Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CR-24-30000730-0000

Date: 2025-09-05

Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between:

His Majesty the King

and

Ade Munda, Respondent

Counsel:

M. Mandel, for the Crown

M. Mistry, for Mr. Munda

Heard: August 1, 2025

Reasons for Judgment on Sentence

Justice R. Maxwell

Introduction

[1] On December 18, 2024, a jury found Mr. Munda guilty of two counts of possession of a loaded, restricted firearm, contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code, two counts of careless storage of ammunition, contrary to s. 86(1) of the Code, and one count of possession of a prohibited device, contrary to s. 92 of the Code. Police executed a search warrant on a home where Mr. Munda was present with others. When the police entered the home, Mr. Munda jumped from the balcony. He was arrested in the laneway below by an officer stationed in the laneway. Two loaded, prohibited firearms were found in the immediate area of where he landed.

[2] Mr. Munda's matter was originally adjourned to June 18, 2025, in order for a Race and Cultural Assessment Report ("RCAR") to be prepared. Counsel for Mr. Munda updated the Court in May of 2025 that the RCAR had not been started, due to an oversight by counsel in completing necessary paperwork. The matter was adjourned to June 18, 2025. Based on a revised time estimate, the RCAR would require as much as six months to complete. Mr. Munda elected to proceed using a regular Pre-sentence Report which touched on his experiences with racial discrimination and systemic racism, supplemented with additional information filed on the sentencing hearing.

[3] On behalf of the Crown, Ms. Mandel seeks a sentence for possession of the firearms of 4 ½ to 5 years in custody, concurrent on each count, less pre-sentence custody of 487 days, or the equivalent of 731 days (or 2 years) after applying enhanced credit pursuant to R. v. Summers, [2014] SCR 575, 2014 SCC 26. This would leave Mr. Munda with a further 2 ½ to 3 years to serve. She also seeks a s. 109 order for life, a DNA order, and a weapons forfeiture order.

[4] On behalf of Mr. Munda, Mr. Mistry argues that after considering all the relevant mitigating factors, including consideration of Mr. Munda's status as a youthful black man who has been impacted by systemic racism and disadvantage, a fit sentence is one of 3 years. He asks that I treat Mr. Munda's pre-sentence custody as the equivalent of 3 years, in light of the harsh conditions of Mr. Munda's detention, pursuant to R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754, [2016] CarswellOnt 15975 and for the strict conditions he abided by while on bail, pursuant to R. v. Downes, (2006), 79 O.R. (3d) 321 (Ont. C.A.) at para. 33 and that I sentence him to "time served".

[5] For the reasons that follow, I have concluded that a fit global sentence for the offences is 3 ½ years in custody. Mr. Munda is entitled to credit of 12 months for time spent subject to restrictive bail conditions (the Downes credit) and custodial lockdowns (the Duncan credit), and 24 months of credit for presentence custody, pursuant to Summers. The sentence that remains to be served is therefore six months.

The Facts

[6] Section 724(3) of the Code provides that, where the accused is tried by a court composed of a judge and jury, the court may accept as proved, any information disclosed at the trial or at the sentencing proceedings and shall accept, as proven, all facts express or implied that are essential to the jury's verdict of guilt.

[7] Based on the evidence on the trial, I accept the following as the relevant facts for determining the appropriate sentence in this case.

[8] On July 20, 2022, officers from the Toronto Police Emergency Task Force executed a search warrant on 2500 Hill Rise Court, unit 25. Mr. Munda was inside the unit with several other people. They gathered at the unit following a funeral service for a friend who had died by gun violence. On announcing that they were the police with a search warrant, officers from the Emergency Task Force breached the front door using a battering ram, then announced themselves again at a second door at the top of the stairs leading into the apartment, before breaching the second door.

[9] Upon the police entering the unit, Mr. Munda got up from where he sat and moved quickly to the balcony of the unit, jumped from the balcony of the unit which was on the 2nd floor, and fell into the laneway below. Officer Martin, who was positioned in the laneway during the execution of the search warrant, saw Mr. Munda come over the railing and heard the sound of clattering, which he believed to be the sound of a gun hitting the ground. Several officers observed two firearms in the immediate area of where Mr. Munda landed. Officer Martin, perceiving that Mr. Munda was reaching for one of the guns on the ground, shot him twice, striking him once in the leg. Mr. Munda was then arrested. His satchel was also located in the laneway, close to where he landed.

[10] Police recovered two firearms in the laneway – a black Glock handgun, which was loaded with 16 cartridges of 9mm ammunition and a black and silver Glock handgun, which was loaded with 10 cartridges of 9mm ammunition. Both firearms were prohibited firearms. One had an over-capacity magazine, which is a prohibited device.

[11] Mr. Munda was not the holder of a licence for either the firearms or the prohibited device. He knew he was in possession of the prohibited device and firearms without being the holder of a licence.

[12] The manner in which Mr. Munda carried the firearms and magazines, on his person in an unsecure fashion, was careless.

Circumstances of the Offender

[13] Materials were filed on behalf of Mr. Munda on the sentencing hearing which provide some insight into Mr. Munda's life. The material filed included:

• A Pre-Sentence Report;
• A letter of support from Mr. Munda's mother;
• A letter of support from Mr. Munda's brother;
• Records from the Toronto South Detention Centre, the Toronto East Detention Centre, and the Central North Correctional Centre detailing days of lockdowns at each institution during his pre-sentence incarceration;
• An affidavit from Mr. Munda addressing the impact of the conditions of his pre-sentence incarceration on his wellbeing and his ability to access resources; and
• A copy of Mr. Munda's judicial interim release order setting out the terms of his bail issued on October 22, 2024.

[14] Mr. Munda was 19 years old at the time of the offences. He is now 21 years old. He is a black man. He was born in Toronto. His family is of Congolese background. He is one of five brothers. His parents divorced when he was 12 years old as a result of domestic violence in the relationship. Mr. Munda witnessed some of the violence in his parents' relationship. His father was also violent with him. His brother confirmed that their father was violent. Mr. Munda's mother reported that Mr. Munda was also the subject of emotional abuse by his father.

[15] Although Ms. Munda encouraged her children to visit their father, the relationship was tense, and Mr. Munda did not see his father after the age of 14.

[16] The family eventually relocated to Whitby after Mr. Munda's parents divorced, where his mother struggled financially.

[17] The family lived in the Lawrence Heights neighborhood, which Mr. Munda described as quote "pretty rough" and "violent". He witnessed a shooting outside his front door when he was eight years old. Mr. Munda's brother similarly commented that there were many shootings and that he and his brother grew up seeing and hearing the violence. Mr. Munda reported losing a number of people to gun violence over the years including two friends who were killed by gun violence a month before his arrest for the current offences.

[18] Mr. Munda struggled with being bullied in elementary school. He was suspended in elementary school for fighting. As he got older, he became a bully and became angrier. In grade 10, he was suspended from school for failing to follow directions. He also struggled in school to stay focused, although he reported that he took both academic and applied level courses and obtained grades from 60-80 percent. He eventually left school in grade 12, three credits shy of finishing his high school degree.

[19] Mr. Munda experimented with marijuana beginning at age 14, which developed into a habit. He first used alcohol at the age of 16. He drank alcohol several times a month with friends, and more during the summer months. His alcohol consumption increased with the loss of friends, in and around the time of his arrest for the current offences. He was consuming alcohol and marijuana at the time of the offences. He had also been taking Percocets in the months leading up to his arrest. He denied any issues with addiction.

[20] Mr. Munda had no criminal record at the time of these offences. Although he has since been convicted of possession of a cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and failing to comply with a bail order in June of 2025, he must be sentenced on the basis that he was a first-time offender at the time of these offences.

[21] In term of positive role models in his life, Mr. Munda reported a very positive relationship with his mother and his siblings. He also has a friend who taught him barbering. The other is a friend with whom Mr. Munda use to play basketball. The family confirmed that these friends are positive influences in Mr. Munda's life.

[22] Mr. Munda has limited work history, given his age and the fact that he has been incarcerated, more often than not, since July of 2022. He worked at the age of 16 for nine months cleaning industrial trucks. He was unemployed prior to his arrest. He hopes to pursue a career in barbering and has an opportunity to do so through a friend when he is released.

Principles of Sentencing

[23] I begin with the most fundamental principles of sentencing set out in ss. 718, 718.1 and 718.2 of the Code.

[24] The overriding purpose of sentencing is to encourage respect for the law and the maintenance of a "just, peaceful and safe society". This will be accomplished through the imposition of just sanctions which have one or more of several objectives enumerated in s. 718(a) to (f), including denunciation, general and specific deterrence, and rehabilitation.

[25] As the Ontario Court of Appeal observed in R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, 159 O.R. (3d) 641, at para. 58, the individualization of the sentencing process means that these objectives will not necessarily point to the same sentencing disposition. Sentencing judges need to prioritize and blend different objectives of sentencing so as to properly reflect the seriousness of the offence and the responsibility of the offender.

[26] Section 718.1 provides that the sentence I impose must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The sentence I impose must reflect the circumstances of the offence and the attributes of the individual responsible for the crime: see R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 433, at para. 37; R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, 391 C.C.C. (3d) 309, at para. 30.

[27] In terms of the gravity of the offences, there can be no question that the gravity of the offences committed by Mr. Munda is very high. Mr. Munda possessed two firearms which were both loaded, one with an over-capacity magazine, ready to be fired. The context in which he possessed them increases the gravity of the offence. He attempted to flee from the apartment when the police, in lawful execution of their duties, entered to execute a search warrant. He compounded the dangerousness of the situation by jumping from the balcony into a laneway below with the loaded firearms unsecured. The result was that two very dangerous weapons fell to the ground with him. The danger to the officers in the laneway and any member of the public is obvious. As many courts have found, the mere fact that he possessed a gun in public increases the gravity of the offence: R. v. Wright, 2018 ONSC 4209, at para. 39; R. v. Hayles-Wilson, 2018 ONSC 4337, at para. 15; R. v. Brown, 2013 ONSC 4230, at para. 51; R. v. Ferrigon, [2007] O.J. No. 1883 (S.C.J.), at para. 25.

[28] As a general matter, as offences tend toward the graver end of the spectrum, the principles of denunciation and deterrence will attract greater weight. Handguns like those possessed by Mr. Munda in this case, particularly when they are loaded, are possessed for purposes of killing or seriously injuring other people. As explained in Morris, at para. 68:

Gun crimes involving the possession of loaded, concealed firearms in public places pose a real and immediate danger to the public, especially anyone who interacts with the gun holder. When the person with the gun is confronted by the police, who are engaged in the lawful execution of their duties, the risk increases dramatically. […] A person who carries a concealed, loaded handgun in public undermines the community's sense of safety and security.

[29] The sentence I impose must denounce the dangerous conduct and deter Mr. Munda from this conduct in the future. Denunciation and deterrence, even in the face of significant mitigating factors, must be of paramount consideration when it comes to firearm offences because of the plague of gun violence in the city and the profound consequences firearms have on community safety: see R. v. Nur, 2015 SCC 15, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 773; R. v. Danvers (2005), 199 C.C.C. (3d) 490 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Brown, 2010 ONCA 745, 277 O.A.C. 233; R. v. Delchev, 2014 ONCA 448, 323 O.A.C. 19; R. v. Dufour, 2015 ONCA 426, 326 C.C.C. (3d) 52.

[30] With that said, because Mr. Munda was a youthful, first-time offender, rehabilitation remains an important consideration on sentence. For the same reason, the principle of restraint is also an important factor on the sentence in this case: R. v. Habib, 2024 ONCA 830, at paras. 7, 31-32.

[31] Turning to Mr. Munda's responsibility for the offences, Mr. Munda chose to possess loaded prohibited firearms, one loaded with an over-capacity magazine. The threat presented by his conduct is very clear. It can be inferred that Mr. Munda possessed these firearms because he contemplated that there might be scenarios in which he would use them for their intended purpose.

[32] With that said, Mr. Munda's degree of responsibility requires consideration of his moral blameworthiness in the context of his background and life experiences as a young black male growing up in his circumstances: Morris, at para. 88.

[33] The pre-sentence report offers perspective. Mr. Munda grew up without a positive father figure. He did not have someone to teach him about what he would experience growing up as a young black man. His mother was a positive force in his life. She did her best to protect her sons from the dangers of their environment. However, as the pre-sentence report reflects, Mr. Munda gravitated toward a negative peer group, which seems to have included one of his brothers, his former co-accused on these charges.

[34] It is of note that Mr. Munda's childhood was marked with seeing and experiencing violence. He observed violence in his household where his mother experienced domestic violence at the hands of his father. He too experienced physical and emotional abuse from his father. He grew up in a violent neighborhood. He lost numerous friends to gun violence. Indeed, that very evening, he and his friends gathered following the funeral of another friend who died from gun violence. He expressed to the author that, having lost several friends to gun violence, he feared he could become a victim of gun violence himself. His brother, who was his co-accused on the matter but proceeded separately in litigating his charges, appears to be a poor influence on Mr. Munda, introducing him to a negative peer group. Mr. Munda also expressed concern that, given his resemblance to his brother, he fears he might be mistaken for him. I understood the comment to mean that Mr. Munda's brother is involved in activities which put him at risk for being killed.

[35] Mr. Munda told the author of the pre-sentence report that he possessed the firearms in this case for "self-protection". Mr. Munda's motivation for carrying the firearms has some, albeit limited mitigating value. As the court noted in Morris, at para. 101, the reasons an offender chooses to carry a firearm do not decrease the seriousness of the offence, even if it, to some degree, reduces the offender's moral culpability.

[36] Mr. Munda had difficult experiences in school with bullying and having to withdraw from a private school (where he hoped to play basketball) due to financial considerations. I accept that he became disillusioned and that is the main reason he did not complete his high school education, leaving him with diminished employment prospects.

[37] Many of these types of disadvantages can be directly linked to systemic anti-Black racism, as was described in a report filed in Morris entitled, "Expert Report on Crime, Criminal Justice and the Experience of Black Canadians in Toronto, Ontario.": Morris, at para. 43.

[38] None of Mr. Munda's background factors serve as an excuse for his criminal conduct. He made very poor choices and must meet the consequences for those negative choices.

[39] Mr. Munda's choices in life, however, must be viewed in context and lead to a conclusion that his degree of moral blameworthiness for his crimes is less than it would have been in the absence of these background factors. His degree of responsibility, while high, is mitigated by the systemic and background factors set out in the pre-sentence report and discussed in these reasons.

[40] As the Court held in Morris, at para. 102, social context evidence can also provide valuable insight into the rehabilitative prospects of the offender.

[41] In terms of Mr. Munda's rehabilitative potential, the fact that he is a first time offender with a supportive family, his stated intention to work as a barber when he is released, and his statements in the pre-sentence report that he has gained insight into the wrongfulness of his conduct, all provide some positive indicators that he is a good candidate for rehabilitation. In addition, Mr. Munda's family has some insight into Mr. Munda's underlying mental health issues, with both his mother and brother expressing that Mr. Munda may suffer from depression.

[42] With that said, unlike in some cases where the offender has shown major strides toward rehabilitation, even when in custody, Mr. Munda has not yet demonstrated those same type of forward strides. I accept that Mr. Munda has had very little opportunity to demonstrate that he can thrive as an adult in the community, given his age when he was arrested. He has been incarcerated for much of the time since he turned 19. However, part of the reason for this is that he was re-arrested on new charges after receiving bail on these charges. He has since been convicted of offences, including breaching a bail order. This does not reflect favourably on his prospects for rehabilitation.

[43] Further, when he was out on bail (for approximately 15 months) he did not work, although I recognize that his ability to do so was limited by a restrictive house arrest bail term.

[44] In all, I am of the view that Mr. Munda has rehabilitative potential. I agree with the perspective expressed by Schreck J. in R. v. Donison, 2022 ONSC 741, at paras. 43-44 that courts should do what they can to actualize an offender's prospects for rehabilitation, where the offender has rehabilitative prospects. Rehabilitation, particularly with youthful offenders, will often go further than general or specific deterrence and better meet the overarching goal of sentencing, which is to protect the public.

[45] Time will tell whether Mr. Munda can live a pro-social life and make decisions that will benefit his future and contribute to the community. This court is very hopeful that, with the support of his family and the insight he says he has gained over the past three years, he will make changes to his lifestyle.

The Range of Sentence

[46] As both the Crown and defence accept, the sentencing caselaw for firearm possession varies greatly and is highly dependent on the circumstances of the case. Sentences can range from reformatory range custody to be served in custody or as a conditional sentence to sentences well into the penitentiary range. The appropriate sentence in this case will be driven by its facts.

[47] Sentencing ranges and a review of similar cases are useful in ensuring that the parity principle is met and that similar penalties are imposed for similar offences of a similar nature involving similar offenders. Sentencing ranges are, however, only guidelines. The sentencing of an individual is, necessarily, an individualized process, as the Supreme Court reiterated in R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 1089.

[48] As explained by Doherty J.A. in Nur, 2013 ONCA 677, 117 O.R. (3d) 401, at para. 51, aff'd 2015 SCC 15, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 773, at para. 82, s. 95 offences apply to a wide range of conduct:

At one end of the spectrum stands the outlaw who carried a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm in public places as a tool of his or her criminal trade. […] [At] the other end of the spectrum stands the otherwise law-abiding responsible gun owner who has possession of an unloaded restricted or prohibited firearm, but with readily accessible ammunition stored nearby.

[49] In my view, Mr. Munda falls between the two extremes. While his conduct is clearly not in the nature of a regulatory offence, he is also not purely an "outlaw" who carried a firearm as a tool of a criminal trade. I am not prepared to sentence him as though his conduct rests on the highest end of the spectrum of culpability, although he is closer to the "true crime" end of the spectrum than he is to the regulatory end of the spectrum.

[50] Therefore, while I am guided by the caselaw which often cites a 3-5 year range for s. 95 offences (see R. v. Marshall, (2015) 2015 ONCA 692, 340 O.A.C. 201 (C.A.); R. v. Graham, 2018 ONSC 6817), lower sentences in the upper reformatory or lower penitentiary range have been imposed in cases which fall in the middle of the spectrum, where the firearm is not possessed in connection with other criminal activity: R. v. Smickle, 2013 ONCA 678, 2014 ONCA 678, 304 C.C.C. (3d) 371, at para. 30; R. v. Johnson, 2022 ONSC 2688, at para. 38.

[51] In order to locate the appropriate sentence within a range of possible sentences, I must consider the aggravating and mitigating factors. The clear aggravating factor in this case is that Mr. Munda chose to possess two loaded prohibited firearms, carelessly storing both of the firearms on his person.

[52] In mitigation, first and importantly, Mr. Munda was a youthful, first-time offender.

[53] Second, he has the support of his family. Letters filed by his mother and one of his brothers reflect that his family wants to support a more stable and productive life for him when he is released.

[54] Third, Mr. Munda also asks that I consider, as mitigating on sentence, the fact that he spent a lengthy period of time on bail subject to restrictive conditions, which included a term of house arrest over a 15-month period.

[55] Time spent subject to restrictive bail conditions should be taken into account on sentencing: Downes, at para. 33. This is a mitigating factor which must be considered in arriving at a fit sentence for Mr. Munda. It is not inappropriate to quantify a specific amount of time as credit, provided that doing so does not skew the calculation of the ultimate sentence: R. v. C.C., 2021 ONCA 600, at para. 5; R. v. Dodman, 2021 ONCA 543, at paras. 9-10; Marshall, at para. 53. Courts often do so, and where bail conditions are very restrictive, often award credit of between a quarter and a third of the total time spent on bail: Dodman, at para. 12; R. v. Long, 2021 ONSC 4747, at para. 39; R. v. Navarathinam, 2021 ONSC 4241, at paras. 47-51; R. v. Campbell, 2021 ONSC 4193, at paras. 15-20; R. v. Inshanally, 2021 ONSC 3432, at paras. 35-37.

[56] Finally, Mr. Munda asks that I consider, as mitigating on sentence, the fact that his time in pre-sentence custody was spent under harsh conditions. Pre-trial custody spent subject to harsh conditions can be taken into account on sentencing: Duncan.

[57] Records from the Toronto South Detention Centre, the Toronto East Detention Centre, and the Central North Correctional Centre were filed on the sentencing hearing. I accept that Mr. Munda experienced numerous periods of partial or complete lockdown at all three institutions (107 days at the CNCC, 149 days at the TEDC, and 25 days at the TSDC).

[58] Mr. Munda also filed an affidavit in which he described the impact his incarceration has had on his mental health and education progress. I accept that he has been exposed to violence within the ranges where he has been housed and has had extended periods of time where he received little to no time outside his cell. I also accept that he has found it challenging to access resources, including education, while he has been in custody, in part because of the frequent lockdowns.

[59] Further, I accept his comments in the pre-sentence report that, in his experience, black and white prisoners receive different treatment. I accept that, in his experience, black inmates are housed together in what he referred to as the "upper tier" and that when there is a fight in the "upper tier", the entire range is put under lockdown. In contrast, if similar misconduct occurred in the "lower tier" where white inmates are housed, only the individual who initiated the fight is removed. Whether this is factually true or not, I accept Mr. Munda perceived that he and other black inmates are treated differently within the institutions. I accept that these conditions collectively were difficult and warrant mitigation on sentence.

[60] Based on all of the information presented on the sentencing hearing, I am satisfied that Mr. Munda is entitled to both Duncan and Downes credit totaling 12 months. I will deduct this amount from the sentence which would otherwise have been imposed for the firearm offences, as neither Duncan nor Downes credit are treated as pre-sentence custody credit, in the way that Summers credit is treated as pre-sentence custody credit: Marshall, at paras. 31-35.

The Appropriate Sentence

[61] Having balanced the gravity of the offence, the degree of moral blameworthiness of the accused, and the mitigating factors, I conclude that a fit and appropriate sentence that satisfies the principles of denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and which has regard for the principle of restraint, is a sentence of 3 ½ years or 42 months.

[62] In coming to this sentence, I am mindful of the general range of sentences for firearm offences under s. 95 of the Code to fall from 3-5 years, however for the reasons I have outlined, I distinguish this case from that range because Mr. Munda's possession of the firearms was not done in connection to particular criminal activity, or in the course of committing another offence. Further, I give significant weight to the mitigating factors, including the fact that Mr. Munda was a youthful first-time offender and the harsh conditions of his pre-sentence custody. I also view the sentence as one informed by restraint. I am mindful that Mr. Munda's brother, formerly his co-accused, was found guilty of firearm offences arising out of the same incident and was sentenced to 5 ½ years in custody. However, Mr. Munda is in a very different position from him. Among other things, his brother had a criminal record, which included a conviction for a s. 95 offence, at the time he committed the offences.

[63] I have also considered, in light of mitigating factors, whether a sentence below the two-year mark would meet the ends of sentencing, which in turn would have required me to carefully consider the imposition of a conditional sentence: Morris, at para. 180. In my view, the seriousness of the offences Mr. Munda committed, including the number of firearms he possessed, the fact that both were loaded, one with an over-capacity magazine, and the risks created by the circumstances of his flight from the police, require a sentence greater than two years, even for a youthful, first-time offender.

[64] For all of these reasons, Mr. Munda is sentenced as follows:

• Count 1 – 30 months custody, less pre-sentence custody of 24 months, leaving a remaining sentence of 6 months;
• Count 2 – 30 months custody, concurrent with count 1;
• Count 3 – 18 months custody, concurrent to count 1;
• Count 4 – 18 months custody, concurrent to count 1; and
• Count 5 – 6 months custody, concurrent to count 1.

[65] Therefore, Mr. Munda has a total of six months remaining to be served on his sentence.

Ancillary Orders

[66] There will be a number of ancillary orders.

[67] I make an order pursuant to s. 109 of the Code prohibiting Mr. Munda from possessing any firearms, ammunition, and other weapons as defined by the Code for life.

[68] There will be an order under s. 487.051 of the Code authorizing the taking of a sample of a bodily substance that is reasonably necessary for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis.[1]

[69] I will also sign a weapons forfeiture order.

[70] Subject to any questions or need for clarification, I thank both counsel for their excellent advocacy. I wish Mr. Munda good luck.

Justice R. Maxwell

Released: September 5, 2025

Footnotes

[1] The s. 95 offence is a secondary designated offence under the Code. I have weighed Mr. Munda's privacy interests against the public interest in maintaining a sample of DNA in the databank. I am satisfied that the order is warranted in the circumstances of this case.

Editor's Note

In delivering these reasons orally on August 11, 2025, the Court inadvertently stated that the Indictment contained two counts of possession of a prohibited weapon. The parties re-attended before the Court on August 11, 2025. On consent, and pursuant to R. v. Malicia, the reasons and sentence were corrected to reflect that the accused faced only one count of possession of a prohibited device. The reasons have been edited at paragraphs 10, 11, 27, 31, and 63 to reference "prohibited device" in the singular and not plural. The disposition set out in paragraph 64 of these reasons reflects the corrected disposition on five counts, rather than six counts. The error did not impact the Court's assessment of the overall fit sentence, the appropriate sentence on each count, or ancillary orders.