Reasons for Sentence

Court File No.: CR-25-20000007-0000
Date: 2025-06-11
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Between:
His Majesty the King – and – Shane Campbell

Counsel:
Daniel Santoro and Matthew Giovinazzo, for the Crown
Sharon Jeethan, for Shane Campbell

Heard: June 4, 2025

Judge: N.J. Spies

Overview

[1] On April 23, 2025, the defendant, Shane Campbell, re-elected trial without a jury and pleaded guilty to three counts. After considering an extensive Agreed Statement of Facts, I convicted Mr. Campbell of count #2, reckless discharge of a prohibited or restricted firearm, contrary to s. 244.2(1)(b) of the Criminal Code; count #3, unauthorized possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm, contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code; and count #6, possession of a firearm while prohibited by a s. 109 order, contrary to s. 117.01(1) of the Criminal Code.

[2] Once Mr. Campbell was convicted of these offences, the three other counts in the Indictment were withdrawn at the request of the Crown and Mr. Santoro undertook to withdraw other outstanding charges Mr. Campbell was facing in the Ontario Court of Justice.

[3] Mr. Campbell is now before me for sentencing.

The Facts

(a) Circumstances of the Offences

[4] On Tuesday, August 15, 2023, at approximately 4:00 pm, police officers attended 24 Orpington Crescent in the City of Toronto in response to service calls for sounds of gunshots. The Orpington Complex is a townhouse complex operated by the Toronto Community Housing Corporation.

[5] The police obtained CCTV footage from the Orpington Complex which depicts a confrontation at about 3:56 pm between Rasnoble Cordice and two unknown males who were with him, and Mr. Campbell and approximately 10 other males. After Mr. Cordice and the males with him arrived in a stolen white Acura TLX (“Acura”), they walked north through the Orpington Complex towards where Mr. Campbell and the males with him were standing. Once they got within approximately 50 metres of Mr. Campbell and the other males, Mr. Cordice and the two unknown males with him began shooting to the north in the direction of Mr. Campbell and the other males he was with. Mr. Campbell and others immediately returned fire, shooting south. The gunfire exchange occurred across the backyards of multiple townhomes. Neither Mr. Campbell nor the males with him were shot.

[6] This gun fight lasted less than a minute. At approximately 3:57 pm, Mr. Cordice and the two unknown males returned to the Acura and that vehicle exited the parking lot and travelled north on Pittsboro Drive before turning right and proceeding east on Finch Avenue West (“Finch”).

[7] Several of the other males proceeded through the Orpington Complex towards a pathway that led to Finch. A minute later, Mr. Campbell walked slowly through the complex towards Finch to join the others. Mr. Campbell and a number of other males were waiting for the Acura to drive by along Finch. Mr. Campbell and the other males aimed towards Finch and shot at two passing vehicles. The first vehicle was not involved in the initial shooting. The second was the Acura occupied by Mr. Cordice. A couple of seconds later, a TTC bus can be seen on the video going in the other direction on Finch.

[8] After the second set of gun shots, Mr. Campbell entered his residence. Moments later, he exited the front of his residence and went to the area where he fired the second round of shots at the Acura, and he appeared to pick up shell casings.

[9] Less than four minutes later, Mr. Cordice attended the Etobicoke General Hospital at Highway 27 and Finch in the Acura and was treated for a bullet wound to the abdomen.

[10] When the police recovered the Acura, a bullet hole was located in the rear bumper on the passenger side, along with a bullet on the inside of the bumper.

[11] Several shell casings were recovered from where Mr. Cordice and the two unknown males were shooting. Based on the CCTV footage, it is believed that Mr. Campbell and others picked up the casings discharged from their guns.

[12] Two bullets struck 18 Orpington Crescent, Unit 2 (“Unit #2”). One bullet struck the outside wall near the front door. The other bullet went through the top part of the windowpane in a top floor window, continued through the bedroom and lodged into the drywall of the washroom. One of the occupants of the home was in the bedroom at the time. She ducked down to the ground as she believed guns were being shot close by. Unit 2 is located to the south, in the direction in which Mr. Campbell and the others were shooting.

[13] It is admitted that the firearm used by Mr. Campbell (as well as the others) were handguns and therefore prohibited or restricted under the Criminal Code. It is also admitted that Mr. Campbell did not possess a license to possess firearms and that at the time of the shooting Mr. Campbell was also subject to three weapons prohibition orders. He was also serving a Conditional Sentence Order (“CSO”). He was wearing an ankle bracelet with GPS monitoring and one of the conditions was to remain in his residence at all times.

(b) Circumstances of Rasnoble Cordice

[14] Not surprisingly Mr. Cordice did not provide a Victim Impact Statement. As already stated, he was treated for a bullet wound to the abdomen.

(c) Impact on the Neighbourhood

[15] I do not have any information from anyone in the neighbourhood as to how this gun fight impacted them, but the video evidence does show one woman running which would be a natural reaction to hearing gun shots. In addition, the woman who was inside Unit #2 must have been terrified as two bullets struck her home. Who knows what would have happened if she had not ducked to the ground?

(d) Circumstances of Shane Campbell

[16] Mr. Campbell was arrested for these offences on September 9, 2024. He has remained in custody at the Toronto South Detention Centre (“TSDC”) ever since.

[17] I received a very comprehensive Pre-Sentence Report (“PSR”) based on information obtained from Mr. Campbell, who the author of the PSR described as appearing forthright in sharing information, his common law partner - CL, his mother, sister, a cousin and Megan MacDonald, Director of the Education Program at Amadeusz. In addition, the author of the PSR spoke to two officers involved in this case. However, I have disregarded the opinions they provided as not being proven.

[18] The PSR is very detailed – almost equivalent to an enhanced PSR or Morris report, due to the considerable time the author of the PSR must have put into preparing it and the fact that Mr. Campbell and the others were willing to share a lot of personal and difficult information. What is missing from the PSR are Mr. Campbell’s convictions from July 2014, which for some reason are not shown on his Criminal Record. I do not believe that information would have impacted the views of the author of the PSR. The information in the PSR is very relevant to Mr. Campbell’s sentencing and is as follows.

(i) Family Background and Upbringing

[19] Mr. Campbell was 29 at the time he committed these offences. He is 31 years old now. As I will come to, he has four dependent children. Mr. Campbell was born in the Jane and Finch area of Toronto and for the most part was raised in Rexdale, located in the northwest part of Toronto, living in public housing. Mr. Campbell is the only child of his biological parents. He has no relationship with his biological father but his relationship with his mother is great. He is the youngest of four siblings on his maternal side - two brothers and one sister.

[20] The author of the PSR reports that Mr. Campbell proudly shared that his older sister who was interviewed for the purpose of the PSR, is well educated, works for a university in Toronto and is like “a second mother” to him. She is a positive influence who encourages him to work hard and stay out of trouble. One of his brothers currently resides in Jamaica working in the trades industry. Mr. Campbell’s other brother passed away at the age of 14, while he was with his father in Ghana. Mr. Campbell was only 11 years old at the time. He described this brother as his “idol”, influencing him to play basketball. After his brother’s sudden death, he told the author of the PSR that he went through a dark time. His mother confirmed this.

[21] Mr. Campbell told the author of the PSR that his mother raised him and his three half siblings as a single parent and did the best she could. His mother disciplined him by taking his belongings away. He did not experience any physical, emotional, or sexual abuse during his upbringing nor was there any involvement from the Children’s Aid Society at any point in his life.

[22] Mr. Campbell told the author of the PSR that he had a stepfather figure from the age of eight to 13 who was violent towards his mother. Mr. Campbell did not have a personal relationship with him, but he did recall a domestic incident where the police were involved, and after that, the stepfather never returned home.

[23] Mr. Campbell advised the author of the PSR that his mother’s twin sister lived nearby in the same neighbourhood and so he was raised closely with his cousins, and they share a close bond. From a young age Mr. Campbell spent most of his time with friends from his neighborhood, many of whom were also his cousins. They went to the same school, and often attended church, family events and gatherings as a group. He participated in basketball during school years but did not engage in structured extracurricular activities. Mr. Campbell’s sister told the author of the PSR that Mr. Campbell was influenced by a group of local peers, most of whom were raised in single-parent and low-income households.

[24] Mr. Campbell described his relationship with his cousins as very close and said they “look out for each other” and often provided emotional support growing up. One cousin who the author interviewed was a strong support for Mr. Campbell during his childhood and she continues to be. She is currently helping to care for his two children while he is incarcerated. None of Mr. Campbell’s family members are involved in gang activity. All of his cousins are doing well, and in post-secondary education, save for one who has a criminal record.

[25] Mr. Campbell’s mother verified much of the information Mr. Campbell provided to the author of the PSR. She described herself as a stern single parent to her children while residing in the neighborhoods they were raised in. After Mr. Campbell’s older brother passed away, she said that he became withdrawn and started to socialize with negative influences, adding that the passing of his brother and his negative social environment while growing up has caused the subject to experience trauma.

(ii) Exposure to Violence

[26] Mr. Campbell described his childhood as being “rough”. He told the author of the PSR that he was exposed to regular violence, including gang activity, police brutality, and overall unsafe living conditions from a young age. His interactions with police were often negative including several occasions when he was allegedly assaulted by officers and left in rival neighbourhoods despite the known risks to his safety. He lost several friends and a cousin to gun violence. He told the author of the PSR that: “being raised in projects housing is one of the biggest downfalls to him sitting in jail. If I was raised in Oakville, this would not be my life”.

[27] Mr. Campbell clearly denied any affiliation with gangs or gang-related activity in his neighbourhood and told the author of the PSR: “No I am not part of a gang, just raised in a community that has a lot of troubled people”.

(iii) Experience with Racism

[28] When asked about his experience with racial and cultural discrimination, Mr. Campbell told the author of the PSR that he experienced racism throughout his schooling, and he often felt targeted by teachers. Mr. Campbell stated that he would get into trouble for his actions that, in his view, white students would not even receive a warning for. He also believes that he was disciplined more harshly than his white peers for similar behaviours. He recalled participating in an employment program during his youth, which he described as helpful until there was a layoff, when they “downsized” by getting rid of all the Black kids.

(iv) Dependents

[29] Mr. Campbell is the father to four children with three different women. He advised the author of the PSR that he remains involved in all of his children’s lives and provides financial support for each of them to the best of his ability. While incarcerated he maintains contact with them over the phone. CL confirmed to the author of the PSR that Mr. Campbell is actively involved with all his children.

[30] Mr. Campbell’s eldest daughter is currently 15 years old. Mr. Campbell was in a common-law relationship with her mother between 2008 to 2015. He also has a nine-year-old son who was the outcome of a one-night stand. Mr. Campbell told the author of the PSR that he has assumed responsibility for this son. Currently, Mr. Campbell has been in a long-term common-law relationship with CL, the mother of his three-year-old daughter and a two-year-old son. He described the relationship as positive, stating that CL encourages him to make good decisions and has been supportive throughout.

[31] At the time of the index offences, Mr. Campbell was living in Hamilton with his partner and two children. He described Hamilton as a much safer place than Toronto, adding that he could “walk around without constantly looking over my shoulder”. He expressed regret returning to live at his mother’s home in Toronto, suggesting that it negatively affected his life because when he returned to Toronto, he and his partner experienced a temporary separation in 2023 due to “butting heads a lot”. According to Mr. Campbell, there has been no history of intimate partner violence in this relationship. His partner confirmed this and described their relationship as positive.

(v) Education

[32] Mr. Campbell attended high school, but he is 15 credits short of graduating. He advised that at the age of 17 he had to leave school to financially support his first child. He did admit that he was expelled from a high school but no information as to the circumstances were provided. In 2012, Mr. Campbell was enrolled in a two-year program at a private college, but he was unable to attend the program as he was remanded into custody from September 2013 to January 2015. Upon his release, Mr. Campbell learned that the college had closed, preventing him from completing the program.

[33] While in custody at the TSDC, Mr. Campbell completed a Core Life Skills program in the African Canadian Excellence Program. In December 2024, while in custody, Mr. Campbell applied to the Amadeusz program so he could complete his general education development (GED). Ms. MacDonald confirmed that Mr. Campbell is currently on the waitlist, and that he needs 14.5 credits to earn his GED.

(vi) Employment History

[34] Mr. Campbell reported that in 2010 he worked as a taper for a family friend's drywall company for seven years although his employment was not consistent. In 2015, he was employed as a general labourer at a bakery through an employment agency; however, due to irregular hours and the physical demands of the job, he left after only three weeks.

[35] In 2016, Mr. Campbell was involved in a car accident and charged with impaired driving. Mr. Campbell advised the author of the PSR that he was in a short-term coma and suffered injuries to his arm, leg, and neck. As a result, he relied on social assistance for a brief period before being sentenced to 18 months in jail for impaired driving causing bodily harm. After his release in 2019 Mr. Campbell worked with a friend, scrapping metal, for two years until the spring of 2021. He then enrolled in the Brooks Restoration apprenticeship program in July 2021 while on community supervision and completed the program in October 2021. Following this, he secured a full-time position as a construction labourer with the union through Brooks Restoration and began pursuing additional licenses to further his career. However, Mr. Campbell left this construction unionized job because of a demanding commute, as he had moved back in with CL in Hamilton after the birth of their daughter. Following this, CL confirmed that Mr. Campbell took on various cash jobs, assisting friends with construction and temporarily helping her father with concrete work. Since then, Mr. Campbell has had no consistent source of income.

(vii) Alcohol Dependency

[36] Mr. Campbell started drinking alcohol at the age of 14 and admitted that at one point in his life, his alcohol consumption at times led to him losing consciousness. According to both his mother and CL, his alcohol use increased significantly following the death of his cousin, which occurred shortly before the current offences. CL believes that Mr. Campbell drank often as a way of coping with the loss and that he never consumed alcohol with her at home or in the presence of their children. CL also advised the author of the PSR that Mr. Campbell began seeking therapy over the phone just prior to his arrest for these offences. In addition to alcohol, according to CL, Mr. Campbell smoked marijuana daily, describing him as a “functioning smoker.” CL is uncertain if Mr. Campbell is addicted to any other substances, stating she had never seen him use anything besides marijuana, alcohol and occasionally Percocet. She believes alcohol is his primary substance of use. Mr. Campbell did not provide any information about any illicit substance use to the author of the PSR, but he advised that in 2019 during his period of incarceration, he completed a substance use program within the institution. None of his family members have any concerns regarding Mr. Campbell’s substance use.

(viii) Character

[37] When asked to describe himself, Mr. Campbell told the author of the PSR that he enjoys social interaction, watching TV and spending time with his children. His girlfriend CL described him as outgoing and funny, saying that when things are going well, he’s a very happy person. However, she also noted that in difficult times, he tends to isolate himself. CL acknowledged that Mr. Campbell sometimes copes with stress through alcohol, which she recognizes is not a healthy strategy, although she added that he was actively trying to address this issue by attending therapy. His sister described Mr. Campbell as intelligent, especially skilled in math. She stated he is loyal and has strong people skills and possesses natural leadership qualities noting that he’s persuasive and has a strong personality – someone who can easily influence others. Mr. Campbell’s cousin described Mr. Campbell in the same way and added that he is a “family man, favourite cousin and loving family member”.

(ix) The Offences

[38] Concerning the offences, Mr. Campbell told the author of the PSR that on the day of the incident he and others were shot at by three masked men, and they returned fire. He added: “I regret that day and am happy no one got hurt”, elaborating that there is no real excuse for “being reckless or possessing a firearm”. Mr. Campbell explained that he felt he had no choice at the time as he believed his home was being targeted, although he could not provide reasons or individuals behind the threat, stating “I can’t be specific, it’s just the neighbourhood”. He explained the issues stemmed from neighbourhood conflicts and that his mother’s house had been previously shot at, with a bullet going through her living room. He added that his cousin was shot close to his backyard in what he described as a random incident. Mr. Campbell told the author of the PSR: “I was afraid of getting killed, so I bought a gun for protection after my cousin died outside my backyard.”

[39] When queried on his opinion of firearms within the community, Mr. Campbell expressed mixed views. He expressed concern about the easy access young people have to weapons, stating “young kids have too many easy accesses to firearm too many innocent people involved and losing lives to gun violence” … “I think police need to do a better job getting firearms off the street. I got arrested for protecting myself with a firearm, I accept that I was wrong for being in possession of firearm, but fearing for my life left me with no choice. I wish I stayed in Hamilton”.

(x) Past Community Supervision

[40] In 2017, Mr. Campbell was under community supervision for assault charges of a domestic violence nature and was released on a suspended sentence with one year of probation. During this period, he completed a program comparable to the Partner Assault Program (PARS). During this period of supervision, Mr. Campbell was addressing additional outstanding legal matters - various impaired driving offences from 2016, which he subsequently got convicted of on April 9, 2019. While on community supervision resulting from those convictions, Mr. Campbell successfully completed an employment program and maintained gainful employment without incurring new charges.

[41] At the time of these offences, Mr. Campbell was under community supervision for multiple offences he was convicted of in June 2023. During his community supervision, Mr. Campbell maintained consistent reporting habits despite residing both in Hamilton as well as Toronto. He successfully completed his period of GPS ankle monitoring. Mr. Campbell was initially reluctant to participate in counselling but eventually agreed to begin sessions approximately one month before his arrest on these charges with the Canadian Training Institute for one-on-one counselling addressing a range of issues including anti-criminal thinking.

[42] Throughout his community supervision, Mr. Campbell was neither employed nor enrolled in any educational programming. He initially resided with his mother in Toronto, later relocated to Hamilton to live with CL and their children stating he has safety concerns living in Toronto. He remained compliant with driving restrictions and showed willingness to complete his community service hours. He had been accepted into a program to fulfill those hours prior to his arrest, however, did not commence his hours as a placement was yet to be secured by the agency.

(xi) Rehabilitation Goals

[43] Regarding his rehabilitation and future goals, Mr. Campbell presented a plan to changing his environment in order to distance himself from negative influences, with intentions to focus on raising his children, find steady employment and live outside the city. He added that he wants to put aside his “pride and ego” and prioritize being present for his children, noting that he has already missed too many of their milestones. His future goals include completing his education and enrolling into college while in custody and specializing in business. Mr. Campbell expressed interest in eventually working in the trucking industry and building a stable career path.

(xii) Observations by the Author of the PSR

[44] I will not repeat the observation of the author of the PSR, but I rely on a number of them which I will set out when I consider the mitigating factors in this case.

(xiii) Criminal Record

[45] Mr. Campbell is a repeat offender and has a criminal record dating back to July 2013 as follows:

• July 2013 – Fail to comply with recognizance – nine days in jail.
• September 2013 – Fail to comply with recognizance, uttering threats, assault with a weapon – suspended sentence and probation for two years on each count, s. 110 order for 10 years.
• November 2013 – Theft under $5,000 and assault - 25 days in jail (five days PSC), probation for two years on each count, s. 110 order for five years.
• July 2014 – Use of imitation firearm during commission of an indictable offence - 161 days jail (after PSC of 292 days at 1.5 = 438 days), and two counts of robbery - 65 days consecutive. Global sentence was 664 days in custody.
• June 2017 – Assault – suspended sentence and probation for one year, s. 110 order for five years.
• April 2019 – Driving while impaired causing bodily harm and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm – x4 – 24 months jail and probation for 24 months, driving prohibition for 36 months on each count, and four more counts each of driving while impaired cause bodily harm and dangerous driving causing bodily harm with concurrent sentences from 18 to 24 months in custody.
• October 2019 - Assault a peace officer with a weapon, fail to comply with probation order – credit for equivalent of 150 days of PSR, and s. 109 order on both counts.
• June 2023 – Dangerous operation of a conveyance – 12 months conditional sentence and probation for three years and driving prohibition for five years, flight while pursued by peace officer, fail to comply with undertaking, and operation of a conveyance while prohibited – six months conditional sentence and three years’ probation, on each, all concurrent.

(xiv) Comments from Mr. Campbell

[46] Mr. Campbell addressed me after the submissions of counsel. He began by taking full accountability for his actions. He said that it was the worst and scariest summer of his life. He lost his cousin on July 19, 2023, just steps from his backyard. He experienced numerous shootings in the area in the weeks leading up to this incident. This included one shot from a living room window outside the neighbourhood that narrowly missed his head. He felt the need to protect himself and his family. He was not thinking clearly at the time because he was drinking heavily to “self-medicate” to numb the pain of his losses. He wishes he had taken grief counselling a lot sooner to learn healthier ways to deal with his grief. He stated he is a 100% sober now and told me that he wants to get his mind and body right and as much education in custody as he can. When he finishes serving his sentence, he wants to be a positive role model to his children and family and a contributing member to society. He has lost too many people to an early grave and does not want to be another statistic, so he intends to move back to Hamilton to be away from the dangers of living in a housing complex. He then apologized to his family – there were a number of members in the courtroom – that he was sorry for letting them down.

Legal Parameters

[47] With respect to his conviction for reckless discharge of a firearm, pursuant to ss. 244.2(3)(a) and 244.2(4)(b) of the Criminal Code, given that Mr. Campbell discharged a restricted or prohibited firearm, and given that he has been convicted of a s. 85(2) offence before, his minimum sentence is seven years, and the maximum sentence is 14 years.

[48] The maximum sentence for unauthorized possession of a loaded restricted or 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.

[49] Finally, pursuant to s. 117.01(3) of the Criminal Code the maximum sentence for unauthorized possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm is ten years and there is no minimum sentence.

Positions of the Crown and Defence

[50] Mr. Santoro, counsel for the Crown, requests that a global sentence in the range of 12-13 years be imposed. This includes a one-year sentence for possession of a firearm while prohibited. In addition, he seeks the following ancillary orders: a DNA order on the primary designated offences, and a s. 109 weapons prohibition for life.

[51] Ms. Jeethan, counsel for Mr. Campbell, does not take issue with the ancillary orders requested. It is her position that I should sentence Mr. Campbell to a sentence of seven years for the discharge firearm offence and one year consecutive for the breach of the weapons prohibition order less Pre-Sentence Credit (“PSC”).

Sentencing Case Law for Shooting Offences

[52] There is no issue that despite the short endorsement, the Court of Appeal in R. v. Bellissimo, 2009 ONCA 49, 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, para 14.

[53] A sentencing range is a guideline but not a hard and fast rule. In this case, the Crown seeks a sentence above the range set in Bellissimo and notice of that intention was given to Mr. Campbell.

[54] I have reviewed all the cases relied upon by counsel in support of their respective positions and 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, however, it is not easy to compare these offences given the circumstances of the offender and the offence are all different in one way or another.

[55] Mr. Santoro relies on Bellissimo and Jefferson along with other cases in support of his position on sentence.

[56] There is no specific information about the offender in Bellissimo, but the court does state that there were virtually no mitigating factors: at para. 4. The court went on to say that the seriousness of these crimes is hard to overstate and summarized the offence as follows: “he 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. The court held at para. 5, that general deterrence and denunciation is to be given “paramount weight” and set aside the trial judge’s effective sentence of eight-and-one-half years and imposed a 10-year sentence.

[57] Ms. Jeethan submitted that the facts in Bellissimo are more aggravating than the case at bar. It is difficult to compare the gravity of offences – what is more serious: shooting into a room where people are having a meal or a gun fight across the backyards of a residential neighbourhood? I agree that firing several shots into a restaurant with people seated at tables is more likely to kill or at least seriously injure at least one person, but in the case of a gun fight many could also be injured or killed. It is extremely fortunate in this case that only one person was injured, and he survived. In Bellissimo it is important to note, as I have stated, that there were virtually no mitigating factors.

[58] As for the Jefferson case, that involved a deliberate shooting of the complainant in the arm through a car window which is quite different than the case at bar. Another case provided by Mr. Santoro, R. v. Sauve, 2019 ONSC 960 is also distinguishable in that Byrne J. was sentencing the offender for a planned and deliberate shooting where 13 shots were deliberately fired into a residential home with the intention of killing or injuring the occupant(s).

[59] Mr. Santoro also relies on the decision of Fuerst J. in R. v. Abderezak, 2022 ONSC 6737, where the offender pleaded guilty to robbery using a restricted firearm; intentional discharge of a restricted firearm at a law office knowing or being reckless whether another person was present in the place; unauthorized possession of a restricted firearm; and possession of a restricted weapon while prohibited by a release order. He was sentenced to 12 years which is close to the sentence sought by the Crown in this case, but it is very important to note that this was composed of a seven-year sentence on the reckless discharge of a firearm and that sentence included a one-year sentence to run concurrently on the conviction for possession of a restricted firearm while prohibited. The additional five years was due to the robbery conviction.

[60] Although there were mitigating circumstances that distinguish the offender in Abderezak from Mr. Campbell, particularly as he was a first offender, Abderezak in fact supports the position of Ms. Jeethan in that a seven-year sentence was imposed for the discharge of firearm offence, including the conviction for possession while prohibited. Furthermore, there were aggravating factors in Abderezak not present in the case at bar. Most significantly, there were three serious incidents of targeted violence which culminated in multiple gunshots fired into the front window of a law office. Justice Fuerst found that they were planned and deliberate and that the gravity of the offences was enhanced because of their targeted nature in that the offender knowingly and deliberately victimized a member of the legal profession and her employees and as such required an exemplary sentence. However, given the minimum sentences for both the discharge and robbery convictions were each five years, totality was a factor.

[61] Closer to the facts of this case is R. v. Weeden, 2019 ONSC 773; however, unlike Mr. Campbell, the offender in that case was convicted after trial. 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.

[62] The 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.

[63] Following 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.

[64] As for the cases relied on by Ms. Jeethan, they were all cases where the offender shot and intended to injure an individual and succeeded in doing so. The exception is R. v. Barnes, [2007] O.J. No. 1028 (ONCA) where the offender used a semi-automatic handgun against two security guards, but again it was not similar to the gun fight in the case at bar.

Sentencing Case Law for the Breach of Prohibition Offence

[65] The court in R. v. McCue, 2012 ONCA 773, 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 reckless discharge and possession of a loaded firearm 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 reckless discharge and possession of a loaded firearm convictions and impose a consecutive sentence on the conviction for breach of the prohibition order.

[66] I prefer the second option. In R. v. Ellis, 2013 ONSC 3092, para 30, aff’d 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.

[67] In R. v. Carrol, 2014 ONSC 2063, para 30, Molloy J. held that breaching one prohibition order will typically warrant a one-year sentence.

Relevant Sentencing Principles

[68] The 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.

[69] Section 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.

[70] Section 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).

[71] The 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, para 35 quoting R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, 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 kinds of dangerous gun-related charges.

[72] There are a number of cases dealing with the sentencing for possession of firearms dating back to R. v. Danvers 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, para 8 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".

[73] As the Supreme Court stated in R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, 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.

[74] Finally, although Mr. Campbell is not what I would consider a youthful offender, I must also consider specific deterrence and rehabilitation.

Analysis

Determination of Sentence for the Reckless Discharge of a Prohibited or Restricted Firearm – Count #2

[75] Pursuant 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

[76] The most significant mitigating factor is Mr. Campbell’s early guilty plea. Mr. Campbell has taken full responsibility for his actions, and he has expressed remorse for his actions. I accept what he said as being sincere. Mr. Campbell’s early guilty pleas have spared the valuable resources that would have been required for the two days of pre-trial motions and the two-week judge and jury trial that was scheduled in 2026.

[77] Another important mitigating factor is the extremely positive PSR that I have set out in detail. I questioned Ms. Jeethan on the fact that notwithstanding this strong family support that Mr. Campbell has enjoyed while growing up, he has an extensive criminal record. In response to my query Ms. Jeethan submitted that this family support does not remove Mr. Campbell from the area where he was raised and living. She submitted that the video evidence accurately depicts Mr. Campbell’s story - as she put it “life in the hood” - an area plagued with shootings that happen all the time. She argued that despite his family support Mr. Campbell was not in the same position as someone who grew up with not only family support but also living in a different neighbourhood that was not plagued with crime. She stated that it is a terrible cycle, and Mr. Campbell was perpetuating by his actions what is happening regularly in this community. I find it hard to argue against this reality, but that fact illustrates why there is a need for denunciation and general deterrence in the sentence I impose in this case.

[78] Ms. Jeethan made it very clear that she is not condoning the fact that Mr. Campbell had a loaded firearm in his possession, and that it was not a legitimate way to protect himself and his home, but she pointed out that he was not the instigator of this gun fight and was not looking for a gun fight. I agree that at least the first part of the exchange of gun fire was for defensive purposes. However, as Ms. Jeethan fairly acknowledged, the shooting towards Finch was purely retaliatory. Mr. Cordice and the males with him were not firing back. This is a highly aggravating factor as anyone on the street or in the passing cars and buses could have been shot.

[79] If racism is to be considered as a mitigating factor, it does not diminish the seriousness of the offences. For racism to be a mitigating factor, there must be some evidence of a connection between the racism experienced by Mr. Campbell and the offences, see R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, para 101, where the Ontario Court of Appeal stated:

[76] Evidence that an offender's choices were limited or influenced by his disadvantaged circumstances, however, speaks to the offender's moral responsibility for his acts and not to the seriousness of the crimes. Possession of a loaded, concealed handgun in public is made no less serious, dangerous, and harmful to the community by evidence that the offender’s possession of the loaded handgun can be explained by factors, including systemic anti-Black racism which will mitigate, to some extent, the offender’s responsibility …

[77] It is important to preserve the distinction between factors relevant to the seriousness or gravity of the crime on the one hand, and factors relevant to the offender’s degree of responsibility on the other. Unless the distinction is maintained, the proportionality principle may be misapplied. …

[79] The social context evidence can, however, provide a basis upon which a trial judge concludes that the fundamental purpose of sentencing, as outlined in s. 718, is better served by a sentence which, while recognizing the seriousness of the offence, gives less weight to the specific deterrence of the offender and greater weight to the rehabilitation of the offender through a sentence that addresses the societal disadvantage caused to the offender by factors such as systemic racism. …

[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 … [Citations omitted, emphasis added]

[80] I am satisfied that there is such a connection in this case. The information in the PSR and Mr. Campbell’s statements to me demonstrate a clear connection between the commission of these offences and Mr. Campbell’s experience of anti-Black racism and being raised by a single parent with limited support, in a neighborhood plagued by gun violence where exposure to criminal activity and negative peer influences was common. I accept that Mr. Campbell was clearly impacted by the fact his cousin was killed in the same neighbourhood, just a couple of months earlier. That helps to explain why he chose to arm himself with a loaded firearm for genuine fear for his personal safety and that of his family.

[81] I must stress, however, that Mr. Campbell’s genuine fear is only a limited mitigating factor, in that to some extent it ameliorates his moral responsibility for that choice: see Morris at para. 101. It does not mean that the offences he committed are any less serious. Mr. Campbell still chose to arm himself with a loaded firearm and he used it not only to defend himself but also for retaliation in a setting that put members of the community at risk. Innocent members of the community could have been killed.

[82] This social context evidence is also relevant in considering the risk of Mr. Campbell re-offending. I agree with the author of the PSR that the risk factors include negative peer associations, access to firearms, poor decision making, lack of employment, potential substance abuse as well as issues around the lifestyle Mr. Campbell is involved in. The fact that Mr. Campbell now realizes that he has to better deal with his grief and remove himself from the neighbourhood where he was raised suggests he has some insight as to what he must do to stay crime free once he is released from custody. I am of the view that this diminishes the need for specific deterrence and enhances his potential for rehabilitation. I agree, however, with the author of the PSR that there are still concerns about Mr. Campbell’s views on the issue of firearms and the dangers that can accrue from this, particularly in connection with having such weapons as a means of protection in the community.

[83] As the author of the PSR points out, although Mr. Campbell did not complete his education, and his employment history is scattered, he was able to maintain stable employment during a previous community supervision period through an employment ministry-run program. This suggests that with structure and support, he is capable of productive engagement.

[84] Mr. Campbell is not a youthful offender, but his family remains supportive, and they continue to encourage him to make better choices. I accept that the positive family support Mr. Campbell has enjoyed is an important mitigating factor, but I must temper this with the fact that notwithstanding this support Mr. Campbell has accumulated a serious criminal record. Mr. Campbell has also maintained a strong interest in all his children, something he was keen to emphasize during the interview process with the author of the PSR, and this should give him a strong motivation to turn his life around once he is released from custody.

[85] I agree with the author of the PSR that despite his past behaviour, Mr. Campbell’s strong family support, his willingness to pursue education and his expressed interest in change suggest he has the potential for rehabilitation. He cares for his children and has an incentive to become a positive role model for them. However, clearly Mr. Campbell will need to both maintain and demonstrate such motivation and will power over a sustained period and rely on the family support that is available to him, to do what is necessary to break away from this cycle of crime and gun violence he is caught in if he is to be safely returned to the community.

(b) Aggravating Factors

[86] I have carefully watched the video evidence of the shooting, and it is clear that the most significant aggravating factor is that Mr. Campbell engaged in a gunfight with multiple males across the backyards of a residential neighbourhood in the middle of the afternoon where multiple shots were fired and, not surprisingly, some of those went into a home. Mr. Campbell then had a few minutes to think things through as Mr. Cordice and the males he came with retreated. Instead of withdrawing, Mr. Campbell repositioned himself and shot across a busy street towards two vehicles travelling on Finch, moments before a TTC bus passed by. As Mr. Santoro noted, there is also a middle school in the area. This was a Tuesday and just before 4:00 pm and so it could reasonably be expected that there would be school children and parents or grandparents in the area returning home. Mr. Campbell still chose to arm himself with a loaded firearm and he used it not only to defend himself but also for retaliation in a setting that put members of the community at risk. Innocent members of the community could have been killed.

[87] The Crown cannot prove that the shots from Mr. Campbell’s gun were the ones that hit the Acura and/or Unit #2, but as the Ontario Court of Appeal said in R. v. J.S.R., 2008 ONCA 544, paras 29-30, having engaged in a mutual gun fight scenario, Mr. Campbell bears equal responsibility with the others with him, as they were all shooting in the direction of the backyards and houses and then the traffic on Finch. Mr. Campbell must have known that there would be people about and, in their homes, and of course traffic on Finch. As Mr. Santoro submitted, it is sheer luck that no one was killed or more seriously injured.

[88] Mr. Campbell’s criminal record is also an aggravating factor. This is the first time he has been found in possession of a real prohibited or restricted firearm, but he was convicted in July 2014 of using an imitation firearm during a robbery contrary to s. 85(2)(a) of the Criminal Code, along with two counts of robbery contrary to s. 343 of the Criminal Code.

[89] Mr. Campbell’s criminal record also includes several convictions for assault and as Mr. Santoro submitted, it demonstrates some extremely reckless behaviour. As set out above, Mr. Campbell was convicted of multiple impaired and dangerous driving causing bodily harm offences in 2019. Ms. Jeethan advised that they resulted from Mr. Campbell driving impaired and a resulting collision with four people in the car. There is also a history of disobeying court orders.

[90] While I accept that Mr. Campbell reacted by shooting back once Mr. Cordice and the two males with him began shooting, and that may have been impulsive, spur-of-the moment conduct by him, once they retreated, his decision to move to an area where he could shoot them as they drove past on Finch was planned and deliberate and extremely dangerous.

[91] Mr. Campbell had a loaded firearm on his person, and he was able to immediately start shooting back when Mr. Cordice and the males with him started shooting at him and the other males. This was not only a breach of the weapons prohibition orders Mr. Campbell was subject to but was also very dangerous. I am sentencing Mr. Campbell only on one breach of a weapons prohibition order and so I will not consider it to be an aggravating factor. However, the fact that Mr. Campbell was on another two prohibition orders at the time is an aggravating factor on his sentence on the shooting/firearm convictions.

[92] Mr. Campbell was also bound at the time by a release order that prohibited him from possessing firearms which is an aggravating factor.

[93] The fact Mr. Campbell was on a CSO dated June 13, 2023, at the time of these offences is also a statutory aggravating factor pursuant to s. 718.2(a)(vi) of the Criminal Code.

[94] Given that the firearm used by Mr. Campbell was never recovered, there is an ongoing risk to public safety, in that it could potentially became available to others to use.

[95] As the Supreme Court stated in R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, 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. Even the information Mr. Campbell provided to the author of the PSR confirms what we see all too often in this court that the city of Toronto continues to be plagued by gun crime.

[96] Finally, even in the absence of a Victim Impact Statement, Mr. Cordice suffered a significant injury. The significant impact of the offences on Mr. Cordice and in particular his physical 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. Others could have easily been injured or even killed as a result of this gun fight. Further, it is a reasonable inference and one that I draw that the gun fight was terrifying for the person in Unit 2 and those in the neighbourhood.

(c) Pre-Sentence Credits

(i) Summers

[97] Normally Mr. Campbell would be entitled to a PSC pursuant to R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26, on a 1.5:1 basis for his time in custody – namely, from the date of his arrest on September 9, 2024, to today - 276 days. However, because no notice of breach of the CSO Mr. Campbell was serving at the time of these offences was ever filed by the Crown (for various reasons I was not advised of), or served on Mr. Campbell, the CSO was never suspended, and it has continued to run. Mr. Campbell’s CSO expires on June 12, 2025 – tomorrow. Mr. Santoro advised me that he has researched this issue and has not found any cases on point. In his opinion nothing suspends the running of the CSO other than the filing of a notice of breach. That means Mr. Campbell has served his CSO while in custody on these charges. It also means nothing formal needs to be done with the CSO.

[98] The issue, however, is what should be done with the time Mr. Campbell has been in custody. Mr. Santoro and Ms. Jeethan have discussed this issue and jointly proposed that I consider the fact that Mr. Campbell has been serving his CSO sentence in custody rather than at home as a mitigating factor. Furthermore, he has only received credit for this time on a 1:1 basis while serving his CSO instead of the usual 1.5:1 basis as in Summers.

[99] It is difficult to quantify what Mr. Campbell has lost but counsel agree he has lost something. It is impossible to know what would have happened if the CSO had been suspended. What I do know is that once Mr. Campbell finishes serving the sentence I impose, he will not have to worry about his CSO.

[100] The agreement counsel have reached is that these 276 days in custody should be considered in mitigation of sentence, but counsel have not agreed on what specific credit should be given. Mr. Santoro suggested that half a day for every day would be fair which would be 138 days or 4.6 months. He submitted, however, it would be improper to note this as PSC on the record by deducting these days from the sentence Mr. Campbell is to serve. I agree with that. Ms. Jeethan did not suggest anything different.

(ii) Marshall

[101] In 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. Campbell has experienced while in pre-trial custody along with the other mitigating factors in arriving at an appropriate sentence. I note, however, that as the court pointed out in Marshall, punitive pre-trial custody conditions cannot justify the imposition of a sentence that is inappropriate.

[102] Ms. Jeethan filed the lockdown records for Mr. Campbell’s time in custody at the Toronto South Detention Centre ("TSDC"). Those records end as of May 31, 2025. Mr. Santoro submitted that 67 of those days were lockdowns for eight to nine hours, 29 of those days were for lockdowns of one hour or less. In addition, there were 29 days when Mr. Campbell was in a cell with triple-bunking and for ten of those days, he was also subject to a lockdown. According to the cover page, of the records, triple-bunking in some units began on February 20, 2024, due to high count pressures.

[103] Mr. Campbell did not file an affidavit setting out how these conditions have impacted him, but I can take judicial notice of the impact, as unfortunately this issue has been documented and has been a source of significant mitigation from judges of this court for some time. Given that triple-bunking now seems to be becoming frequent, the conditions have deteriorated even further.

[104] To the end of May 2025, Mr. Campbell had spent 265 days in custody. The fact there have been 120 lockdown days due to a shortage of staff, both full and partial (part of a day) means he spent almost half of his time with a partial or full lockdown in place. Lockdowns restrict regular access to the yard, showers, the phone and visits. Triple-bunking means that one inmate in the cell must sleep on a mattress on the floor, typically with his head by the toilet to avoid the noise and light by the cell door.

[105] In considering the evidence, I accept that Mr. Campbell is entitled to some mitigation of sentence due to particularly harsh conditions he has experienced over this time in custody. This court hears too often about the abysmal conditions for inmates while in custody at the TSDC. The TSDC has been the subject of scathing criticism for several years from many judges from this court and the Ontario Court of Justice, regarding the manner in which it is operated, and the consequent impact on the individuals housed there. I cannot add to the many judgements that have condemned these conditions. Despite repeated criticisms from judges, 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.

[106] These conditions have clearly made Mr. Campbell’s time in custody more difficult and stressful. In accordance with Brown and Marshall, I intend to consider the particularly punitive pre-trial conditions Mr. Campbell has experienced, along with the other mitigating factors I have referred to, in arriving at an appropriate sentence.

(d) Determination of a Fit Sentence

[107] I 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 gun fight.

[108] The most serious of the offences of which Mr. Campbell was convicted, discharge of a prohibited or restricted firearm, carries a mandatory minimum sentence of seven years.

[109] Ms. Jeethan submitted that notwithstanding Mr. Campbell’s multiple convictions, the facts of this case and his criminal record do not take a fit sentence for Mr. Campbell to higher than the range of sentence set out in Bellissimo. I agree. In my view, the global sentence requested by Mr. Santoro of 12 to 13 years is not supported by the cases and is excessive given all the circumstances of this case. As I have said, his position is not supported by Abderezak, and in my view it offends the parity principle given the cases I have been referred to by counsel.

[110] In my view, the gravity of the crimes and the moral culpability of Mr. Campbell 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.

[111] In light of s. 718.2(b) of the Criminal Code, Mr. Santoro advised me that Rasnoble Cordice pleaded guilty before Justice Molloy of this court to pointing a firearm contrary to s. 87(2) of the Criminal Code and possession of a loaded firearm contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code. Justice Molloy accepted a joint submission and sentenced Mr. Cordice to six years in custody. Mr. Santoro advised that Mr. Cordice is much younger than Mr. Campbell and did not have an adult record. He also suggested that the case against Mr. Campbell was stronger as his identity and involvement with the shooting was confirmed not only by the recording from the GPS of his ankle monitor but the ankle bracelet is also visible at times in the video. I agree that the circumstances of Mr. Cordice and the lesser offences he pleaded guilty to justify a lower sentence than what is appropriate for Mr. Campbell.

[112] The longest sentence Mr. Campbell has served was in 2019 when he served just a two-year sentence in jail. He also served almost two years in 2014. This will be his first penitentiary sentence. This requires some measure of restraint.

[113] As I have said, there are considerable mitigating factors in this case including the Morris factors which give some added weight to the objective of rehabilitation and less weight to the objective of specific deterrence in this case. In addition, I must consider the impact of harsh pre-trial custody, and the fact that Mr. Campbell has lost the usual Summers credit given he was serving his CSO while in custody.

[114] Balancing all the mitigating and aggravating factors and considering all of the circumstances of these offences and the relevant sentencing principles that apply, in my view a fit global sentence for reckless discharge of a prohibited or restricted firearm is seven-and-one-half years in custody. There is no credit for PSC.

Determination of Sentence for the Unauthorized Possession of a Loaded Prohibited or Restricted Firearm – Count #3

[115] In my view, a concurrent sentence for this conviction is appropriate because without having possession of the firearm Mr. Campbell could not have committed these offences.

Determination of Sentence for Unlawful Possession of a Firearm While Prohibited – Count #6

[116] This is Mr. Campbell’s first offence for breach of a prohibition order although he has breached court orders before. Although he has only been convicted of one breach, it is admitted that at the time of the shooting Mr. Campbell was subject to three weapons prohibition orders. I have taken two of those breaches into account in determining a fit sentence on the discharge firearm conviction. I have not considered this conviction as an aggravating factor in determining the global sentence for the shooting/possession of firearm offences. In my view, the sentence I impose should clearly be consecutive to Mr. Campbell’s other sentences as that is the only way to bring home to him the severity of this conduct.

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

[118] I have reconsidered the total sentence of eight-and-one-half years. In my view, this sentence is still fit in light of the totality principle.

Final Disposition

[119] Mr. Campbell, please stand.

[120] I sentence you:

a) on Count 2 - reckless discharge of a prohibited or restricted firearm, to seven-and-one-half years in custody,
b) on Count 3 – unauthorized possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, to four years in custody, concurrent to the sentence on count 2,
c) on Count 6 - possessing a firearm while prohibited from doing so by court order, to one year in custody, consecutive to your sentence on count 2.

[121] In total then your sentence is eight-and-one-half years with no discount for PSC.

[122] There will also be a DNA order on the primary designated offences, and a s. 109 weapons prohibition order for life.

Released: June 11, 2025