ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
– and –
MUHAMMAD WARRAICH
Rhianna Woodward, for the Crown
Yonatan Eshetu, for Mr. Warraich
HEARD: February 6, 2026
pinto j.
SENTENCING DECISION
Overview
1On October 14, 2025, following a four-day trial that commenced before a judge and jury, but ended as judge alone, Muhammad Warraich pleaded guilty before me to four firearm-related offences under the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46:
(a) Count 4 - s. 91(1) – possession of a prohibited firearm (Springfield Hellcat compact firearm);
(b) Count 5 - s. 91(2) – possession of a prohibited weapon;
(c) Count 6 - s. 94(1) – occupy motor vehicle with a firearm; and
(d) Count 7 - s. 95(1) – possession of a loaded prohibited firearm.
2The circumstances of the offences are that, on April 6, 2023, Mr. Warraich was arrested by Toronto police as he was getting into his vehicle parked on the driveway of his home in Scarborough. He was found in possession of a loaded prohibited firearm with a laser scope contained in a Gucci satchel. No round was chambered, but the firearm contained a magazine loaded with seven rounds of ammunition.
3The Crown seeks a custodial sentence of three years based on the index s. 95 offence (count 7) and three years for the s. 94 offence (count 6) to be served concurrent to the s. 95 sentence. The Crown requests that counts 4 and 5 should be stayed pursuant to the principles in R. v. Kienapple, 1974 14 (SCC), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729.
4The Crown also seeks ancillary orders: a firearms prohibition order, a DNA order; and a forfeiture order.
5The Defence submits that a Conditional Sentencing Order (“CSO”) of two years less a day to be served in the community is appropriate in light of Mr. Warraich’s status as a youthful first-time offender who pleaded guilty and who shows strong rehabilitative potential.
6For the reasons that follow, I find that Mr. Warraich should receive a CSO of two years less a day followed by two years of probation. He should receive an enhanced credit of 72 days for pre-trial time spent in custody and be subject to the Crown’s requested ancillary orders.
Circumstances of the Offender
Pre-Sentence Report
7A Pre-Sentence Report (“PSR”) dated January 13, 2026 was prepared by a Probation and Parole (“P&P”) Officer.
8Mr. Warraich has no prior criminal record. He was 19 at the time of the offences in April 2023 and is 22 at the time of sentencing. He has no children.
9Mr. Warraich is the youngest of four children (three daughters, one son) born to parents of Pakistani origin. His two eldest sisters were born in Pakistan, but Mr. Warraich and the youngest sister were born in Canada. His parents divorced when he was four, and it was only when he was around ten that he reconnected with his father. Mr. Warraich’s father passed away in Pakistan on August 21, 2020 when Mr. Warraich was 17 years old. His late father drove a taxi. The family experienced significant financial hardship as Mr. Warraich was growing up, with up to eight family members sharing a two-bedroom apartment.
10The P&P Officer reported that Mr. Warraich was cooperative, respectful, and engaged in the interview process. He fully acknowledged his offence of being in possession of a firearm. He stated that he was “young and stupid” and was not able to think critically of the consequences of his actions. He takes full responsibility for his conduct and stated that he intends to pay his debts back to society.
11The P&P Officer also commented on Mr. Warraich’s older sister, maternal aunt, and girlfriend speaking positively of Mr. Warraich taking responsibility for his criminal conduct and his expression of remorse.
The Crown and Defence’s Sentencing Positions
12In asking for a three year custodial sentence, the Crown acknowledges that, in terms of mitigating factors, Mr. Warraich is a young, first-time offender. However, appellate courts have repeatedly emphasized that denunciation and deterrence are the key sentencing principles to deter offenders from possessing illegal firearms.
13The Defence submits that the appropriate sentence for Mr. Warraich is a conditional sentence of two years less a day to be served in the community. The Defence does not take issue with the ancillary orders requested by the Crown.
14The Defence submits that Mr. Warraich pleaded guilty to the offences for which he is convicted. He has excellent rehabilitative potential. He is a young, first-time offender. He was admitted to Toronto Metropolitan University (“TMU”) and is an excellent student. He has expressed remorse for his actions.
15The Defence provided letters of support from two of Mr. Warraich’s sisters, his girlfriend, a student at Ontario Tech University, his cousin, his religious teacher, and a next-door neighbour. The letters spoke of Mr. Warraich’s conviction to complete his education, support his family, and never return to criminal behavior.
16The Crown and Defence presented various case law in support of their sentencing positions.
Relevant Caselaw
17In R. v. George, 2024 ONSC 6016, Penman J. commented on the appropriate sentence for loaded firearm possession offences for well-situated first-time offenders:
74Loaded firearm possession for first offenders typically attracts a sentence in the range of 3 to 5 years. Sentences at the higher end of the range are typically applied where there is evidence that a firearm was possessed in connection with other criminality, such as drug trafficking connected to the firearm possession: R. v. Marshall, 2015 ONCA 692, at paras. 47-48; R. v. Graham, 2018 ONSC 6817, at para. 38, aff’d 2020 ONCA 692; R. v. Beharry, 2022 ONSC 4370, at para. 31.
75For example, in R. v. Carrol, 2014 ONSC 2063, Molloy J. analyzed the effect of Nur and R. v. Smickle, 2013 ONCA 678 on the appropriate range of sentence for well-situated first offenders. Nur was 19 years old, he had pleaded guilty, he had strong support from his pro-social family, and he had excellent rehabilitative prospects. Smickle was found posing with a gun while alone in the privacy of an apartment. Both were first offenders. Molloy J. held that 2 years less a day to 3 years was now the appropriate range of sentence in this kind of first s. 95 offence case involving well situated first offenders.
18In R. v. Papilota, 2024 ONSC 4065, the accused pleaded guilty to charges of possession of a non-restricted firearm while knowingly not being the holder of a licence permitting such possession. He was sentenced to two years less a day served as a conditional sentence, and two years of probation. The accused, a first-time offender with strong rehabilitative potential, had possession of an unloaded shotgun and a loaded Glock 17 in his home. Himmel J. imposed a sentence of imprisonment of two years less one day, served in the community as a conditional sentence, followed by probation for two years.
19I also find instructive the case of R. v. Bajraktari and St. Louis, 2024 ONSC 4536, which has some factual similarities with Mr. Warraich’s case. Mr. Bajraktari was a back-seated passenger in a Nissan parked in front of an Ultramar gas station store. The police detained Mr. Bajraktari for an investigation into potential Liquor Licence Act violations after finding an open bottle of wine in the front passenger footwell. After removing Mr. Bajraktari from the vehicle, police located a Glock 45 handgun loaded with 27 rounds of 9 mm bullets in a satchel located at Mr. Bajraktari’s feet. Mr. Bajraktari was 21 years old at the time of sentencing. At the time of the offence, he had just turned 19. He had no criminal record but had some outstanding new charges. He was born in Italy to Albanian parents. He had two older brothers and, when he was seven, his parents divorced. Mr. Bajraktari was sentenced to two years less a day to be served in the community.
20I have further considered the sentencing reasons in R. v. Fahmid Iqbal, 2025 ONSC 3222. In that case, police arrested the accused after having been informed about an attempted robbery in the area. Upon searching Mr. Iqbal incident to arrest, police located a loaded a Springfield XD9 9 mm handgun in his waistband. It had one round loaded in the chamber and was loaded with a magazine that allowed it to have a capacity of 16 rounds. He was arrested and pled guilty to possession of a loaded restricted firearm contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Iqbal was 19 at the time of the offence and 21 at the time of sentencing. Mr. Iqbal had no criminal record. He was born in Bangladesh and moved to Canada in 2017. His mother passed away when he was 16, which affected him profoundly, and his father was suffering from schizophrenia. It was an aggravating factor that Mr. Iqbal carried the gun while attempting to take a set of air pods from a stranger in a public place. Despite this, Himmel J. sentenced Mr. Iqbal to two years less one day, to be served in the community as a conditional sentence, followed by two years of probation.
Aggravating Factors and Mitigating Factors
21The aggravating factors are that Mr. Warraich illegally possessed a loaded, prohibited firearm as he headed into his vehicle that was parked outside on his driveway. However, there was no evidence that he was carrying the gun while attempting to commit another offence.
22The mitigating factors are that Mr. Warraich was 19 when he committed his firearm-related offences in April 2023. He has no prior criminal record. He pleaded guilty, thereby avoiding a trial of the relevant charges. He has expressed remorse and appears to have recognized the gravity and danger of his offences. His parents were divorced when he was very young, and his family experienced significant financial hardship when he was growing up. He appears to have strong family and community support. He has strong rehabilitative potential and is getting excellent grades in university.
23Mr. Warraich addressed the court directly and expressed his sincere remorse for his “indescribable actions.” He called the decision to possess a firearm the worst decision of his life. He acknowledged the support of his mother, his sisters, maternal aunt, and girlfriend in supporting him.
Sentencing Decision
24I am guided by the principles of sentencing that are set out in ss. 718, 718.1, and 718.2 of the Criminal Code. The sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and degree of responsibility of the offender. An appropriate sentence is one that reflects a realistic appraisal of the offender’s prospects for rehabilitation, his individual and family circumstances, and the principle of restraint.
25I find that a conditional sentence of two years less a day to be served in the community is just for the following reasons.
A sentence of two years less a day is appropriate
26Mr. Warraich falls into that category of well-situated first-time offenders for whom the very low end of the sentencing range of two years less a day is appropriate. Here, Mr. Warraich pleaded guilty, but such sentences are available even in the absence of the offender pleading guilty: see, for example, Bajraktari; R. v. Beharry, 2022 ONSC 4370; and R. v. Stewart, 2022 ONSC 6997.
27I find that a confluence of events around the time of Mr. Warraich’s late adolescence and early adulthood had a significant destabilizing effect on him. In March 2020, at the onset of the global pandemic, Mr. Warraich was in Grade 11 and 16 years old. The PSR reports that when his school transitioned students to online studies, he did not attend at all. In August 2020, when Mr. Warraich was 17, and just before he entered Grade 12, Mr. Warraich’s father passed away in Pakistan following a series of heart attacks. Tragically, Mr. Warraich was not able to see his father alive again despite travelling to Pakistan upon learning of his father’s first heart attack.
28It was not until the summer of 2022, when Mr. Warraich was 19, that he felt able to return to his studies. It was in April 2023 that he was arrested for the within offences so he did not complete high school in the normal course. By September 2024, at 21, with his mother acting as his surety, he obtained his high school diploma and enrolled in university. He was enrolled for a month prior to terminating his active credits. He re-enrolled in January 2025 and has continued his studies until present, working toward a degree.
29Mr. Warraich is currently doing very well in his studies at TMU. He achieved Dean’s List standing in two of the last three semesters. He is majoring in economics with a minor in finance.
30The Crown concedes that it is not relying on any evidence that Mr. Warraich used a firearm in connection with the commission of some other criminal offence.
31Mr. Warraich is a youthful first-time offender with family support and strong rehabilitative potential, a factor which I may consider in balancing aggravating and mitigating circumstances: R. v. E.N., 2024 ONCA 472, at para. 18. The principle of restraint serves to minimize a youthful first offender’s sentence in that it requires a sentencing judge to consider all sanctions apart from incarceration and, where incarceration is required, make the sentence as short as possible and tailor it to the individual circumstances of the offender: R. v Desir, 2021 ONCA 486, at para. 41, citing R. v. Batisse, 2009 ONCA 114, 93 O.R. (3d) 643 and R. v. Priest (1996), 1996 1381 (ON CA), 110 C.C.C. (3d) 289 (Ont. C.A.).
32Having decided that a sentence in the reformatory range is a fit one, I turn to whether Mr. Warraich should serve this sentence in the community.
A conditional sentence to be served in the community is appropriate
33First, under s. 742.1 of the Criminal Code, the court may impose a jail sentence of less than two years to be served in the community if the offence is not one on the excluded list of offences and does not have an attached minimum sentence.
34Mr. Warraich’s offences fit those criteria, and so a conditional sentence is available.
35Second, a conditional sentence must not endanger the safety of the community, and it must be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing as set out in ss. 718 to 718.2.
36Regarding conditional sentences and the fundamental purpose of sentencing, the Supreme Court in R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61, at para. 22, stated:
The conditional sentence incorporates some elements of non-custodial measures and some others of incarceration. Because it is served in the community, it will generally be more effective than incarceration at achieving the restorative objectives of rehabilitation, reparations to the victim and community, and the promotion of a sense of responsibility in the offender. However, it is also a punitive sanction capable of achieving the objectives of denunciation and deterrence. [Emphasis in original.]
37Mr. Warraich has not breached his conditions of bail since his arrest.
38I do not find that Mr. Warraich serving his sentence in the community will endanger its safety, and I find that such a sentence remains consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing.
Discussion of Credits
39Mr. Warraich served 18 days of pre-sentence custody from April 7 to April 25, 2023, and an additional 30 days from October 29 to November 28, 2024. These 48 real days represent a Summers credit of 72 days: s. 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code and R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 575, at paras. 70-71.
40The Defence requests consideration for Downes credit given that Mr. Warraich has been under house arrest for over two years. I agree with the Crown that it is not proper to credit an offender for onerous bail conditions where no independent evidence of such hardship has been provided: R. v. Holder, 2026 ONCA 39, at paras. 33-36.
Conclusion
Sentence
41The Crown requests, and I agree, that Counts 4 and 5 should be stayed under Kienapple.
42With respect to the remaining two counts, Mr. Warraich is sentenced to:
Count 6 - s. 94(1) – occupy motor vehicle with a firearm – 2 years less a day to be served concurrent to Count 7.
Count 7 - s. 95(1) – possession of a loaded prohibited firearm – 2 years less a day.
43The Summers credit of 72 days shall apply. Accordingly, I impose a remaining sentence of of two years less 73 days to be served in the community as a conditional sentence.
44The sentence of two years less 73 days served as a conditional sentence shall have the following terms: in addition to the statutory conditions in s. 742.3, which I impose, Mr. Warraich shall reside at his residence in Scarborough, Toronto with his mother or at such address as approved by his supervisor. He shall be under house arrest for the first 12 months of the conditional sentence and shall only leave the house for the purpose of work, to attend school, to attend appointments with his supervisor, to attend counselling, to attend medical appointments for himself or members of his immediate household, to obtain necessities once each week for four hours, and for any other reason that his supervisor approves. In any event, during the period of house arrest, he shall be in the house between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. each day for seven days each week.
45For the remaining months of the conditional sentence, he shall be permitted to leave his residence, but he shall be subject to a curfew between the hours of 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. each day for seven days each week. The only exceptions are for medical emergencies for himself or a member of his household or with the prior approval of his supervisor. During the entire period of the conditional sentence, he shall attend counselling, educational training, or work as directed by his supervisor and sign any necessary releases; he shall abstain from owning, possessing, or carrying a weapon, and he shall not apply for or possess a firearm acquisition certificate or gun licence.
46I have signed an Adult CSO that specifies the terms of Mr. Warraich’s conditional sentence. In the event of any inconsistency between these Reasons for Sentence and the CSO, the CSO prevails.
Probation
47Following this period of confinement, Mr. Warraich will be on probation for two years. In addition to the statutory conditions, he shall report to his probation officer forthwith following the conclusion of the conditional sentence and as often as the probation officer deems necessary; he shall reside at an address approved by his probation officer; he shall maintain employment or attend school and provide proof thereof to his probation officer; he shall abstain from owning or possessing any weapon and he shall attend and participate in any counselling and/or treatment as directed by his probation officer and sign any necessary releases.
Ancillary Orders
48I also order that Mr. Warraich be subject to:
(a) A DNA order under s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code in respect of counts which are secondary designated offences;
(b) An order that Mr. Warraich be prohibited from carrying or applying for weapons for life, pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code; and
(c) A forfeiture order, pursuant to s. 490.1(1).
Pinto J.
Released: March 5, 2026