Court File and Parties
CITATION: R. v. Francis, 2026 ONSC 1122 COURT FILE NO.: CR-24-20000429-0000 DATE: 20260327
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
- and - DONTAE FRANCIS and DENAE LEWIS
Counsel: Zachary Kerbel, for the Crown Robert Chartier, for Mr. Francis Douglas Holt, for Ms. Lewis
HEARD: July 21, 2025 and January 23, 2026
BEFORE: M. Forestell J.
REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF DONTAE FRANCIS
Overview
1Dontae Francis entered a guilty plea on July 21, 2025, to charges of possession of a loaded restricted firearm and possession of a prohibited device.
The Circumstances of the Offences
2The circumstances of the offences are that in March of 2023, police obtained a Part VI authorization to intercept private communications. Pursuant to the authorization, the police intercepted the conversations of Mr. Francis and Ms. Lewis. The contents of the conversations led the police to seize, on June 15, 2023, a vehicle registered to Ms. Lewis but used by Mr. Francis. In the vehicle, the police located a loaded Ruger firearm with an overcapacity magazine and 16 rounds of ammunition, 2.48 grams of fentanyl, and 8.59 grams of methamphetamine.
Circumstances of Mr. Francis
3Mr. Francis is 22 years old. He will be 23 this month. He was 20 years old at the time of the offences. He has a youth record from 2021, for possession of property obtained by crime over $5,000.00, in Thunder Bay. He received a disposition of probation for 18 months.
4Mr. Francis is single and has a four-year-old son. His son stays with him every other weekend. Mr. Francis has been living with his mother since his release on bail as a condition of his bail.
5Mr. Francis was born and raised in Toronto in the Jane and Finch area. Both of his parents immigrated to Canada from Jamaica. He was raised in a positive household with both parents. His parents separated when he was 18 or 19 years old. He has five siblings and has a good relationship with each of them.
6Although he was raised in a supportive household, Mr. Francis was exposed to gang violence, gun violence and drug crime in his neighbourhood growing up. He lost friends to gun violence.
7Mr. Francis also experienced the effects of anti-Black racism. He was frequently stopped by police as a youth and as an adult. He struggled in school and was not supported. He left school after grade 10 or 11. After leaving school he went to live with a music producer in Edmonton for six months.
8Mr. Francis is a musician and produces music under the name “Hoodbaby Peppa”. He advised the probation officer who prepared the pre-sentence report, that he makes a consistent income from his music and has been doing so for about six or seven years. In October 2025 he signed with a record label.
9Mr. Francis has been involved in community organizations. Letters of support were provided to the court by the Jane and Finch Boys and Girls Club, Yahweh Ministries and Youth Association for Academics, Athletics and Character Education (“YAAACE”).
10Mr. Francis has been involved with the Boys and Girls Club since age 7 and up to age 18. The letter also notes that as Mr. Francis matured, he transitioned into volunteer roles in the club. The letter from Yahweh Ministries indicates that the pastor has known Mr. Francis for seven years. She is committed to providing support to Mr. Francis and has observed that he is willing to participate in counseling, community service and other rehabilitative programming. YAAACE is an organization that delivers programs to youth and children in economically marginalized communities. The founding director indicated in a letter that Mr. Francis ensures that his son attends tutoring and sports programs at YAAACE and has expressed an interest in becoming involved in other programs with YAAACE.
11Friends and co-workers interviewed for the PSR described Mr. Francis as hard-working and dedicated to his music career.
12Mr. Francis has been on bail since June 16, 2023. In total he has spent 993 days on house arrest bail. From June 16, 2023, until March 5, 2024, he was subject to strict house arrest bail with two approved sureties and GPS monitoring. He was only permitted to leave the house between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. in the presence of a surety. That bail was varied on March 5, 2024, to allow him to leave the house to go to work but only in the presence of a surety and after giving notice to the officer in charge. On June 27, 2025, the bail order was further varied to allow him to leave the house in the presence of a surety at any time.
13Mr. Francis has missed out on career opportunities because of the strict bail. His time with his son was also impacted by the bail conditions. He was not able to take his son outside the house – even to the park – on the weekends when he had custody of his son, except when a surety was available to accompany them.
14Mr. Francis told the probation officer preparing the PSR that he had an issue with alcohol during his first year of house arrest. He also indicated that at around the time of the offences, he was self-medicating with drugs such as MDMA, Percocet, and Xanax. He acknowledged that he would benefit from counselling.
15Mr. Francis spent three days in presentence custody
Positions of the Parties
16The Crown seeks a global sentence of imprisonment of three years before credit for three days of pre-sentence custody. The Crown also seeks a DNA order, a forfeiture order, and a s. 109 firearms prohibition for life.
17Counsel for Mr. Francis submits that a conditional sentence of two years less a day should be imposed, which could be followed by a period of probation.
The Appropriate Sentence
18The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to foster respect for the law and to maintain a just, peaceful and safe society. The sentence imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. In arriving at an appropriate sentence, I must consider any aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
19In this case, the aggravating factors are that the gun was in a vehicle in a residential neighbourhood, there were drugs in the vehicle, including fentanyl, and that Mr. Francis had a youth record at the time of the offences.
20Mitigating factors are that Mr. Francis is a very youthful offender. He pleaded guilty, and accepted responsibility. There were triable issues in this case, and the plea is indicative of real remorse.
21Also mitigating is the fact that this is his first adult conviction.
22Mr. Francis’ level of moral blameworthiness is also reduced by the fact that he is a young Black man who grew up in an area that was underserved and over-policed. He witnessed gang and gun violence and other crimes in his youth. His education was impacted by anti-Black racism. In spite of these obstacles, he has established a career in music. He is also a committed father to his four-year-old son.
23Another mitigating factor is that Mr. Francis has been on house arrest bail with extremely strict conditions for 33 months. The house arrest bail significantly impacted Mr. Francis’s personal and professional life.
24I have also taken into account that Mr. Francis is involved in his son’s life and any sentence will impact not only on Mr. Francis but also on his son1.
25There is no question that the crime of possessing a loaded restricted firearm is extremely serious. The Court of Appeal for Ontario has repeatedly identified the seriousness of firearms offences in the Toronto area.2
26It is well-settled law that, in sentencing for firearms offences, denunciation, deterrence, and the protection of the public are the primary sentencing objectives. Generally, exemplary sentences are required for these offences.
27In R. v. Nur3, the Court of Appeal noted, at para. 51, that the criminal offence of possession of a loaded firearm without a license, ranges in gravity from "an outlaw who carries a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm in public places as a tool of his or her criminal trade" to an otherwise law-abiding gun owner who has failed to obtain the proper license to possess the firearm. One important factor in assessing the seriousness of the circumstances of the offences within this spectrum is the degree of risk or danger to the public.
28In R. v. Smickle4, the Court of Appeal held that the appropriate sentence for Mr. Smickle was two years less a day, but also noted, at para. 19, that "most s. 95 offences will attract a penitentiary term even for first offenders". Mr. Smickle’s possession of the loaded handgun was described as “somewhat less serious than the typical s. 95 offence”. Mr. Smickle possessed and brandished the handgun within an apartment unit, creating a real risk to the occupants of neighbouring units and to himself in the event of an accidental discharge. The Court in Smickle, held that the circumstances supported a sentence at or very near the maximum reformatory sentence.
29The possession of the firearm and prohibited device in this case was closer to the true crime end of the spectrum described in Nur. It was possessed in a car and in conjunction with drugs. In this case, without the mitigation of the 33 months on house arrest bail, even taking into account Mr. Francis’s youth, his remorse, his community support, and his parental role, a sentence of 30 months would have been appropriate. I find, however, that the mitigation of the house arrest bail brings this case to the upper reformatory range.
30I am satisfied that a sentence of imprisonment of less than two years would be fit.
31The remaining issue is whether a conditional sentence should be imposed. A conditional sentence may be imposed where: a fit sentence is one of less than two years; having the offender serve the sentence in the community would not endanger the community; and such a sentence would be consistent with the purpose and principles of sentencing.
32The Crown opposes a conditional sentence in this case. The Crown submits that a conditional sentence cannot achieve the sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence.
33The Court of Appeal for Ontario, in R. v. Morris5, reiterated that crimes involving the possession of loaded handguns would usually require the imposition of a term of real imprisonment. However, the Court went on to consider the principle of restraint, allowing for the availability of a conditional sentence that is responsive to the needs of denunciation and deterrence.
34In the exceptional circumstances of these offences and this offender, I have concluded that a conditional sentence should be imposed on Mr. Francis. I recognize that, as the Court of Appeal recently held in R. v. Kulatheesswaran6, the imposition of a reformatory or conditional sentence for possession of a loaded firearm “requires strong mitigating factors or personal circumstances and that significantly reduce moral blameworthiness…” I am satisfied that those factors exist in this case. Mr. Francis is very young; he pleaded guilty and expressed remorse for his conduct; he has a supportive family and community network; and he is a committed father to his son. Mr. Francis has taken steps to reach out to community resources to the extent he has been able, given his strict bail.
35I conclude that a conditional sentence would not endanger the public. Mr. Francis has been on a house arrest bail for 33 months without incident. I am also satisfied that a conditional sentence is consistent with the fundamental purposes and principles of sentencing. A conditional sentence will allow Mr. Francis to begin the process of rehabilitation. He will be required to take counselling as directed by his conditional sentence supervisor.
36I am satisfied that the objectives of denunciation and deterrence can be advanced in this case by a lengthy and strict conditional sentence. A conditional sentence can be punitive and in this case, I will impose a conditional sentence that is punitive. Moreover, in total, by the end of the conditional sentence, probation and taking into account the time on house arrest bail, Mr. Francis will have been subject to court ordered supervision for just under 7 years. This is a significant consequence for his actions.
37Taking into account the three days of presentence custody, credited at 1.5 to 1 or five days, I have concluded that a conditional sentence of 23 months and 21 days should be imposed, to be followed by two years’ probation.
38I will impose house arrest for the first 14 months and a curfew for the last 9 months and 21 days of the conditional sentence order.
39There will be a period of probation of two years following the conditional sentence. The probationary period will help to achieve the objective of rehabilitation by providing Mr. Francis assistance in accessing ongoing support.
Order
40I therefore impose a global sentence of 23 months and 21 days on each count to be served concurrently in the community.
41The terms of the Conditional Sentence Order are as follows:
(1) The mandatory statutory conditions as set out in section 742.3(1) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46.
(2) In addition to the statutory terms, it is ordered that he comply with the following conditions:
(a) To take such counselling as is recommended by his conditional sentence supervisor and sign any releases necessary for the conditional supervisor to monitor compliance with this condition;
(b) Not to possess any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code;
(c) Not to consume any alcohol or non-medically prescribed drugs;
(d) For the first 14 months of the sentence, to be at his residence at all times, except for the following reasons:
(i) reporting to his supervisor;
(ii) attendance at school or his place of employment with prior approval of the schedule for his attendance by his conditional sentence supervisor;
(iii) attendance at scheduled counselling, medical or dental appointments for himself or his immediate family with the prior approval of his conditional sentence supervisor;
(iv) dealing with any medical emergency affecting him, or a member of his immediate family;
(v) a four-hour period once weekly, the precise time to be agreed upon by his supervisor, during which time he may attend to personal matters such as banking, shopping and household errands;
(vi) for the purpose of recreation while in the direct company of his son;
(vii) to attend religious services on Sundays;
(viii) to attend any school or extra-curricular functions for his son;
(ix) travel to and from any of these activities; and
(x) at any other time with the prior written permission of the supervisor.
(e) For the remainder of the sentence, not to be away from his residence between 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., except for employment, or in the event of a medical emergency affecting him or a member of his immediate family, or with the prior written permission of his supervisor.
42I further order that Mr. Francis be placed on probation for a period of two years following his conditional sentence. In addition to the statutory conditions of the probation, the following conditions will apply:
(a) To report as required to a probation officer;
(b) To take such counselling as is recommended by the probation officer and sign any releases necessary for the probation officer to monitor compliance with this condition; and
(c) Not to possess any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code.
43I make the following ancillary orders:
(a) An order under s. 109(3) of the Criminal Code, that Mr. Francis is prohibited from possessing any firearm, crossbow, restricted weapon, ammunition and explosive device, for life;
(b) This is a secondary designated offence and, in my view, given the circumstances of the case, a DNA order is appropriate, and I make that order.
M. Forestell J.
Released: March 27, 2026
CITATION: R. v. Francis, 2026 ONSC 1122 COURT FILE NO.: CR-24-20000429-0000 DATE: 20260327
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
- and – DONTAE FRANCIS and DENAE LEWIS
REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF DONTAE FRANCIS
M. Forestell J.
Released: March 27, 2026
Footnotes
- R. v. Habib 2024 ONCA 830
- R. v. Danvers, [2005] O.J. No. 3532, 201 O.A.C. 138; and R. v. Brown, 2009 ONCA 563
- R. v. Nur, 2013 ONCA 677, at para. 206
- R. v. Smickle, 2014 ONCA 49, at para. 18
- 2021 ONCA 680, at paras. 124 to 127
- 2026 ONCA 128 at para. 16