Court File Numbers

CR-25-20000044-0000
25-300000318-0000

Date

June 26, 2025

Court

Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Style of Cause

Between:
His Majesty the King
– and –
Michael Williams

Appearances:
Shambavi Kumaresan, for the Crown
John Filiberto, for Michael Williams

Heard: June 3, 2025

Reasons for Sentence

Himel J.

Introduction

[1] Michael Williams entered pleas of guilty to the following charges: aggravated assault contrary to s. 268 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, as amended; two counts of possession of a loaded restricted firearm without being the holder of a licence or registration permitting such possession contrary to s. 95(1) of the Code; possession of a firearm while prohibited from doing so contrary to s. 117.01(1) of the Code; and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19 as amended (“CDSA”). He had elected to be tried by a judge sitting alone.

[2] Mr. Williams confirmed that he was entering this plea voluntarily, that he understood that the plea was an admission of the essential elements of the offences, that he was aware that he was giving up his right to have a trial, that he understood the nature and consequences of the plea and that he was aware that this court was not bound by any agreement made between counsel regarding the sentence. He also confirmed that he has consulted with immigration counsel and is aware that there may be immigration consequences which flow from convictions on these offences.

[3] Counsel have provided their submissions on sentence. The following are my reasons for sentence.

Factual Background

[4] On Wednesday, May 31, 2023, at approximately 7:00 p.m., the victim, Sean Owl, was at the strip mall plaza located at 4479 Kingston Road, Scarborough where he encountered an unknown male whom he had met previously. The unknown individual took Mr. Owl’s phone and then punched him in the face causing his nose to bleed. A fight ensued between Mr. Owl and the unknown male. The altercation was observed by several unrelated individuals. Mr. Owl pursued the unknown male towards the Beer Store located at Morningside Avenue and Kingston Road.

[5] The unknown male approached a Mazda SUV being operated by Michael Williams and spoke with him at the driver’s side window. Mr. Williams then parked the SUV while Mr. Owl began pursuing the unknown male once more. Mr. Williams exited the driver’s seat of the vehicle, approached Mr. Owl in the parking lot, pointed a semi-automatic handgun at the upper left portion of Mr. Owl’s chest, and shot him once in the left side of his chest from close range.

[6] Mr. Owl stumbled into the Beer Store and discarded a utility knife that was on his person at the time of the shooting and drank a can of beer before being attended to by emergency personnel. He was taken to Sunnybrook Hospital by ambulance with a gunshot wound to his upper left chest/shoulder area. The shooting was captured on security video from two angles and observed by an unrelated witness.

[7] Immediately after the shooting, Mr. Williams re-entered the SUV and left the scene. The licence plate marker of the vehicle was visible on security video footage from the plaza as the SUV departed the parking lot. Mr. Williams had rented the SUV days before in his own name. Mr. Williams drove to a unit he had rented at Maple Leaf Motel where he changed clothing and put the handgun in a blue reusable bag. He then brought the firearm to his vehicle, drove to meet a friend, Nissan Paranthaman, and together with Mr. Paranthaman, deposited the blue reusable bag with the handgun inside in the trunk of a vehicle registered to Mr. Paranthaman. Mr. Williams was being surveilled at the time. Police searched the trunk of the vehicle and located the handgun, three rounds of 9 mm Luger caliber centre-fire ammunition, and the shirt Mr. Williams was wearing during the shooting.

[8] The handgun was a SCCY, Model CPX-1, 9 mm Luger semi-automatic handgun with a barrel length of 79 mm. As a result of its short barrel length, the handgun is classified as a prohibited weapon by s. 84 of the Criminal Code. The handgun did not have a magazine in it when it was located by police. The handgun was capable of discharging the three rounds of ammunition located in the trunk with it. Mr. Williams was not licensed, registered, or authorized to possess any firearms. Mr. Williams was arrested on June 1, 2023.

[9] Prior to May 14, 2024, members of the Toronto Police Integrated Gun and Gang Task Force commenced an investigation into Michael Williams. As a result of information received and the subsequent investigation, police obtained a Criminal Code search warrant authorizing the search of 509-3210 Lawrence Avenue East in Scarborough. At the time, Mr. Williams was subject to a release order with a condition requiring him to reside at that location.

[10] On May 15, 2024, members of the Toronto Police Integrated Gun and Gang Task Force executed the search warrant at 509-3210 Lawrence Avenue East. Mr. Williams was the sole occupant of the residence at the time. During the search, officers located the following items:

• in the living room:
  • A Canik, Model TP9 DA, 9 mm Luger calibre, centre-fire, semi-automatic handgun with a barrel length of 104 mm, loaded with 10 rounds of 9 mm Luger calibre, centre-fire ammunition
• in the bedroom:
  • 21 cartridges of 9 mm Luger calibre, centre-fire ammunition in the top dresser drawer
  • 187.18 grams of cocaine in three clear bags on the top shelf of the closet in a black drawstring bag
  • Empty baggies and a plastic sealer on the top shelf of the closet
  • A St. Lucia passport and a wallet with a driver’s licence and St. Lucia ID card in the name of “Michael Williams” in the top dresser drawer
  • a T4 form and a cheque in the name of “Michael Williams” in the top dresser drawer
  • A bullet proof vest hanging in the bedroom closet

[11] The handgun was examined, tested, and found to be in working order. The handgun meets the definition of a “Prohibited Firearm” as defined in s. 84 of the Criminal Code. The handgun had a detachable box cartridge magazine that is capable of holding 18 cartridges of 9 mm Luger calibre, centre-fire ammunition and meets the definition of a “Prohibited Device” as defined in s. 84 of the Criminal Code. Mr. Williams did not have a Firearms Acquisition Certificate or licence permitting the possession of any firearm at the time of the offences. It is agreed that the amount of controlled substances makes out the offence of possession for the purpose of trafficking of cocaine. At the time of the offences, Mr. Williams was on a release order entered into on November 24, 2023, with a condition not to possess any weapons.

[12] On the basis of these facts and the admission of the defence, I found Mr. Williams guilty of these offences.

Evidence on the Sentencing Hearing

[13] Crown counsel, Ms. Kumaresan, filed an Agreed Statement of Facts as an exhibit pursuant to s. 655 of the Code. She advised that Mr. Williams has no criminal record.

[14] Defence counsel, Mr. Filiberto, submitted a letter dated April 30, 2025, from Keihlah Belleau, Native Inmate Liaison Officer at the Toronto East Detention Centre. She explained that although Mr. Williams is non-Indigenous, he has participated in Indigenous cultural and spiritual programming. She wrote, “Through this process, I have observed genuine reflection and personal growth in Michael Williams…I believe he is on a path toward better choices and a more constructive life.” Counsel also filed a letter from Jessica Geer, social worker at the Toronto East Detention Centre who listed 11 life skills programs that Mr. Williams has attended while in custody.

Positions of the Parties

[15] Crown counsel and defence counsel join in their submission to the court that an appropriate sentence in this case is a global sentence of approximately eight years of imprisonment, with five years for the aggravated assault, three years for the s. 95 offence on May 31, 2023 imposed on a concurrent basis, three years for the s. 95 offence on May 15, 2024 imposed consecutive to the aggravated assault, one year for the possession of a firearm while prohibited imposed concurrent and two years for the CDSA offence imposed on a concurrent basis.

[16] Mr. Williams was arrested on the first set of charges and detained from June 1, 2023, until November 24, 2023, at which time he was released on a recognizance with a condition that he not possess any weapons. He spent a total of 177 days in jail. Following his release, he was arrested on the second set of charges on May 15, 2024. He has been detained since that date until the present time. Crown counsel calculated a total of 413 days to the present date. For the total time in custody, he has spent 590 days. At 1.5:1, that would equal credit of 885 days in custody in accordance with R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26 and s. 719(3.1) of the Code. Counsel agree that this position takes into account the harsh conditions at the Toronto East Detention Centre. Counsel also agree that this sentence takes into account any mitigating factors stemming from systemic racism. The Crown and the defence join in requesting the following ancillary orders: a s. 109 order for life, an order that a DNA sample be taken as this is a primary designated offence pursuant to s. 487.051(2), and an order of forfeiture of the property seized which includes the guns, ammunition, drugs, and paraphernalia.

[17] Crown counsel points to the aggravating factors in this case: that the offences are extremely serious, that they involve two separate occasions involving guns, the first in a public parking lot outside a beer store, the second where he was in possession of a prohibited firearm and cocaine in a house where a young child resided and while on strict bail conditions not to possess a weapon. The victim in the first set of charges was shot in the chest and shoulder area and suffered a fractured shoulder. The second set of charges took place while on release for the aggravated assault offence. The nature and quantity of the drugs are of great concern as cocaine is a dangerous drug and causes harm to individuals and to society.

[18] The mitigating factors outlined by Crown counsel are the guilty plea after the preliminary hearing. While not an early plea, Mr. Williams has accepted responsibility for the offences and has saved seven weeks of court time. The victim has not been located for trial and has been uncooperative. He had a knife on him and was pursuing the unknown male during the incident. Mr. Williams’ personal history and prior experiences as well as the programs he has taken while in custody are all mitigating factors. Counsel further submits that in accordance with R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344, harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody have already been considered as a mitigating factor as have the factors of systemic racism outlined in R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 344 in reaching this joint submission.

[19] Ms. Kumaresan referred the court to the case of R. v. Aden, [2025] O.J. No. 21 (Ont. Ct. J.) where B. Jones J. imposed a global sentence of 10 years of imprisonment less credit for pre-sentence custody for the offences of discharge firearm, aggravated assault, possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and possession of a firearm contrary to a prohibition order. The accused had pleaded guilty to the charges. The shooting left the victim with life-threatening injuries resulting in surgeries and long-term impacts. Mr. Aden had a prior criminal record and was under two weapons prohibition orders. The court had ordered an Enhanced Report and was advised of Mr. Aden’s challenging upbringing in a violence-prone neighbourhood which influenced his criminal behaviour.

[20] In the decision, Justice Jones considered the aggravating circumstances including that Mr. Aden discharged a loaded prohibited firearm in a public place, that the gun was modified to allow it to fire in a fully automatic fashion and had an overcapacity magazine, that the victim suffered life-threatening injuries, that Mr. Aden had a prior criminal record for crimes of violence and firearms-related offences and had two weapons prohibition orders and that he possessed crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. The mitigating factors were the guilty plea, the difficult conditions of pre-sentence custody and the systemic issues. The court referenced the jurisprudence which emphasized the objectives of denunciation and deterrence for, in particular, gun offences of this kind. Justice Jones wrote at para. 48:

In firearms-related cases, the sentencing principles of general deterrence and denunciation are given priority. The message must be communicated to the public that these offences will not be tolerated, and the punishment for committing them will be severe. The Ontario Court of Appeal has repeatedly denounced firearms violence and the incalculable toll it has taken on the safety and security of the citizens of Toronto.

[21] Crown counsel points to jurisprudence that emphasizes that firearms are deadly and pose a threat to society. In Aden, Jones J. noted that the Ontario Court of Appeal established a range of sentencing for dangerous firearms-related offences in R. v. Bellissimo, 2009 ONCA 49 of seven to eleven years. There are cases, however, where the sentence imposed has been lower. For example, in R. v. Johnson, 2020 ONCJ 272, the offender was 26 years old and a friend of the victim. Following an argument, he reached for a firearm and shot the victim once in the chest. The victim did not require surgery to recover. The offender had a prior criminal record although not for firearms related offences. The court imposed a sentence of five and a half years.

[22] In the case at bar, Crown counsel also emphasizes to the court that the offence of breach of a prohibition order also requires denunciation. Often the sentence for such an offence is imposed consecutive to the other offences. In this case, because of the principle of totality, Ms. Kumaresan asks that the one-year sentence be imposed concurrent. Similarly, the offence of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking is an offence that requires denunciation and deterrence. It is planned and premeditated. The sentence must take into account the amount of the drug involved. Here the amount was 187.19 grams of cocaine which is at the mid-level range. Counsel asks the court to impose a two-year period of imprisonment for this offence. Ordinarily it would be imposed consecutive to the other offence but because of the mitigating factors and the principle of totality, Crown counsel asks that it be imposed concurrent.

[23] In summary, in light of the gun crime in Toronto, that Mr. Williams committed an aggravated assault demonstrating a disregard for life, that he was on a strict bail while in possession of another loaded firearm and cocaine, she submits that an eight year global sentence, while at the lowest end of the range, is a fit sentence. The victim was uncooperative and cannot be located, Mr. Williams has been incarcerated in harsh conditions and the Duncan and Marshall factors are mitigating: see R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754. Further, the Morris factors are relevant and are mitigating and Mr. Williams has no criminal record. Thus, an eight-year global sentence is a fit one in this case.

[24] Defence counsel, Mr. Filiberto, provided the court with the personal history of Mr. Williams. He outlined his youth in St. Lucia and his immigration to Canada which will be referenced below. Mr. Filiberto advised the court that Mr. Williams is a permanent resident and has received immigration advice from a lawyer. He will attempt to appeal the deportation order which is the likely consequence. He fears for his safety if he returns to St. Lucia because of prior gang involvement.

[25] Since he has been in custody, Mr. Williams has completed numerous programs which are detailed in a letter from the social worker at the Toronto East Detention Centre. The other letter filed outlines how, although he is non-Indigenous, he has participated in meaningful engagements which have led to reflection and personal growth.

[26] Mr. Filiberto submits that there are mitigating factors in this case. Mr. Williams has pleaded guilty and has taken responsibility for his actions. This is despite the fact that there are triable issues. The complainant was armed with a knife and was engaged in an attack on the other male. Mr. Williams had intervened to defend his friend. Further, there were issues that would have been raised on a Section 8 application. Finally, there were possible defences of knowledge and control. Mr. Williams is saving substantial court time in vacating motions and trial dates. Mr. Williams has demonstrated personal circumstances including his difficult upbringing, which like the Morris factors, is a mitigating factor. The harsh conditions of his pre-sentence custody are also considered as a mitigating factor in arriving at the joint position.

[27] Mr. Filiberto asks the court to accept the joint position which is not contrary to the public interest. He submits that as of the date of the sentencing hearing, Mr. Williams should be credited with a total of 566 days of pre-sentence custody which at 1.5 to 1 would be 849 days.

Analysis and the Law

[28] Before turning to the specific circumstances of this case, I first consider the general sentencing principles which apply. The fundamental purpose of sentencing is set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code. It is to ensure respect for the law and to promote a just, peaceful, and safe society. The imposition of just sanctions requires that I consider the sentencing objectives referred to in this section. They are denunciation of unlawful conduct, deterrence of the offender and other persons from committing offences, separating offenders from society where necessary, rehabilitation of offenders, providing reparation for harm done to victims or to the community, promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and the community.

[29] A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. When imposing sentence, I am to consider certain factors which may increase or reduce the sentence because of aggravating or mitigating circumstances. The sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances. Where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentences should not be unduly long or harsh. The offender should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions are appropriate and all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances, should be considered for all offenders, particularly Aboriginal offenders.

[30] I now turn to the relevant jurisprudence concerning the offences in this case. The courts have repeatedly stated that the principles of denunciation and deterrence are paramount objectives for gun-related crimes: see R. v. Danvers, 2005 ONCA 30044. In R. v. Nur, 2015 SCC 15, the Supreme Court of Canada emphasized the objectives of denunciation and deterrence when sentencing persons found in possession of loaded firearms. While striking down the mandatory minimum sentence for possession of a firearm contrary to s. 95(2), the court upheld the sentence of 40 months for a 19-year-old first offender.

[31] In the decision of the Court of Appeal at 2013 ONCA 677, Doherty J.A. wrote at para. 206:

Individuals who have loaded, restricted or prohibited firearms that they have no business possessing anywhere or at any time, and who are engaged in criminal conduct or conduct that poses a danger to others should continue to receive exemplary sentences that will emphasize deterrence and denunciation.

[32] The Ontario Court of Appeal also stated in R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 344, at para. 71, that a three‑year sentence may be appropriate for “the vast majority of offences” under s. 95 but that various aggravating circumstances may raise the appropriate range of sentence. They would include where the offender has the gun on his person in a public place and attempts to discard it while escaping from the police and the presence of a criminal record for gun offences. In accordance with what the Supreme Court has said in R. v. Nur, 2015 SCC 15, the objectives of denunciation and deterrence are paramount. Justice D.E. Harris wrote in the decision of R. v. Kawal, 2018 ONSC 7531 at para. 16: “The danger handguns pose to the community cannot be overstated. Word must circulate that appropriate and fit sentences for handguns will necessarily be severe and lengthy sentences.”

[33] With reference to the offence of aggravated assault, as noted above, the courts have held that sentences for dangerous firearm related offences may range from seven to eleven years depending upon the circumstances: see R. v. Bellissimo, 2009 ONCA 49. There, the offender entered a restaurant, discharged several rounds of ammunition, struck the owner who was significantly injured and a bystander who suffered a minor injury and narrowly missed a third person. The Court of Appeal emphasized the seriousness of the crimes and wrote at para. 5 that: “General deterrence and denunciation must be given a paramount weight in sentencing for these kind of dangerous gun related charges. We think the sentence fails to give adequate weight to these factors. We think a proper sentence is ten years.”

[34] In decisions involving persons convicted of trafficking and possession for the purposes of trafficking in controlled substances, the courts have ruled that deterrence, and the protection of the public are of paramount consideration. The nature and quantity of the drug are relevant to the issue of sentencing. The type of the transactions and the criminal antecedents of the offender are all relevant considerations. Whether there is a significant element of commercialism, the role of the offender and the circumstances of the offender are also relevant factors. In passing sentence, the court may consider the well-being of younger but presently uncommitted potential users of drugs and in so doing, impose a sentence which emphasizes the protection of the public. The court will also look to the circumstances of the offender including whether the offender has an addiction to drugs. The jurisprudence has highlighted that cocaine is a dangerous and addictive drug.

[35] Sentences for the offence of fail to comply with recognizance or breach of prohibition order are typically ordered to be served consecutively to any substantive offences in order to demonstrate that the breach is different from the substantive offence and engages different societal interests: see R. v. Maddigan, 2009 ONCA 269.

The Factor of Systemic Racism

[36] In R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 344, the court considered the factor where an accused has experienced anti-Black racism but said at para. 97:

There must, however, be some connection between the overt and systemic racism identified in the community and the circumstances or events that are said to explain or mitigate the criminal conduct in issue.

This would involve the background of the offender and his exposure to gun violence as well as being subject to anti-Black racism and the offences he has committed. Where the past hardship including the factor of anti-Black racism is connected to the criminal activity, that is a relevant mitigating factor to be taken into account. At paras. 79, and 81, the Ontario Court of Appeal highlighted the principles of denunciation, deterrence, protection of society and rehabilitation and the role of mitigating personal circumstances and the offender’s prospects for rehabilitation. The court took into account the matter of anti-Black racism as a relevant consideration. The court also emphasized the considerable discretion given to sentencing judges to decide how best to blend the various legitimate objectives of sentencing.

The Issue of Credit for Harsh Pre-Sentence Conditions in the Jail

[37] In deciding whether enhanced credit is appropriate for harsh conditions in the jail during pre-sentence custody, the court will consider the conditions of the presentence incarceration and the impact of those conditions on the accused: see R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754. In R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344, at paras. 50-53, Justice Doherty wrote at para. 52:

Because the ‘Duncan’ credit is one of the mitigating factors to be taken into account, it cannot justify the imposition of a sentence which is inappropriate, having regard to all of the relevant mitigating or aggravating factors.

[38] Although counsel did not file lockdown records of the Toronto East Detention Centre since Mr. Williams’ incarceration, I accept that he has been subject to harsh conditions and that is a mitigating factor. In the case at bar, counsel have considered the issue of credit for harsh pre‑sentence conditions in the jail in the formulation of the joint submission.

Decision

[39] Sentencing involves the exercise of discretion and requires the sentencing judge to consider the individual circumstances of the offender, the circumstances of the offence and the need for the sentence to meet the sentencing objectives outlined by Parliament. The goal of sentencing is to impose a just and fit sentence, responsive to the facts of the individual offender and the particular circumstances of the commission of the offence: see R. v. Wust, 2000 SCC 18 at para. 44.

[40] In considering both the circumstances of the offence and the circumstances of this offender, I consider the relevant aggravating and mitigating circumstances. I must also consider that like offenders should be treated alike. I consider the following circumstances to be relevant in the case of Mr. Williams.

[41] Mr. Williams is 26 years old and was born on February 8, 1999, in St. Lucia. He has no criminal record. He had a very difficult childhood and suffered mental and physical abuse by his parents. His mother neglected him and left the home when he was five years old to move to Canada. He remained with his father who had different partners and Mr. Williams was subjected to beatings, sleeping on the floor, not attending school, and not having the basics. He began to steal to get food. When he was nine years old, he was punished by his father who put his hands in the flame of a propane burner. When he ran from the house, his father chased him with a machete.

[42] After this event, Mr. Williams did not return to live with his father. He lived on the streets of St. Lucia and slept in cars and often broke into houses for food. He was targeted by a street gang when he was 12 years old and subjected to a beating. He felt he had to join the gang in order to survive. He became involved in physical fights with rival gangs.

[43] When he was 14 years old, Mr. Williams was shot by St. Lucia police while engaged in a robbery. He was shot in the hand and the foot and ran from the scene. A member of the gang took out the bullet with a red-hot knife and put alcohol on his foot.

[44] When Mr. Williams was 19 years old, he immigrated to Canada. His mother had made contact with him and said that her new husband would sponsor him, which he accepted. However, when he arrived and found employment, his mother said he owed her money for the sponsorship. She had him take out loans to pay her off. She kicked Mr. Williams out of the house, and he lived in shelters where he was exposed to negative peer groups.

[45] Mr. Williams was able to find employment with Forest Construction as a labourer where he worked from 2019 until 2022. He left Forest Construction to join the union as a labourer and worked for ACON, a subcontractor of Bell, that installed fiberoptic lines. In 2020, Mr. Williams met his now fiancé and they have a daughter together.

[46] As for his educational background, he did not receive any education while in St. Lucia. He attended Adult Learning Centre in Canada to get his diploma, but this was interrupted because of COVID-19. He would like to return to complete it. Mr. Williams is a permanent resident and will face immigration consequences from these convictions and sentences.

[47] With respect to the circumstances of the offences, the offences are extremely serious. As noted above, they involve the use of a firearm causing injury to the victim, illegal possession of firearms, the possession of a large quantity of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and breach of a release order not to possess any weapons. Sentences for gun related offences as well as sentences for trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking in dangerous substances must emphasize that general deterrence, and denunciation are of paramount concern. Each case must be considered in light of its circumstances and the aggravating and mitigating factors. The accused’s prospects for rehabilitation as well as the other sentencing objectives must also be considered.

[48] In terms of mitigating factors, Mr. Williams pleaded guilty to the charges and has demonstrated remorse. He has taken responsibility for his actions. He has saved valuable court time when resources are scarce because of the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. He has no criminal record. Although there is no report to this effect, the circumstances of his disadvantaged background from St. Lucia and in Canada, related to anti-Black racism were outlined to the court in detail and are a mitigating factor that must be considered. I consider the impact of systemic racism on his behaviour and the connection to the criminal activity with which he was involved as a relevant factor in light of the violence to which he was exposed with his parents, gang affiliation and the neighbourhood in which he lived. Further, he has experienced harsh conditions while in custody at the Toronto East Detention Centre. This is a mitigating factor that is taken into account in reaching the overall sentence: see R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344. Mr. Williams has held employment in the past and has hopes to pursue his diploma and further his skills when he is incarcerated at the penitentiary. I conclude that he has some rehabilitative potential.

[49] The aggravating factors are the aggravated assault upon a victim with a loaded gun, resulting in injuries to him. The offences involved possession of a gun that was a fully loaded weapon which posed a significant danger, and this type of offence is what the Supreme Court of Canada considered to be at the more significant spectrum of firearm related offences. Mr. Williams did not have a firearm licence. For the second set of charges, his possession of the gun was in connection with other criminal activity, that is, possession of a substantial amount of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. Clearly, he was in possession of the drugs for commercial reasons given the gun, baggies and paraphernalia located in his residence. These are serious crimes. He was already on a release order not to possess any weapons when he was in possession of a loaded gun.

[50] As the Court of Appeal has said in R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 344, sentencing involves a blending of the objectives set out in s. 718 of the Code and the circumstances of the offender and the offences. In considering all the mitigating and aggravating circumstances including the impact of systemic racism on Mr. Williams, I have determined that a global sentence of eight years is appropriate. It is in keeping with the jurisprudence and recognizes that a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances: see s. 718.2(b) of the Code.

[51] Thus, in determining the appropriate sentence, I consider sentencing principles outlined in s. 718 of the Code and the circumstances of the offender and the offences. I also consider the joint submission of experienced counsel. I am very mindful of the words of Justice Moldaver in R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, where he explained that there is good reason for acceding to the joint submissions of counsel as both the accused and Crown counsel rely on joint submissions for certainty in the resolution of a case. Joint submissions play a vital role in contributing to the administration of justice and “Without them, our justice system would be brought to its knees, and eventually collapse under its own weight”: at para. 41. In my view, this joint submission is made by experienced counsel who have arrived at a resolution which is fair and consistent with the public interest, and I endorse it.

[52] Accordingly, I impose a global sentence of eight years with the following breakdown: for the offence of aggravated assault contrary to s. 268, I impose a sentence of five years. For the s. 95 offence on May 31, 2023, the sentence is three years imposed on a concurrent basis; for the s. 95 offence on May 15, 2024, I impose a sentence of three years consecutive to the five year sentence; for the breach of a release order, the sentence is one year to be served on a concurrent basis; for the s. 5(2) offence under the CDSA, the sentence is two years served concurrently to the five year sentence. This is a global sentence of eight years.

[53] Mr. Williams was in custody from his arrest on May 31, 2023, until his release on November 24, 2023, that is, for 178 days. He was arrested on the second set of charges on May 15, 2024, and has been detained since that date at the Toronto East Detention Centre. That equals 408 days. With a total of 586 days, in accordance with R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26, at 1.5:1, this would equal credit of 879 days. The sentence of eight years equals 2,920 days. This leaves a balance to serve of 2,041 days remaining. I further make an order under s. 109 prohibiting Mr. Williams from possessing any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code for life. There will be an order that a sample of his DNA shall be taken in accordance with s. 487.051(2). Finally, there will be an order of forfeiture of the gun, ammunition, drugs, and paraphernalia.

Catherine Himel
Released: June 26, 2025

Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between:
His Majesty the King
– and –
Michael Williams

Reasons for Sentence

Catherine Himel
Released: June 26, 2025