mr. Milosevic testified that even during full lockdowns, save for rare cases they still run a program using smaller groups, so time is still given for a shower, phone or yard-they decide. In cross-examination he said that the amount of time for privileges during a full lockdown can vary and could be as little as 30 minutes.

90As another example, Mr. Veerapen testified that when he was first arrested, he was placed in the medical unit at the TSDC as he had been in the United States within 30 days of his arrest. Mr. Milosevic confirmed that this was because of directions from Public Health Toronto. Mr. Veerapen testified that he was only supposed to be in the medical unit for two weeks but he in fact was there for three weeks and that during that period he was only allowed out of his cell for 20 minutes for a shower and that he received no other privileges while in that unit. Mr. Milosevic contradicted that evidence and testified that in this unit the inmates generally receive more than two hours out of their cells, and they can use that time as they choose. I prefer the evidence of Mr. Milosevic.

91With respect to triple-bunking, Mr. Veerapen deposed that as the newer inmate and to avoid conflict with his cellmates, whenever they were triple-bunked, he would sleep on the floor. That evidence was not challenged and so I accept that for that period he slept on a mattress on the floor with his head near the toilet, as there was no other place to sleep in a cell.

92Mr. Veerapen’s affidavit and his evidence on the sentencing hearing also alleges a lack of medical care at the TSDC for a rash between his thighs, which he believes was a flare-up of eczema, a skin condition he has had since childhood. He states that he was first prescribed a medical ointment from the nurse on March 29, 2025. He was scheduled for a medical appointment on April 10, 2025, but was not taken to see a doctor that day and he deposed that since he stepped into custody on March 20, 2025, he has not seen a doctor, despite making multiple requests or get a refill of the medical ointment. Mr. Veerapen also deposed that he has asthma, and, in his affidavit, he describes the issues he has had since March of this year in getting the right inhaler. Mr. Veerapen denied that nurses check on him twice per day.

93Mr. Milosevic testified that the TSDC has a full-service medical unit and that doctors make the rounds through the day dealing with issues in the cells. In addition, registered nurses make rounds twice per day to provide medication to inmates and inquire about general health. They can determine if a doctor is required and if so, the inmate will generally see a doctor within a day or two.

94Mr. Milosevic was not referred to Mr. Veerapen’s medical records from the TSDC. Those records are consistent with Mr. Veerapen’s evidence. There is no evidence that he has seen a doctor as requested.

95In considering the evidence, I accept that Mr. Veerapen is entitled to some mitigation of sentence due to particularly harsh conditions he has experienced over the ten months in custody. In considering the impact of these conditions on Mr. Veerapen, because of my overall concerns about his credibility I must discount his evidence. I will also bear in mind, however, that Mr. Milosevic could only speak to what is supposed to happen during lockdowns with respect to privileges and that this does not mean that their protocols could always be followed through. I was surprised by his evidence that he is unaware of the many cases where judges have severely criticized the conditions at the TSDC.

96This court hears too often about the abysmal conditions for inmates while in custody at the TSDC and the TEDC. I can do little to add to what prior courts have said. Despite repeated criticisms from judges of this and other courts, it seems that the necessary funding to address staff shortages and overcrowding has not been made and these issues continue. These conditions continue to be the source of significant mitigation from judges of both this court and the Ontario Court of Justice.

97In accordance with R v. Brown, 2025 ONCA 164, and R. v Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344, I intend to consider the particularly punitive pre-trial conditions Mr. Veerapen has experienced along with the other mitigating factors I have referred to in arriving at an appropriate sentence.

(d) Is Mr. Veerapen Entitled to a Downes Credit?

98Mr. Veerapen deposed that he was bound by the terms of his bail to strict 24/7 house arrest with a GPS ankle bracelet for a period of eight months, starting January 13, 2023, when he was released following his arrest. He was only able to go out of the residence if he was in the company of one of his sureties or his legal counsel, unless it was a medical emergency.

99Mr. Veerapen deposed that the extremely restrictive period of house arrest for eight months took a toll on his mental health, his relationships, finances and more. His affidavit goes into a lot of detail about how these eight months impacted his girlfriend and that at some point when she lost her job once she found another job he had to stay home waiting for her. Mr. Veerapen also states in his affidavit that although his bail was relaxed to a curfew on September 18, 2023, “I was not able to get a job because of my pending criminal charges and could not support Ashley [his girlfriend who he was residing with and was one of his sureties] and my family”.

100In fact, the term of strict house arrest was varied on March 31, 2023, to allow Mr. Veerapen to travel directly to and from work with an employment schedule or to job interviews provided advance notice was given to Recovery Science. This was a consent variation prepared by Mr. David and agreed to by Mr. Guertin and Mr. Veerapen’s two sureties at the time. When this variation was shown to Mr. Veerapen, he testified that he did not remember it at all and had never seen it before. Given that I assume Mr. David assisted Mr. Veerapen with the preparation of his affidavit, I accept he may have forgotten about this, but I am sure Mr. Veerapen was aware of it at the time and instructed Mr. David to seek this variation.

101Mr. Veerapen initially testified that he did not work at all while he was on bail. When Mr. Guertin suggested that evidence was false and that he had submitted an employment letter, he admitted that recently in 2025 he worked at Instacart “for a bit”. Mr. Veerapen then testified that he worked for two to three weeks in December 2024 shoveling and ploughing snow for Joel Mwamba, that it was not permanent work and that is why he asked for the variation. Mr. Guertin then showed him a letter from Joel Mwamba, a director of Ultra Property Management (“Ultra”) dated November 25, 2024, which confirms that Mr. Veerapen had been employed with Ultra since July 5, 2024, on a “permanent full time basis and his hours and days of work are Monday-Saturday 8am-6pm”. Mr. Veerapen denied lying about not working while on bail and he said that in fact he did not have permanent work or those hours and that he just worked when there was work. In re-examination Mr. Veerapen maintained that prior to September 2023 he did not have a job or work during that period while on bail.

102Whether or not the letter from Mr. Mwamba is strictly accurate, it is clear that Mr. Veerapen was not being truthful in his affidavit or his evidence about never working while on bail. That and the fact he professed not to remember the first consent variation suggests to me that he was either in fact working while on bail or was not concerned about the fact he was not working. He was not working at the time he was arrested. As of September 2023, Mr. Veerapen’s bail was varied to curfew from 9:00 pm to 6:00 am, although he still had to wear the GPS ankle bracelet. It was following this period that he has reluctantly admitted to some work.

103The period of strict house arrest was only two months and during that time Mr. Veerapen lived with his girlfriend who worked from home. Mr. Veerapen not only professed not to know of the variation but claimed he did not work until he was only on curfew. It is clear from the evidence that after he was on bail for two months that the strict house arrest ended and he could look for work and in fact work if he gave Recovery Science notice. Mr. David commented that there was no evidence from Recovery Science and that this supported Mr. Veerapen’s evidence that he did not work before September 2023. I do not accept that submission because the onus is on Mr. Veerapen to provide support for his claim for a Downes credit. In the absence of any records from Recovery Science suggesting that he left the house at times to look for work or attend interviews, I am not convinced that he suffered any loss of income after the terms of the house arrest were varied at the end of March 2023.

104Furthermore, I find that the initial two months when Mr. Veerapen was on strict house arrest would not have impacted him to the extent he suggests or at all. He was very clear in his affidavit about how hard this eight-month period was and considering his other lies I do not accept the two months were very difficult at all, particularly as his girlfriend, whom he was living with, was likely working from home the whole time. Mr. Veerapen was not working when he was arrested. I am not persuaded that there was much impact on Mr. Veerapen due to strict house arrest. His affidavit speaks to the adverse impact on his girlfriend as a surety but that is not a factor when considering a Downes credit.

105Mr. Guertin referred to the decision of R. v. Ijam, 2007 ONCA 597, where the court concluded that the record before the trial judge did not demonstrate that the bail conditions which included a period of house arrest of five weeks had prejudiced or imposed hardship on the appellant. The court went on to confirm at para. 33 that a Downes credit is discretionary and that in some cases it is a factor that should attract little if any weight. In his closing submissions Mr. David essentially conceded this, given the lies Mr. Veerapen had told the court about his time on bail.

106Mr. David conceded, given the different facts before me with respect to the length of strict house arrest, that any credit for the 18 months on curfew should be modest although he suggested a two-month credit. I recognize that Mr. Veerapen was subject to terms of bail that could result in a Downes credit and that there was some restriction on his liberty during this period. However, given that the period of house arrest was only two weeks and considering the fact I cannot and do not accept his evidence about how the terms of release impacted him, in my view Downes credit for the period he was on bail in this case in minimal. Rather than quantify it I have considered it as minimally mitigating in determining sentence.

(e) What is a fit sentence?

107I intend to determine, considering all the evidence, the mitigating and aggravating circumstances and the relevant legal principles, what a fit global sentence is for all the convictions related to possession of the firearm and the shooting of Mr. Singh.

108I agree with Mr. Guertin that the gravity of the crimes and the moral culpability of Mr. Veerapen puts this case in the mid-range of sentence set out in Bellissimo. Given the continued presence of handguns in this city which has caused innumerable instances of injury and death, courts must clearly denounce such violence with exemplary sentences. This decision must send a clear message to those who might seek to arm themselves with loaded firearms out in the public and harm others, that they will face significant jail sentences if they do. I must also consider the need for specific deterrence. Given the continued prevalence of gun-related crimes, these offences must be addressed in the strongest possible terms.

109Mr. David argued that the cases Mr. Guertin relies upon can be distinguished from the case at bar, as in this case there was a precipitating incident in that it was Mr. Singh who punched Mr. Veerapen first and that provoked his response in shooting Mr. Singh. He submitted that a lack of premeditation and planning takes this case out of the eight-to-nine-year range. I disagree for the reasons I have already set out. While things happened quickly, Mr. Veerapen had time to deliberate on his actions and what he was going to do with the loaded firearm he had hidden behind his back. His decision to shoot Mr. Singh twice was not a split minute decision.

110However, I agree with Mr. David that I must not lose sight of the fact that Mr. Veerapen is a first offender, and he has never been incarcerated before. I must also consider the potential for rehabilitation given how long Mr. Veerapen has lived a crime-free life and given his strong family, friend and community support. I must consider not only the principle of parity but also the principle of totality to ensure that the global sentence does not exceed the overall culpability of Mr. Veerapen.

111Considering the mitigating factors I have set out and the impact of harsh pre-trial custody, with a small amount of mitigation due to the terms of bail, and all of the circumstances of these offences, including the aggravating circumstances, in my view a fit global sentence for the shooting/possession of firearm offences is eight years.

Determination of sentence for breach of the weapons prohibition order

112This is Mr. Veerapen’s first offence for breach of a prohibition order. In my view, the sentence I impose should clearly be consecutive to Mr. Veerapen’s other sentences, as that is the only way to bring home to him the severity of this conduct. I have not considered this conviction as an aggravating factor in determining the global sentence for the shooting/possession of firearm offences.

113In my view, an appropriate sentence for this conviction is one year, consecutive to his other sentences.

114I have reconsidered the total sentence of nine years. In my view, this sentence is still fit in light of the totality principle.

Pre-Sentence Credit - Summers

115Counsel agree that PSC pursuant to R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26 to the date of the sentencing hearing on June 2nd is 449 enhanced days (299 real days x 1.5). As of today, there is an additional credit of 12 days (8 real days x 1.5). Accordingly, the total Summers credit is 461 days which equates to one year and 96 days which is just over 15 months.

Final Disposition

116Mr. Veerapen, please stand.

117I sentence you:

a) on Count 2 - discharging a firearm with intent to wound, to eight years in jail, less pre-trial custody calculated on the basis of one and a half to one as one year and 96 days,

b) on Count 3 -committing an aggravated assault by wounding Anand Singh, to eight years in jail, less pre-trial custody calculated on the basis of one and a half to one as one year and 96 days to run concurrently to the sentence on count 2,

c) on Count 4 – unauthorized possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, to four years in jail, concurrent to the sentence on count 2.

d) on Count 5 - possession of a prohibited firearm knowing you were not the holder of an authorization or registration certificate, to one year concurrent to the sentence on count 2.

e) on Count 6 - occupying a motor vehicle in which you knew there was a prohibited firearm, to one year concurrent to the sentence on count 2, and

f) on Count 1 on the separate indictment - possessing a firearm while prohibited from doing so by court order, to one year consecutive to your sentence on count 2.

118In total then your sentence is nine years less pre-sentence custody of one year and 96 days.

119On each count there will also be a DNA order and a s. 109(2)(b) order for life.

120There is also a s. 743.21 non-communication order in respect of Anand Singh, Krishna Armoogam, Calvin Bissoon, Nigel Ganness, Aden Ganness, and Peshant Kishan Boodhoo.

Spies J.