R. v. Richards, 2026 ONSC 1078

Citation: R. v. RICHARDS, 2026 ONSC 1078

COURT FILE NO.: CR-25-10000279-0000 CR-25-10000280-0000

DATE: 20260220

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

PAUL RICHARDS, aka PAUL WILLIAMS Defendant

Counsel: Karolina Visic, for the Crown Steven M. Hinkson, for the Defendant

HEARD: January 13, 2026.

Rhinelander, J.

Introduction

1Mr. Richards was charged with several Criminal Code offences based on his alleged possession of three loaded firearms. The allegations arose from a series of events that resulted in the seizure of the firearms found in hotel rooms at the Ritz-Carlton and the Delta Hotel on June 7, 2022.

2Following a trial with a jury, Mr. Richards¹ was convicted on May 28, 2025, of seven offences involving the possession of two firearms² found in a Delta hotel room. Mr. Richards was found not guilty of charges relating to a third firearm located in a room at the Ritz-Carlton.

3Mr. Richards was subject to three separate Orders not to possess any firearms, crossbow, restricted weapon, ammunition, and explosive substance for life at that time. By agreement of counsel and following the verdicts of the jury, Mr. Richards pleaded guilty to two counts of unauthorized possession of a firearm while prohibited contrary to s.117.01 of the Criminal Code, on January 13, 2026, before me.

4An agreed statement of facts outlining the prior court Orders prohibiting him from possessing a firearm was filed with the Court on that date.

5Crown counsel argued an appropriate sentence in these circumstances is thirteen years. After consideration of the principles of totality, the Crown sought a sentence of twelve years consecutive to Mr. Richards current sentence.³

6The Defence argued an appropriate sentence for Mr. Richards is six years consecutive to the sentence he is currently serving after consideration of presentence custody.

7Counsel provided jurisprudence and materials in support of their respective positions which I have thoroughly reviewed and am most appreciative for the assistance.

8After considering the jurisprudence, the principles of sentencing and Mr. Richards personal circumstances, I have determined an appropriate sentence is 10.5 years consecutive to his current sentence.

Circumstances of the Offences

9On June 7, 2022, a firearm was found in a vacant guestroom at the Ritz Carlton that had been rented by Janson Jeyakanthan. Through police investigation, information was obtained that Mr. Janson Jeyakanthan was now staying at the Delta Hotel on Lower Water Street. He was accompanied by Paul Richards, and two others on each of these stays. A search of the room at the Delta led to the discovery of two more firearms.

10The two loaded firearms located in the Delta Hotel room are described as follows:

• Firearm #1: A Glock, Model 19 Gen5, 9mm Luger calibre, centre-fire, semi-automatic handgun with barrel length of 102 mm with 10 rounds in the magazine and a single 9mm round next to it.

• Firearm #2: A Ruger, Model SR9C, 9mm Luger calibre, centre-fire, semi-automatic handgun with a barrel length of 89mm. It had an extended magazine containing 17 rounds.

11All four men were arrested by the Toronto Police Service at the Delta Hotel at approximately 7:25 p.m. on June 7, 2022. Mr. Richards was released unconditionally. After forensic testing of the firearms, DNA was located on the Ruger that matched Mr. Richards.

12Video footage received from the Ritz and the Delta hotels depict Mr. Richards travelling with a white Winners bag. The bag contained a bathrobe with the Ritz insignia. The Ruger firearm was found in the hotel room inside a clear plastic bag wrapped in the robe.

13The Glock 19 was discovered wrapped in a white Delta towel beside the Ritz robe that had the Ruger concealed.

14Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that Mr. Richards was in possession of the Ruger and transported it to the Delta. I am also satisfied that Mr. Richards had possession of the Glock 19 while at the Delta.

15Mr. Richards was not a holder of an authorization, licence, or registration certificate to possess a firearm. In fact, he was subject to three separate prohibition Orders. The Orders were imposed March 28, 2013, by Justice J. Kelly: R. v. Williams, 2013 ONSC 1855; June 30, 2017, by Justice J. McMahon; and July 22, 2021, by Justice J. Kelly again.

Circumstances of the Offender

16Mr. Richards is 32 years of age. I am informed he lived in the area of Chalkfarm within the City of Toronto for approximately thirteen years before moving to Armel Court.

17Mr. Richards has not had an easy life. He was the victim of a stabbing that required surgery and resulted in a metal plate in his chest when he was young. I understand he continues to suffer ill effects from this injury. It has also impacted him emotionally and physically and had a significant impact on his mental well-being.

18Mr. Richards did not complete high school. His studies were interrupted in part by his past criminal antecedents.

19Mr. Richards first foray into the criminal justice system was in 2006 for assault with a weapon. His journey has continued over the past twenty years. Any gaps in his record are created solely from his time in custody either awaiting trial or serving sentence.

20Mr. Richards has an extensive criminal record that includes 42 convictions prior to these offences. Between his trial and sentence date on this matter, he has been convicted of an additional 11 counts. There are now a total of 53 convictions on his record.

21His record includes several convictions for firearms. The two firearms for which I must sentence Mr. Richards will be firearms four and five, although the most recent conviction arose from events that occurred after this one.

22Mr. Richards has two children, both under the age of 10. Despite his difficulties with the law, he has a family that supports him. They have been in attendance on different occasions.

Position of the Parties

23In seeking a twelve-year sentence, the Crown emphasized that denunciation and deterrence are the primary sentencing objectives for possession of firearms and possession of firearms while prohibited. While acknowledging the maximum sentence for possession of a loaded firearm was 10 years at the time Mr. Richards was charged, it has increased to 14 years. There are significant aggravating factors in this matter including the over capacity magazine, transporting a firearm in a public space, careless storage of the firearm, the fact that Mr. Richards was in possession of two firearms, and he was in violation of three separate prohibition orders.

24The Crown also seeks ancillary orders including a DNA order, a s.109 order prohibiting Mr. Richards from possessing firearms for life, and a disposition of property order or forfeiture order for items seized by the police.

25The Defence argued that a consecutive sentence of six years after deducting credit for presentence custody is appropriate in the circumstances to still provide hope for Mr. Richards. Anything more would be crushing for a relatively young man to try and turn himself around.

26Mr. Richards has had a difficulty upbringing mired in violence and exposure to criminal elements in the communities where he grew up that influenced many of his poor decisions. His education was interrupted, and he has had to deal with issues arising from anti-Black racism.

27Mr. Richards still wishes to be a contributing member of society. He wants to play a role in his children’s lives. His son is five and his daughter is ten.

28Although aware that he is facing a significant sentence, he asks the court to consider there is still an opportunity for rehabilitation for Mr. Richards.

Relevant Legal Principles

29Sentencing is inherently discretionary. There are no rigid rules nor any checklists that a sentencing judge can apply in deciding on the appropriate sentence for an offender. Instead, judges must consider the purpose and objectives of sentencing, be mindful of the governing sentencing principles, especially the need to impose a proportionate sentence, and account for both aggravating and mitigating factors to ultimately fashion a just and appropriate sentence for a particular offender in relation to their specific offence: R. v. O.S.B., 2025 ONSC 6634 at para 51.

30The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society; to ensure respect for the law; and to maintain a just, peaceful, and safe society. A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. A just sentence meets the goals of deterrence, denunciation, retribution, rehabilitation, and protection of society.

31Section 718.1 mandates that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. Sentencing judges must also consider parity such that offenders who commit similar offences in similar circumstances should receive similar sentence: R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, para. 31. This principle is reflected in s. 718.2(b) of the Criminal Code.

32In arriving at a just sentence, the Court must consider the aggravating and mitigating factors unique to each case. Sentencing is a highly individualized process, and each case must turn on its own specific facts. Individualization is central to the assessment of proportionality as it requires a focus on the individual circumstances of the offender: R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46, 411 C.C.C. (3d) 1, at para. 12; R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 1089, at para. 58.

33Sentencing ranges provide guidance to a sentencing judge because it reflects the application of the objectives and principles of sentencing when it comes to sentencing for a particular offence: see Lacasse, at para. 57. Nevertheless, a sentencing judge may determine that a sentence below or above the established sentencing range is necessary, given that the "determination of a just and appropriate sentence is a highly individualized exercise that goes beyond a purely mathematical calculation": Lacasse, at para. 58.

34Denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the public are the predominant sentencing objectives for s. 95 offences. This is because of the prevalence and great danger associated with loaded handguns. A sentence of three to five years is the appropriate range for a first s. 95 offence where the use and possession of the gun is associated with criminal activity, such as drug trafficking: R. v. Owusu, 2024 ONSC 671, at para. 29, citing R. v. Graham, 2018 ONSC 6817, at paras. 36-42, aff’d 2020 ONCA 692, 474 C.R.R. (2d) 137.

35In R. v. Nagra, Stribopoulos, J. stated, “The gravity of unlawfully possessing a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm cannot be overstated. Illegally possessed handguns pose an inherent and serious risk to public safety. They are far too frequently used to intimidate, injure, and kill, with devastating consequences for victims and their families. Given this, the case law recognizes that illegal firearms constitute a serious threat to the community, and that their possession must be discouraged through exemplary sentences that denounce and deter and thereby enhance public safety”: 2026 ONSC 29 at para 37 citing R. v. Nur, 2013 ONCA 677 at para. 206 (C.A.); R. v. Mohiadin, 2021 ONCA 122, para. 12; R v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, 159 O.R. (3d) 641, para. 71.

36Evidence of the impact of anti-Black racism on an offender is not relevant to the assessment of the gravity of the offence. However, “an offender’s life experiences can certainly influence the choices made by the offender, and can explain, to some degree at least, why an offender made a choice to commit a particular crime in the specified circumstances. Those experiences can include societal disadvantages flowing from systemic anti-Black racism in society and the criminal justice system”: R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, 159 O.R. (3d) 641, at para. 75. Evidence that an offender’s choices were limited or influenced by disadvantaged circumstances speaks to the offender’s moral responsibility: Morris, at para. 76. However, there must be some connection between overt and systemic racism experienced and the circumstances or events that are said to explain or mitigate the criminal conduct in issue: Morris, at para. 97.

37The Court of Appeal has stated that sentencing judges have wide discretion when imposing sentences: R. v. Kerr (2001), 2001 21142 (ON CA), 153 O.A.C. 159 (Ont. C.A.).

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

38In determining the appropriate sentence, a sentencing judge must consider any aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender: Criminal Code, s. 718.2(a).

Mitigating Factors

39Mr. Richards elected to be tried by a jury regarding the substantive firearm possession offences. He accepted their verdict and pleaded guilty to having violated prior court orders not to possess firearms or ammunition.

40Other mitigating factors include support from his family and the harsh circumstances in the detention centres awaiting trial. In reading transcripts from previous proceedings, I am aware that Mr. Richards has had his family support throughout his contact with the criminal justice system.

41I am also aware that Mr. Richards has been detained at the Toronto South Detention Center and spent 8 months at Maplehurst. Throughout his time at both institutions, he has been subjected to lockdowns with limited and no access to showers, telephones, and yard privileges.

Aggravating Factors

42There are several aggravating factors in this case, which included (1) the firearms were loaded and ready to be fired and the Ruger with Mr. Richards’ DNA had an extended magazine with 17 rounds; (2) the firearms were possessed in a public space; (3) the firearms were transported within the downtown business and entertainment centre; (4) members of the public are visible in the lobby and restaurant area where the firearms transported were readily accessible to Mr. Richards and his associates; (5) there were incredible risk factors to the safety of guests of the hotel and other business establishments in the area as video footage revealed Mr. Richards dropped the bag in which one of the firearms was transported onto a seat beside him in the restaurant; (6) the firearms were left in the hotel room concealed in a robe and a towel; (7) one of the firearms did not have a safety, and an inadvertent motion could have resulted in its discharge at any time; and (7) Mr. Richards prior criminal antecedents including 42 convictions that predated this offence, thirteen of which included crimes of violence, five including the use of firearms or imitation firearms, and seventeen convictions relating to administration of justice offences of which fourteen were violations of court orders. This does not include convictions for offences where the offence date post-dates these events.

43Mr. Richards is a recidivist, with findings of guilt commencing over twenty years ago when he was a youth.

44Despite having support, Mr. Richards has taken no steps to change his direction or course. He is the father of two children. His counsel made submissions on his behalf of how he wants to be there for his children, yet when given the opportunity and not in custody, he has prioritized himself, resulting in his arrests. His eldest child is ten years old, a daughter, only six years younger than the female he was recently convicted of human trafficking.

45Mr. Richards was subject to not one prohibition order but three separate ones. He could have been facing a separate charge for each order.

The Appropriate Sentence

46I have considered the principles of sentencing as set out in Section 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46 and am cognizant of the goals of parity, consistency, and fairness in applying those principles.

47Ultimately, the fundamental principle of sentencing is to impose a sanction that is proportionate to the gravity of the offence committed, and the degree of responsibility of the person who committed it. This means that, for the sentence I impose to be appropriate, it must be tailored to Mr. Richards’ circumstances, and the circumstances of the offences he committed.

48I have considered the cases provided by counsel in determining what is an appropriate sentence. The range of sentences imposed for subsequent convictions of possession of firearms is between eight and ten years. Sentences for breaching a prohibition order range from six months to twelve months for a first conviction and at least eighteen months consecutive for multiple or subsequent breaches of court orders not to possess a firearm.

49Parliament enacted changes to reflect society’s abhorrence of gun violence and raised the maximum sentence for this offence to fourteen years.

50Each case is unique and while the Court must consider parity in sentencing, no two cases are exactly alike. I have considered the particular facts in this case, along with the mitigating and aggravating factors to arrive at an appropriate sentence.

51The Criminal Code states that all sentences are concurrent unless the trial judge specifically orders the sentence to be served consecutively. The principle of totality is triggered by section 718.2 which states that, “when consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh.”

52Despite opportunities to make changes in his life, Mr. Richards has chosen not to take steps towards rehabilitation. Mr. Richards was sentenced to a total of four years for his first conviction involving a loaded firearm in 2013. Four years later, he was sentenced to six years. Following that, he received a sentence of five years that would have been higher but for the impact of Covid. Throughout this, Mr. Richards’ family has stood by him. This is not something I see regularly. Mr. Richards is fortunate to have this support but for reasons that have not been expressed to this court he has not utilized his opportunities when out of custody. Instead, Mr. Richards finds himself drawn back into the cycle. I like to think there are redeeming qualities in everyone and hold out hope that there is an opportunity for rehabilitation.

53However, Mr. Richards seems to be steadfast in his course with little to no remorse and unwilling to accept the support of his family except as a benefit when in court. On each of those occasions, Mr. Richards expressed an intention to turn his life around and do better. Rather than do so, upon release from custody, Mr. Richards embraced his life of crime instead of his children.

54On the facts before me, Mr. Richards had only been out of custody for less than four months, before he obtained a firearm with an extended magazine. On June 7, 2022, he was living large, partying with his friends at the Ritz, dining at high-end restaurants, and riding in style in Uber Black. There is no evidence Mr. Richards was gainfully employed. It is plausible his friends were supporting his high-end lifestyle, but it does not explain how he obtained a firearm.

55Mr. Richards has repeatedly owned his past mistakes and claimed he wants to step up and change. I accept that Mr. Richards wants to change and hopes to do so to be a better father and involved in their lives. However, his actions leading up to this incident contradicted what he told the court.

56Since being in custody, Mr. Richards has taken steps to upgrade education and participated in programming. He hopes to do better and when released be involved with his children. I am not sentencing Mr. Richards for his past offences, however, nor can he be treated as a first offender.

57The Court must consider the totality of circumstances when imposing a global sentence. The sentence requested by the Crown is not out of the range of sentences imposed by other courts.

58If Mr. Richards was not currently serving a sentence, I would have had no hesitation in delivering a longer sentence.

59Having regard to all the circumstances of these offences, of the offender, and the principles of sentencing, including denunciation and deterrence, and the harsh conditions in the detention centres, I have determined a fit sentence in this case is 10.5 years. In coming to this number, I have carefully considered the principles of totality and have also considered the harsh conditions in the detention centers.

Conclusion

60Accordingly, the Court sentences Mr. Richards to a total sentence of 10.5 years, broken down as follows:

On Indictment 25-10000279-0000⁴:

• Count 5: s.95(1) Possess loaded Firearm - 9 years jail

• Count 6: s.86(1) Careless Storage of a Firearm – 1 year concurrent to count 5

• Count 8: s.95(1) Possess loaded Firearm - 9 years jail concurrent to count 5

• Count 9: s.86(1) Careless Storage of a Firearm – 1 year concurrent to count 5

• Count 11: s.92(2) Possess prohibited Device – 2 years concurrent to count 5

On Indictment 25-10000280-0000

• Count 2: s.117.01 Possess Firearm while Prohibited – 18 months consecutive to count 5 on Indictment 25-10000279-0000 & consecutive to any sentence being served

• Count 3: s.117.01 Possess Firearm while Prohibited – 18 months consecutive to count 5 on Indictment 25-10000279-0000 but concurrent to count 2 on Indictment 25-10000280-0000.

61This sentence is to be served consecutively to any other sentence Mr. Richards is currently serving.

62Mr. Richards has accumulated pre-sentence custody from August 16, 2023, to July 9, 2025, for a total of 694 days. He is entitled to credit for that time at the ordinary rate of 1.5 days to 1: Criminal Code, ss. 719(3), 719(3.1); R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 575, at para. 71. Mr. Richards will receive 1041 days or the equivalent of 34.25 months or 2.85 years of credit for his time spent in pre-sentence custody.

63This leaves a remaining sentence of 7 years and 7.75 months or 91.75 months to be served consecutive to his current sentence.

64The following ancillary orders will be imposed:

i. an order under s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code authorizing the taking of a sample of a bodily substance that is reasonably necessary for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis. Possession of a loaded firearm (s.95(1)) and possessing a firearm while prohibited (s.117.01) are secondary designated offences pursuant to the Criminal Code of Canada;

ii. a mandatory order pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code prohibiting Mr. Richards from possessing any firearms, ammunition, and other weapons as defined by the Criminal Code for life;

iii. an order for disposition of property for all items seized pursuant to section 491 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Rhinelander, J.

Footnotes

1. 1Paul Richards is also known as Paul Williams. He legally changed his surname from his father’s (Williams) to his mother’s (Richards).
2. 2Specifically, Mr. Richards was convicted of unauthorized possession of a loaded prohibited firearm (s.95(1) X 2; careless storage of a firearm (s.86(1) X 2; unauthorized possession of a prohibited firearm (s.92(1)) x 2; and unauthorized possession of a prohibited device (s.92(2); all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada.
3. 3On July 9, 2025, Mr. Richards was sentenced to nine years for offences related to human trafficking, dangerous driving, fail to stop for police, possession of a loaded firearm, and possession of a firearm while prohibited.
4. 4At the request of the Crown counts 7 and 10 were stayed pursuant to the principles of R. v. Kienapple, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 759; 1974 14 (SCC), 15 C.C.C. (2d) 524.