Reasons for Sentence

Court File No.: CR-23-70000504
Date: 2025-07-08
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Between:
His Majesty the King
– and –
Noah Anderson and Junior Jahmal Harvey

Counsel:

• For the Crown: Karen Simone, Alexander Merenda
• For Mr. Anderson: Melina Macchia, Hedia Kashani
• For Mr. Harvey: Nader Hasan, Kabir Sharma

Heard: June 16, 2025
Released: July 8, 2025
Judge: G. Roberts

Overview

[1] On April 26, 2025, after deliberating for a little over a day, a jury found Noah Anderson and Junior Jahmal Harvey guilty of the first-degree murder of Thane Murray, and attempted murder of Allen Uthayakumaran and Tony Nguyen.

[2] There is no issue that the prescribed sentence of life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for 25 years must be imposed for the first-degree murder of Thane Murray.

[3] The only live issue is the appropriate sentence for the attempted murder of Tony Nguyen and Allen Uthayakumaran. The Crown seeks concurrent life sentences. Counsel for Mr. Anderson and Mr. Harvey both seek concurrent sentences in the range of 12-15 years.

[4] In all the circumstances of this case, concurrent life sentences are required.

Circumstances of the Offence

[5] On Saturday evening, September 18, 2021, Thane Murray was sitting with his childhood friends Tony Nguyen and Allen Uthayakumaran, chatting and smoking, at the edge of the parking lot in the area known as the “swimming pool” in Regent Park. Around 8:45 pm, four individuals walked south from Gifford Street, crossed Gerrard Street into Regent Park, circled the swimming pool, and then gathered themselves around a corner. Around 8:50 pm they attacked Mr. Murray and his friends in tandem, all four firing handguns as they chased the fleeing victims. The shooters then fled back in the direction they came. Police found 59 cartridge casings at the scene. The shooting, and the shooters walking into, and running out of, Regent Park was captured on surveillance video.

[6] Mr. Murray was shot 14 times, including to the head, the heart, the lungs and the liver. He died at the scene.

[7] Mr. Nguyen was shot in the foot. He was taken to hospital for treatment.

[8] Mr. Uthayakumaran was shot 9 times, including in the abdomen, hip, shoulder and arm. He was in a coma for three weeks, and in hospital for three months.

[9] There is no evidence that any of the accused knew any of the victims. Nor is there any evidence that anyone would have a motive to hurt, let alone kill, any of the victims. The surviving victims testified that neither they, nor Mr. Murray, had any enemies. Mr. Murray was a beloved employee at the local community centre.

[10] At the trial, there was no dispute that the shooters were all guilty of the planned and deliberate first-degree murder of Mr. Murray, and the attempted murder of Mr. Nguyen and Mr. Uthayakumaran. The only issue was identity. Did the Crown prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Noah Anderson and Junior Jahmal Harvey were two of the four shooters? The jury was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that they did.

[11] Apart from being satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Noah Anderson and Junior Jahmal Harvey were two of the four shooters, it is not clear what facts the jury found. The Crown’s case was circumstantial, consisting of a compelling combination of evidence of animus, means and opportunity, and after the fact conduct. The evidence also included surveillance video of the shooting, and extensive surveillance video of the four suspects police believed they tracked leaving the shooting back to the Chelsea Hotel. The footage was played in court and made exhibits at trial, and it was open to the jury to review all the footage, including comparing the footage from the hotel with that of the shooting. The jury did not have to accept all the circumstantial evidence, or have the same view of all the circumstantial evidence. They only had to agree that, when the evidence was considered in totality, the only reasonable conclusion was that Mr. Anderson and Mr. Harvey were two of the four shooters. It follows that to the extent that I rely on any particular fact or circumstance as aggravating, I must find it proven beyond a reasonable doubt: s.274 of the Criminal Code ; R. v. Aragon, 2022 ONCA 244; R. v. Ferguson, 2008 SCC 6.

[12] I find the following facts proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

• Mr. Anderson drove the Nissan Altima containing himself and the three other shooters from McGill Street to Gifford Street, before the shooting, and then back to McGill Street, after the shooting. (It was an agreed fact that Mr. Anderson rented the Nissan Altima and the hotel room at the Chelsea Hotel.)
• The shooters changed the license plate on the Nissan Altima before driving from McGill Street to Regent Park, and after returning. There was no dispute that the Nissan Altima stopped in an alley just south of McGill Street for several minutes before being parked on McGill Street, and this occurred both shortly before the shooting and immediately after. On both occasions some occupants got out and spent time at the front and the rear of the Nissan Altima, including opening the trunk and spending time in the area of license plate, and moving to the front of the car and bending down in the area of the license plate. The surveillance footage of the Nissan Altima in the alley is grainy and partially obscured by a tree, but I can distinctly make out an individual (I believe it is Mr. Anderson but am not certain) make a distinct “screwing” motion consistent with turning the screws affixing a license plate. Photographs of the parking tags the Nissan Altima received show that its license plate was held in place by screws. In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that the shooters changed the license plate of the Nissan Altima before and after the shooting.
• The shooters changed their clothing before and after the shooting. Indeed, I can see this process beginning for Mr. Harvey before the Nissan Altima departs McGill Street for Regent Park prior to the shooting. Mr. Harvey gets out of the front passenger seat of the car and goes to the trunk, holding something in his hands. When he returns to the front passenger seat moments later, he is wearing different clothes (see Exhibit 9-2 around 8:29 pm).

[13] The elephant in the room throughout this trial was why did this happen? Mr. Anderson and Mr. Harvey, and the other two shooters, are the only ones that can provide real insight into that question. All I can say is that I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Anderson and Mr. Harvey, together with Rajahden Angus-Campbell, wrote "Peppered" about the shooting, and it demonstrates deep animus toward the neighbourhood of Regent Park. The first draft of the rap appeared on Mr. Anderson’s cell phone within 9 days of the murder. Mr. Anderson and Mr. Harvey were in a recording studio working on the rap within 10 days of the murder. Three of the four suspects (Mr. Anderson, Mr. Harvey, plus suspect Mr. Angus-Campbell) were credited as writers. The lyrics describe an event that sounds remarkably similar to the murder – “Your block is getting Peppered / MG4L man” where they “catch one”, a “Head shot, he had a seizure” leaving him “DOA” (Thane Murray had no vital signs when first responders arrived, and was face down with his eyes open), putting him on a “t-shirt”, “sending him straight to Jesus”, and making them “RP killas”. The lyrics refer to the nicknames of Mr. Harvey and Mr. Angus-Campbell as being involved, long before any arrests were made in relation to the shooting (Mr. Anderson and Mr. Harvey were arrested in December 2021; Mr. Elmi was arrested in January, 2025; I believe Mr. Angus-Campbell remains at large):

JM, call them jeeper, Creeper (Mr. Harvey goes by the nickname JMoney);
They know RD quick to leave em, ah (Mr. Anderson had Mr. Angus-Campbell’s telephone number saved in his phone as “RD”).

Impact on the Victims and the Community

[14] The Crown filed 17 Victim Impact Statements (VIS).

[15] Allen Uthayakumaran, who was shot 9 times, and spent three weeks in a coma, described his profound physical injuries, and the long, difficult, painful physical recovery, including seven surgeries and the consequences of losing his large intestine. The shooting also had a profound psychological effect, shrinking his ability to live and engage with the world:

When I woke up at St Mikes, I would go through cycles of experiencing PTSD. I couldn’t sleep, and when I would sleep, I would relive the incident in my nightmares. The medication I needed to survive and heal would make me hallucinate, further triggering my PTSD. I spoke with priests in the hospital, but I knew this was out of my control.

It doesn’t matter if it was me or someone else, this shouldn’t have happened. I don’t stay in one place anymore, I go to work and come home. I can’t play basketball anymore, I don’t chill outside with friends. We can never see our friend again.

[16] Tony Nguyen did not provide a VIS. This does not mean he did not suffer physical or psychological harm (fortunately his physical injury was much less severe – he was the first to run) or feel the loss of his childhood friend: R. v. May, 2011 ONCA 74 at para.9.

[17] The balance of the VIS described the profound harm caused by the murder of Thane Murray, both to his family, friends, and co-workers, but also to the wider community.

[18] Mr. Murray’s mother, father, brother, grandmother, sister, and aunt all provided VIS in which they attempt to put into words the staggering pain of losing Mr. Murray, particularly in such a shocking, senseless way. Despite the passage of time, the pain was still raw and palpable. Mrs. Murray was so overcome with emotion she could hardly draw breath to speak aloud the words she had written. Her VIS included:

It is hard to believe my son is not here. My mind will not let me believe it. He is not here it’s almost four years, I still can't look at his picture. Everyday I try to keep myself from crying. So most times it's bottled up inside. I have to live with pain for the rest of my life. It feels like they ripped me son out of my stomach. Even though I look fine on the outside I am dying on the inside. It is a struggle everyday. I do not celebrate holidays with family, Christmas, Thanksgiving anymore because he should be here with us….

Thane’s father’s comments included:

It has been three and a half years since my son was taken from us—gunned down for no reason. And yet, the pain still feels just as raw as the day I got the call. There are no words strong enough to describe the heartbreak of losing a child, especially one who brought so much light into this world. My son was more than just my child—he was my best friend. We shared a bond that went beyond father and son. He was a kind-hearted, compassionate person who dedicated his life to working with youth in our community. He gave his time, his energy, and his love to help guide and uplift others. He made a real difference.

Thane’s brother’s comments included:

He was my older brother, my guide, my protector, and my biggest supporter. He believed in me and always encouraged me...It’s been hard to keep going without him cheering me on. I find it difficult to focus at my part-time job. Even thinking about the good memories is hard because my mind always goes back to that night and how he was alone….

Our family has changed. We used to be close, but now we don’t even speak about it. Everything feels different. I have a different relationship with my mom and my other brother now, and we are still struggling to accept the loss of Thane.

I’ve experienced anxiety, constant headaches, and a deep, overwhelming sadness. I feel anxious all the time. I go through so many emotions, anger, sadness, exhaustion and it’s hard to stay motivated. Nothing feels the same. And the hardest part is knowing that it never will.

Thane was the kind of person that everyone loved. There wasn’t a single person who met him that didn’t like him. He had a way of making people feel seen, heard, and cared for. He was full of life, full of love, and so loyal to those he cared about.

[19] Mr. Murray’s friends and co-workers also attempted to put into words the pain of losing Mr. Murray. It is apparent that he was much loved and a force for good, both in the lives of friends and family and the community at large.

[20] A theme throughout the VIS is that the harm of losing Mr. Murray goes beyond the immediate pain of losing such a good person. The Crown described his death as having a “ripple effect” on the community. Mr. Murray was such an integral part of so many of the programs being run at the Regent Pak community centre that they had to be shut down immediately after his death. Worse, the community lost a shining star, a success story. This not only undermined the community’s sense of safety, but it struck at its ability to hope.

[21] Mr. Murray’s friend Liv noted:

The ripple effect of this loss is real. Children who looked up to him are confused and heartbroken. Families who he helped are left without a guide. I don’t think we’ll ever heal from this.

[22] A community worker from the Salvation Army, who knew Mr. Murray since childhood, wrote,

…Thane and his brother Adrian were a little bit "Regent Park famous", because they were so good at basketball…

Thane's death brought me, and a whole neighbourhood, immense sadness and grief. It was also a wake up call. Sadly, in a community like Regent, I became used to funerals, and saying goodbye to young people I had known their whole lives. What made Thane's loss different was that he really did try to do everything right. With this loss we were not grieving unfortunate choices made by someone we love, or wondering how we could have done better to rescue him from a path of drugs or violence. Thane was never into those things. He was quiet, he was faithful, he tried to be a good person. I do not elevate him as some kind of hero of the community who campaigned for justice or rescued people from the street. But in a way he was a hero, as he chose the harder path - that is to try to be good, to make positive decisions, to operate with thoughtfulness and kindness, and not to follow the negative stereotypes or paths some of the people he grew up with may have followed.

On behalf of myself and my community I just want to say that the grief will be felt for a long time. If Thane was a victim, no one is safe. It is harder now to say to the kids, just stay clear of the negative things, and you will be okay. He was a positive example for many children growing up now in the community - an example that you can indeed make positive choices and things can work out well. I do not know how to measure the loss of his example. And with regard to safety, everything I know about this case is that it was random. This makes everyone feel unsafe. If it could happen to Thane it could happen to anyone….

[23] A community worker from the local recreation centre, who knew Mr. Murray since childhood, wrote:

…Thane was the kind of person who tried to build bridges and look for the best in people. Losing Thane caused so much pain for me personally, obviously his family and the entire community. He was our shining star and we all were waiting to see what path life would take him on because the sky was the limit for him…

I can’t emphasize enough that the loss of Thane is not just for his family or me or the community, but for every life that he would have impacted if he was still here, with that amazing smile he would always greet you with…He was one of the people I envisioned coming to my funeral and saying “D we got next” just for old time sake but instead I went to his…

[24] One of his elementary school teachers wrote:

Losing Thane from such a senseless violent act was not what anyone wanted for such an inspiring and caring individual from Regent Park. As a teacher walking into work that following Monday, it was so sad knowing that all of the students were scared that gun violence occurred in their neighbourhood. I was even more saddened knowing that the entire school community were also grieving the loss of such a beloved caring adult that they had in the life violently taken. Thane’s death greatly impacted Regent Park. The loss of Thane’s priceless contributions to the people of Regent Park will be felt for generations.

[25] An old friend wrote:

He always put the needs of others—especially the kids—before his own. He was a mentor, a role model, and a symbol of hope for the youth in Regent Park. He proved that it was possible to grow up in a tough environment and still be good, kind, and positive.

That’s why his death shook us to our core.

Gun violence isn’t new in our community, but this—this was different. Thane wasn’t in the streets. He wasn’t involved in that life. He worked with youth, giving them guidance and inspiration. To lose someone like him so violently and senselessly felt like a nightmare we couldn’t wake up from.

It left many of us questioning: What’s the point of doing good if this is the outcome? It robbed our youth of hope. Thane was proof that change was possible, and now that light has been stolen.

Circumstances of the Offenders

[26] Neither Mr. Anderson nor Mr. Harvey testified or called any evidence during the trial, or at the sentencing hearing.

[27] Both declined to say anything before I passed sentence.

Noah Anderson

[28] Noah Anderson was born on May 12, 2001. He was 20 years old at the time of the shooting. He is currently 24 years old.

[29] Mr. Anderson filed 34 character references, grouped by family (9 letters); family friends, teachers and neighbours (15 letters); and friends (10 letters). Each letter attests to Mr. Anderson’s good character. A theme throughout the letters is that Mr. Anderson is kind, generous, empathetic, and a natural leader with a strong sense of right and wrong. Growing up he loved sports, especially hockey, and music. He was a much-loved youngest child of five, and has grown into a loving sibling, son, friend, and uncle. He was a popular student in high school, runner up to be Valedictorian. He organized the grad after party. Organizing parties was one of the things he liked to do and was good at.

[30] Many of the letters do not refer to the offences. Where they do, however, they universally express shock and disbelief at the charges, and even greater shock at the jury’s verdict. The letter from Mr. Anderson’s father, who was in court throughout the trial (though he was not present when the Victim Impact Statements were read out and discussed), provided the most detailed and stark example of the deep disconnect between the jury’s verdict and the Mr. Anderson he knows and loves. After explaining his shock at the charges, and verdict, Mr. Anderson’s father provided a detailed, glowing, account of Mr. Anderson’s childhood and youth (I have inserted initials in places of names for privacy):

Noah never had to our knowledge had any serious interaction with the police and certainly not the court system ever. Noah had never been arrested or charged with a criminal offence in his 20 years leading up to his arrest. In fact, Noah had not so much as been suspended nor seriously disciplined throughout his elementary and/or high school attendance…The charges, the nature of the violence and the fact that there was violence at all were completely and utterly out of character with my son’s character and reputation in his community or any community for that matter. The fact that Noah has been convicted of such heinous crimes has left his family and friends in utter shock and grief. It is not the young man that I nor Noah’s friends and family are familiar with in any way…

[Further detailed family and background information omitted for brevity, but present in the original.]

[31] The Crown points out that there is other information that lessens the “disconnect” between the evidence at trial and the glowing reference letters. After the murder Mr. Anderson changed his cell number and was living out west under an assumed name. When he was arrested in December of 2021, he was found with false identification in the assumed name. His father testified at the bail hearing that he believed Mr. Anderson was living with his mother during this period of time. Text exchanges between Mr. Anderson and his father and step-mother from this period suggest they were having trouble contacting him. In a text dated September 26, 2021, Mr. Anderson’s step-mother pleads with Mr. Anderson to call his father and come and see him, noting “it’s not very respectful to be so evasive”. In a text dated December 4, 2023, Mr. Anderson’s step-mother asks: “Noah – What’s going on with you these days? We haven’t seen you in 3 months. It would be nice if you at least called your Dad.” Mr. Anderson’s telephone contained numerous photographs of him, apparently from different time periods based on his hair and appearance, holding what look like firearms – a handgun tucked down his waistband, resting his head against a long gun. Another photograph shows him holding what appears to be stacks of cash. His phone also contains multiple copies of a video of himself with a devil emoji over his face and the caption “Don’t walk in the park” superimposed over the words “Regent Park”. There is a text exchange on July 22 2021 with a phone number that pinged off a tower close to Warkworth, including “we dnt cap rap…” to which Mr. Anderson responds Nooooo cap (I understand “cap” is slang for a lie). I refer to this other information simply to note that there was information, quite apart from the evidence at trial and the jury’s verdict, to suggest there was more to Mr. Anderson than what is contained in the glowing character letters.

Junior Jahmal Harvey

[32] Junior Jahmal Harvey was born on August 8, 2001. He was just 20 at the time of the shooting. He is currently 23 years old, turning 24 in August.

[33] Mr. Harvey has a youth record for unauthorized possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm (contrary to s.91(3) of the Criminal Code) for which he received 24 months probation plus a weapons prohibition on July 10, 2018. He was still bound by the prohibition order at the time of the shooting.

[34] Defence counsel put the Morris decision before me but provided no detail about Mr. Harvey’s background and circumstances. Causation plays no role in engaging Morris principles, but “some connection” must be shown between an offender’s background and the offence which mitigates an offender’s moral responsibility and/or enhances the importance of restraint and rehabilitation: R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680 at paras. 97, 104. I have nothing in this case. When I asked how the principles in Morris applied in this case, defence counsel declined to provide further submissions.

[35] The only information defence counsel provided to me about Mr. Harvey’s background was that he was traumatized when his father was diagnosed with brain cancer in 2012, which recurred in 2014, requiring surgery and chemotherapy.

[36] Defence counsel also noted that Mr. Harvey’s parents, sister, and cousin remain supportive, and attended the trial where their work schedules permitted. I understand that his sister and cousin were present during the sentencing.

Legal Parameters / Range of Sentence

[37] The combined operation of s.235 and s.745 of the Criminal Code provide that first-degree murder is punishable by a mandatory sentence of imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole for 25 years.

[38] Section 239 of the Criminal Code provides that attempted murder is an indictable offence punishable by a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. In the circumstances of this case, where a firearm was used, there is a mandatory minimum sentence of four years.

[39] Courts have repeatedly noted the inherent seriousness of the offence of attempted murder due to its high mens rea requirement: an intention to kill another human being. As Justice Doherty noted in R. v. McArthur (2004), 182 C.C.C. (3d) 239 (Ont. C.A.) at p.241:

The moral culpability of the attempted murderer is at least equal to that of a murderer. He or she avoids a murder conviction and the automatic sentence of life imprisonment not because of any mitigating factor, but because through good fortune, the victim was not killed.

[40] It follows that sentences for attempted murder emphasize denunciation and general deterrence, and are generally lengthy. Nonetheless, the range of sentence is broad, approximately between 6 years to life, reflecting the varied circumstances in which the offence can be committed, and the wide spectrum of harm that can result. Some of the circumstances of the offence which can push an attempted murder to the higher end of the range include: planning and deliberation; unlawful confinement and gratuitous cruelty or harm; premeditation; the use of a firearm; and a context of intimate partner violence. Some of the circumstances related to the offence which can bring an attempted murder lower in the range include a lack of premeditation; and the context of an argument between rough equals. See R. v. Tan, 2008 ONCA 574; R. v. Ljeskovica; R. v. Kerr, 2023 ONSC 3892 for helpful discussion of the range.

[41] The Crown relies on the following cases in support of its position that a life sentence is appropriate in all the circumstances:

• R. v. Varga
• R. v. Jordan, [2005] O.J. No. 6487 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Jordan, [2003] O.J. No. 6330 per Nordheimer J.
• R. v. Brown, 2009 ONCA 563; R. v. Brown, [2007] O.J. No. 5659 per Nordheimer J.
• R. v. Deeb, 2019 ONCA 875; R. v. Deeb, 2013 ONSC 7870 per Kelly J.
• R. v. Holder, 2023 ONCA 688; R. v. Holder, 2018 ONSC 5370 per Faita J.
• R. v. Bezabeh and Harker, 2025 ONSC 422 per Code J.

[42] Defence counsel rely on the following cases in support of their position that concurrent sentences in the range of 12-15 years are appropriate in all the circumstances:

• R. v. Gordon, 2009 ONCA 1703
• R. v. Chevers, 2011 ONCA 5694
• R. v. Alvarez, 2014 ONSC 9025
• R. v. Mohamed, 2014 ONCA 8146
• R. v. Johnson, 2016 ONCA 317
• R. v. Charles, 2014 ONSC 2118

[43] The range of sentence serves as a guide for the application of the relevant principles and objectives of sentencing. But it is only a guide. Ultimately, a sentence must be proportionate to the particular circumstances of the offence, including its objective seriousness (as suggested by the maximum penalty and the sentencing range), its subjective seriousness (the particular circumstances in which it was committed), and the circumstances of the offender: s.718.1 of the Criminal Code; Friesen, at paras. 34, 37-38, 96-97, and 108-114.

[44] Whatever sentences I impose in relation to the counts of attempted murder, they must be concurrent, both to each other, and to the sentence for first-degree murder. Section 718.3, which permits consecutive sentences in some circumstances, has been interpreted as not applying to a life sentence: R. v. Sinclair; R. v. Bissonnette, 2022 SCC 23.

Principles of Sentencing

[45] The principles of sentencing are now largely codified in ss.718, 718.01-04, and 718.1-.201 of the Criminal Code. Though some principles still come from the common law. I will not recite them here, but apply the most relevant below.

[46] As with any sentencing decision, the relative weight to be accorded to each sentencing principle or objective will vary depending on the circumstances of the particular offence. In all instances, the sentence must be proportionate to both the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

Analysis

[47] As noted, the sentence for the first-degree murder of Mr. Murray is prescribed by law: life, without eligibility for parole for 25 years. As a result, this analysis focuses on the appropriate sentence for the two counts of attempted murder. I will begin with the aggravating circumstances, then address the mitigating circumstances, and finally the appropriate sentence.

[48] There are a number of very significant aggravating circumstances. To begin, the shooting involved a very high degree of planning and deliberation. The planning included:

• Mr. Anderson rented a car to use to drive to and from the shooting (the Nissan Altima).
• Mr. Anderson rented a hotel room at the Chelsea Hotel as a staging ground and a ready explanation for being close to Regent Park at the time of the shooting (a party).
• The shooters changed the license plate of the Nissan Altima shortly before driving to Regent Park, and immediately after.
• The shooters changed their clothing immediately before and immediately after the shooting.
• At least three of the four shooters, including Mr. Anderson and Mr. Harvey, turned their cell phones off before departing McGill street, and kept them off until after returning to McGill Street. There was no evidence at the trial about the cell records for the fourth shooter, including whether he had a cell phone at the time of the shooting.

[49] The violence involved in the shooting was extreme. All four shooters fired in tandem, unleashing at least 59 shots. Mr. Murray was shot 14 times, including from close range. The surveillance video shows the attackers repeatedly fired at him after he was down; he was executed. Mr. Uthayakumaran was shot 9 times. Mr. Nguyen only once. But not through lack of effort on the part of the shooters. Mr. Nguyen was simply the first to notice the shooters and run.

[50] The shooting occurred in public, in a densely populated downtown neighbourhood, during a beautiful late summer evening. There was a park across the street; lots of people were out and about that evening.

[51] The victims were completely innocent; guilty of nothing more than sitting, chatting, enjoying a warm late-summer evening with old friends.

[52] The impact of the shooting has been devastating, not just to the surviving victims, and Thane Murray’s family, friends, and co-workers, but to an entire neighbourhood. The shooting struck at the community’s sense of safety, and its ability to hope.

[53] There are some mitigating circumstances. Beginning with Mr. Anderson, he was young: 20 at the time of the offence; 24 at the time of sentencing.

[54] He has no criminal record.

[55] He has strong family and community support.

[56] The good character letters show that he has rehabilitative potential. However, the weight that I can place on the character letters is limited by the fact that, without exception, the writers form their opinion of Mr. Anderson without considering his role in this shooting. Many do not refer to the jury’s verdict at all. Where it is referred to, it is universally referred to as shocking; entirely out of character with the Noah Anderson they know. But I cannot sentence Mr. Anderson without regard to the jury’s verdict or the evidence at trial. The case law is clear that I must take his role in the offence into account in assessing his character: R. v. Ruthowsky, 2024 ONCA 432 at paras. 165-68.

[57] Moreover, as a matter of common sense, it is impossible for me to have sat through this trial and ignore Mr. Anderson’s role in the shooting. The evidence that he was one of the four shooters is overwhelming, consisting of a water-tight constellation of circumstances including animus, opportunity, means, and after the fact conduct. Over and above all this, for my part alone, I watched so much video of Mr. Anderson walking in and out of the lobby at the Chelsea Hotel following the shooting that by the end of the trial I could recognize him in the video of the shooting. The evidence also establishes that Mr. Anderson played a leadership role in organizing the shooting: he rented the car the shooters used; he rented the hotel room used as a staging ground and an alibi; his cell records strongly suggest he scouted the area in advance (his phone was pinging off a tower in Regent Park on the afternoon before the shooting); he drove to and from the shooting; he coordinated the writing and production of “Peppered”.

[58] In short, Mr. Anderson’s integral role in this shooting limits the weight I can place on the character letters he provides. For example, when his supporters refer to him as having a strong sense of right and wrong, and being non-violent, and never inciting violence I cannot accept this. However, there are aspects of the character letters that I do accept and do place weight on, including that Mr. Anderson is smart, likeable, charismatic, a natural leader. In short, he is a talented person. He has considerable rehabilitative potential, depending on whether he decides to use his talents in a pro-social way.

[59] Mr. Anderson spent 204 days in pre-trial custody, including 131 days between when he was arrested on December 13, 2021 and when he was released on bail on April 22, 2022, and a further 73 days since the jury’s verdict on April 26, 2025. I do not need specific evidence to be satisfied that this time would have been particularly difficult. Not only is it a notorious fact that pre-sentence custody is currently plagued by hardships like lock-downs and triple bunking, but the first portion of this custody occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, when prisoners were locked down as a matter of course, visits with family and counsel impossible, and even telephone contact difficult, and communal living particularly stressful. All this would have been hard. Apart from any Summers credit for pre-sentence custody, I take the particular hardship that this pre-sentence custody undoubtedly involved into account as a collateral consequence making the sentence harsher than it otherwise would be, and thus providing some mitigation: R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344; R. v. Menezes, 2023 ONCA 838.

[60] For the same reason, I also take into consideration the strict conditions of pre-trial release and find that they provide some mitigation. But not a great deal of mitigation. In order to claim the mitigating benefit of harsh conditions of pre-sentence release, an offender should provide information about the effect of the stringent terms: R. v. Downes; R. v. Joseph, 2020 ONCA 733 at para.108. All I have in this case is what the terms were, and that they were consistently loosened over time. According to Mr. Anderson’s father, while on house arrest, Mr. Anderson was able to take courses at George Brown towards a business degree, and friends visited Mr. Anderson almost every day. In these circumstances, I do not find the harsh terms of release to be a significant collateral consequence.

[61] Turning to the mitigating factors in play for Mr. Harvey, he was also young: 20 at the time of the offence; 23 at the time of sentencing.

[62] He too has family support.

[63] He has been in custody since his arrest on December 14, 2021, a total of 3 years, 6 months, and 26 days, or 1304 days. Although he has not provided any lock-down records, for the reasons I just explained in addressing Mr. Anderson, I find this time amounts to a collateral consequence, having a mitigating effect on sentence, over and above any Summers credit.

[64] Defence counsel urge me to follow the cases they put before me, and not the line of authority relied on by the Crown, because the Crown cases relate to seasoned offenders and not youthful first offenders or near first offenders. I do not agree that this circumstance sets the defence cases apart from the Crown cases. Based on my review of all the cases, both Crown and defence, most involve individuals with prior records of some sort or another. A notable exception, however, is the principal case relied on by the Crown, Justice Code’s decision in Bezabeh. In Bezabeh both offenders were young and did not have criminal records. Despite this, Justice Code concluded life sentences were required.

[65] I cannot settle on any particular factor or theme that distinguishes the defence cases from the Crown cases. Rather the different sentences seem to reflect the variety of circumstances, and high degree of discretion, involved in the sentencing process.

[66] What I do find, however, is that none of the defence cases come close to the level of planning and deliberation involved in this case. Nor do any of the defence cases come close to the extreme violence involved: 59 shots fired in public, close to a park, with a lot of people around. Nor are any of them close to the profound harm caused in this case, both directly to the victims and their immediate friends and family, and to the wider community. Indeed, this case seems to set a new high-water mark in terms of harm. The harm referred to in the attempted murder case law falls on a spectrum from no injury to grave life-altering injuries. The harm involved in this shooting is of a different order of magnitude, extending beyond the immediate victims and their family to the very fabric of the community. Indeed, as best as it is possible to understand why this shooting happened, it appears to have been an attack on an entire community. The community felt it, and was deeply harmed by it.

[67] The Court of Appeal of Ontario has repeatedly upheld life sentences for attempted murder in circumstances similar to the instant case, emphasizing the seriousness of attempted murder where it involves repeatedly firing a handgun in public in downtown Toronto, and/or is planned and deliberate. Justice Code recently summarized these authorities, in chronological order, in R. v. Bezabeh, 2025 ONSC 422 beginning at para.36 and I adopt his summary (the cases include those relied on by the Crown, at both the trial and appellate level, and listed above).

[68] I also adopt Nordheimer J.’s (as he then was) concluding statement of principle in R. v. Jordan, which involved the planned and deliberate attempted murder of two individuals, for some unknown reason, by a youthful offender with a limited prior record (Jordan was 21 years old at the time of the shooting with two prior sets of convictions for “much less serious offences” that did not involve violence). Jordan fired repeatedly at the victims using an automatic handgun while sitting behind them in a car parked in the parking lot of a shopping plaza on a Friday evening where passerby could have been hit. At para. 19 Nordheimer J. concluded:

The citizens of our community must be protected from individuals who choose to illegally possess weapons and, even more importantly, who choose to use those weapons, especially in such a premeditated and merciless manner. Individuals who choose to engage in such behaviour must be given the strongest possible message that such conduct simply will not be tolerated and, if it is committed, it will attract the severest of consequences. Severe consequences are also necessary to serve as a clear deterrent to others who might be inclined to engage in such conduct given the manifest danger that it poses for the lives and safety of other people.

[69] While I believe the young age of Mr. Anderson and Mr. Harvey is a powerful mitigative circumstance, I am satisfied that only a life sentence will provide adequate denunciation and deterrence given the extremely serious circumstances of the offences and the profound harm caused. Concurrent life sentences for both counts of attempted murder must be imposed.

[70] For both Mr. Anderson and Mr. Harvey, the sentence for the first degree murder of Mr. Murray is life, without eligibility for parole for 25 years.

[71] For both, the sentence for the attempted murder of Allen Uthayakumaran is a life sentence, to be served concurrently.

[72] For both, the sentence for the attempted murder of Tony Nguyen is a life sentence, to be served concurrently.

[73] The life sentence begins to run on the date of arrest, with any days not served in custody being taken into account, thus all counsel agree that Summers credit is not appropriate.

Ancillary Orders

[74] A s.109 order for both offenders for life.

[75] A DNA order for both Mr. Anderson and Mr. Harvey (under s.487.051(2) as all the offences are primary designated offences).

[76] Non-communication order with the victims and their families while the offenders are in custody (s.743.21).

[77] The victim fine surcharge applies, but given the young age of both Mr. Anderson and Mr. Harvey, and the very lengthy term of imprisonment they both face, I do not believe it is appropriate to impose it.

G. Roberts
Released: July 8, 2025