R. v. Graham, 2026 ONSC 1734

Court File and Parties

CITATION: R. v. Graham, 2026 ONSC 1734

COURT FILE NO.: CR-24-20000529-0000

DATE: 2026-03-31

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

RAYAN GRAHAM AND TAMMY LE

Counsel:

Aitan Lerner, for the Crown

Salematou Camara, for Rayan Graham

Amar Mahil, for Tammy Le

HEARD: February 12 and March 20, 2026

PINTO J.

SENTENCING DECISION FOR RAYAN GRAHAM

Overview

1On November 14, 2025, I convicted Rayan Graham, 33, and Tammy Le, 32, of four firearm-related offences following a judge-alone trial. They were jointly convicted of:

a) Possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm (Glock 43X handgun), contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46;

b) Possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm (Shadow Systems DR920 handgun), contrary to s. 92(1) of the Criminal Code;

c) Possession of a prohibited device (overcapacity cartridge magazine), contrary to s. 92(2) of the Criminal Code; and

d) Possession of a firearm (Shadow Systems DR920 handgun) knowing that the serial number had been defaced, contrary to s. 108(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

2Separately, on a different indictment that was amended on February 12, 2026, Mr. Graham was charged with six offences in relation to failure to comply (“FTC”) with court orders. Mr. Graham pleaded not guilty to these FTC charges. However, Mr. Graham and the Crown entered into an Agreed Statement of Fact (“ASF”) that stated, inter alia:

a) On January 29, 2024, Mr. Graham was prohibited pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code by a Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice from possessing, among other things, a firearm and prohibited device. Said Prohibition Order was made on December 15, 2017, and was in full force and effect on January 29, 2024.

b) On January 29, 2024, Mr. Graham was prohibited pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code by a Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice from possessing, among other things, a firearm and prohibited device. Said Prohibition Order was made on June 23, 2022, and was in full force and effect on January 29, 2024.

c) On January 29, 2024, Mr. Graham was bound by a release order made by a Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice in the Central East Region in the Town of Newmarket on July 6, 2022 with conditions that included, among other things, that he remain in his residence with his surety at 125 Northcliffe Blvd., Toronto, and that he not possess any weapons including firearms, ammunition and prohibited devices.

3Following the arraignment of Mr. Graham on the FTC charges (as amended) and the parties entering into an ASF, Mr. Graham confirmed that he did not plan on calling any further evidence. He invited me to apply the findings I made at trial on the joint charges and the ASF to his FTC charges.

4On February 12, 2026, I found Mr. Graham guilty on all six FTC charges as follows:

a) Breach of s. 117.01(1) of the Criminal Code – fail to comply

b) Breach of s. 117.01(1) of the Criminal Code – fail to comply

c) Breach of s. 117.01(1) of the Criminal Code – fail to comply

d) Breach of s. 117.01(1) of the Criminal Code – fail to comply

e) Breach of s. 145(5)(a) of the Criminal Code – fail to comply – July 6, 2022

f) Breach of s. 145(5)(a) of the Criminal Code – fail to comply – July 6, 2022

5In respect of Mr. Graham, the Crown seeks an overall sentence of nine years imprisonment before the application of Summers credits for the firearm-related and FTC offences. Conversely, the defence seeks a sentence of seven years. For the reasons that follow, I sentence Mr. Graham to eight and a half years imprisonment. Following the application of credits of 396 days, he will have approximately 7 years and 5 months left to serve. Certain ancillary orders shall apply.

Circumstances of the Firearm Possession Offences

6The circumstances of the firearm possession offences against Mr. Graham and Ms. Le are that, on January 29, 2024, members of the Toronto Police Service (“TPS”) executed a search warrant on a townhouse unit in Toronto. The target of the search was Mr. Graham, who police believed was in possession of an illegal firearm. Police had been conducting surveillance on the townhouse since January 26, 2024, noting the activity of individuals including the two accused.

7At 6:40 p.m., members of the TPS’s Emergency Task Force (“ETF”) breached the front door of the townhouse and announced that they had a warrant to search the premises. Peering through the front door, police observed three children in the living room area on the first floor. One of the children indicated that their parents were upstairs. Police repeatedly called for any occupants to identify themselves and come to the main entrance, but no one appeared.

8Police detected movement on the second and third floors. ETF officers entered the premises and continued to order the occupants to present themselves. Still, no adults appeared. Police moved the children to the kitchen, away from the stairs leading upstairs.

9Around three minutes after police entered, Ms. Le emerged on an upstairs landing. She came down and was detained in the kitchen without incident. Police continued to shout orders demanding that Mr. Graham come down unarmed. Mr. Graham started speaking to police from upstairs but did not come down. A standoff between Mr. Graham and the police ensued. The actions of police were captured on their body-worn cameras.

10About six and a half minutes after police entered, Mr. Graham appeared on the landing at the top of the stairs. Police ordered him to put his hands over his head and come down. He did not immediately comply. Police noticed a bulge on the side of Mr. Graham’s pant leg and believed that he may have been armed. Police used a taser twice on Mr. Graham. He fell to the floor on the landing. Police handcuffed and arrested him and provided him with his rights to counsel.

11A police search of the premises found two handguns located in a laundry basket in a second-floor bathroom and ammunition on an upper shelf in a third-floor bedroom. Police also found a firearm shoulder holster and almost $5,000 in Canadian currency in a second-floor bedroom.

Firearms

12Police located a Shadow Systems, Model DR920 Elite, 9 mm Luger calibre, centre fire handgun. This handgun is considered a restricted firearm under s. 84 of the Criminal Code. When found, the firearm had its serial number obliterated. A weapons examiner restored the serial number. The Shadow Systems firearm did not contain ammunition.

13Police located a second firearm, a Glock, Model 43X, 9 mm Luger calibre, centre fire handgun. This is considered a prohibited firearm. The Glock was loaded with a single cartridge in the chamber and an over-capacity magazine containing nine rounds.

14Neither Mr. Graham nor Ms. Le possessed the appropriate registrations, permits, licenses, certificates, or authorizations to legally possess the handguns.

15The firearms were located in an open box of “Dove Men Care” deodorant that had been placed in a white full-faced balaclava, left under some clothing in a laundry basket in the second-floor bathroom. The laundry basket was found on the bathroom floor beside the bathtub.

Ammunition

16Police found three boxes of ammunition wrapped in bags in an “Amazon” box located on an upper shelf in the south bedroom on the third floor consisting of:

• 53 rounds of 9 mm “Winchester” and “American Eagle” ammunition in two boxes; and
• 47 rounds of 22 calibre “Remington Thunderbolt” Long Rifle ammunition in another box.

17Police also found a single spent 9 mm ammunition casing in the north bedroom on the second floor.

Second Floor

18In addition to the two handguns found in the bathroom on the second floor, in the bathroom garbage bin, police found a small wet Ziplock baggie and a black “Infinity” digital scale that was still in working order.

19I concluded that the children found in the townhouse were:

• Ms. Le’s children Noah, 7, and Leah, 9; and
• Karalyn, Ms. Le’s niece, 9.

20Based on the evidence at trial, I concluded that, as of January 29, 2024, Mr. Graham and Ms. Le were in a romantic, possibly marital, relationship.

21There was significant evidence that, as of January 29, 2024, Ms. Le was living with her two children in the townhouse which she was the owner of, or co-owner of, with her family.

22I concluded that Mr. Graham’s real connection to the townhouse was not that he lived there, but rather that he often stayed at the townhouse, possibly overnight. I find that, as Ms. Le’s partner and as a parental figure to her children, he had unrestricted access to all parts of the townhouse and Ms. Le’s Hyundai.

23No controlled substances were found by police, and there was no evidence of drug buys taking place at the townhouse. However, the presence in the second-floor bedroom of $5,000 in cash, plastic baggies with elastics, and a firearm shoulder holster, and, in the second-floor bathroom, a balaclava mask, a wet baggie, and a working digital scale suggested that the accused were involved in illegal drug activity for which they used the handguns police found in the bathroom as a tool of the trade.

24I concluded that Mr. Graham did not come down for 6 minutes and 34 seconds. By contrast, Ms. Le did not come down for 2 minutes and 50 seconds. I concluded that the only reasonable explanation why they took as long to come down as they did is that they were hiding or disposing of contraband in the home.

25I found Mr. Graham and Ms. Le guilty of the four firearm-related charges.

Circumstances of Mr. Graham

Pre-Sentence Reports for Mr. Graham

26I was provided with two pre-sentence reports (“PSRs”) for Mr. Graham. One, written by Amanda Nichol, a Probation and Parole (“P&P”) Officer, dated January 9, 2025, and a subsequent PSR written by Agnes Sadowski, another P&P Officer, dated February 9, 2026.

27Mr. Graham was born on February 23, 1990 in Toronto. At the time of his offences on January 29, 2024, he was 33 years old. He is 36 at the time of sentencing.

28Mr. Graham described a generally positive family dynamic during his childhood, having been surrounded by close family members such as aunts, uncles, and grandparents. He expressed feeling fortunate to have had both parents actively involved in his life. However, he also noted financial constraints within the household, which led to feelings of envy towards other children who had brand-name items. His parents were described as strict, yet they shared a strong, loving relationship.

29Around the age of ten, Mr. Graham observed a shift in family dynamics, as the family stopped gathering for events, which led him to feel a sense of “fakeness” from relatives. He explained that while they expressed love and well-wishes, they did not want him around their children due to concerns about his influence.

30Mr. Graham reported, in his 2026 PSR, that he has a positive relationship with his parents. He stated his relationship with his father has significantly improved over the past year. He explained that his father previously would not accept his phone calls but now speaks with him on occasion when contacted. He further reported his mother, Ms. Gail Graham, continues to be a supportive presence in his life.

31Mr. Graham’s mother stated “nothing has changed” since the PSR completed in 2025. She reported that her son was in the community for only a few months before incurring new charges and has remained in detention since that time. She confirmed that she speaks with him daily and provides him with emotional support. Ms. Graham also confirmed that Mr. Graham maintains contact with his father and brother.

32Ms. Graham stated she believes her son’s continued involvement with the legal system is the result of “poor choices.” She believes that her son has been attempting to make positive changes in his life.

33Mr. Graham has two daughters aged 15 and 5 from different relationships.

34Mr. Graham explained to the P&P officer who completed his 2026 PSR that he was estranged from his older daughter, hence, he did not disclose the existence of this daughter to the first P&P officer who completed his 2025 PSR. However, he has since re-established contact with his eldest daughter. He admitted he has not provided financial or emotional support to her. However, he reported making efforts to gradually rebuild an emotional relationship. He acknowledged that these efforts are limited due to his continued incarceration, as contact is restricted to telephone communication.

35Mr. Graham reported that he has a positive relationship with his younger daughter. He believes he and the younger child’s mother co-parent well together.

36Mr. Graham admitted to a past struggle with substance use. He advised he has not used any substances, drugs, or alcohol since the report written in 2025. He shared that he is no longer connected to his sponsor with Alcoholics Anonymous. He advised that he would like to attend an inpatient treatment facility to help manage and maintain his sobriety.

37Mr. Graham reported feeling targeted by police due to his prior involvement with the criminal justice system. He expressed feeling discouraged by his criminal past and history of interactions with police and feels like it has become a barrier to move forward. He stated he desires to make positive changes in his life but acknowledged that he has been unable to achieve these goals, as he continues to incur new charges.

38As discussed in his 2025 PSR, Mr. Graham self-disclosed being diagnosed with depression. For the purpose of this report, he shared that after seeing a psychiatrist at the Toronto South Detention Center (“TSDC”), he was prescribed medication to address symptoms of depression but stopped taking it after about two months as he did not find it helpful. He tries to approach managing his mental health with a “positive” mindset and keeping himself busy. He refused to sign a release form of personal health records; thus, the P&P officer was unable to confirm this information. Ms. Graham advised that her son’s mental health would benefit from further exploration.

39When the writer of the 2026 PSR initially met with Mr. Graham, he declined to provide any collateral contacts, stating he wished to consider and connect with individuals before sharing their information for this report. Mr. Graham agreed to contact the writer if he decided to proceed. The writer did not receive a response and requested that Ms. Samantha Robinson, P&P officer at the Toronto East Detention Centre (“TEDC”), follow up with Mr. Graham regarding his decision on collateral contacts.

40On February 3, 2026, Ms. Robinson advised that Mr. Graham wished the writer to contact the mother of his child. The following day, February 4, 2026, the writer received an email from Ms. Robinson, advising that Mr. Graham had stated he no longer wished the writer to contact the mother of his child and instead requested that the writer reach out to his mother, brother, and various program contacts. Due to the time frame provided for the collaterals, the writer was only able to connect with Mr. Graham’s mother.

41Mr. Graham advised that he and Ms. Le met while he was in jail and that they had only known each other a “few months” prior to incurring the charges. Mr. Graham was not willing to discuss the nature of their relationship other than stating they were “friends”. He stated he was “surprised by her” but did not explain what he meant by this statement.

42Mr. Graham reported he was able to complete his Ontario Secondary School Diploma in November 2025 while incarcerated. He advised he is presently working on additional courses in biology and math and is on a waitlist for a college business management course. He shared he is trying to keep himself busy and work on bettering himself. The PSR writer was unable to connect with the Education Program at the institution to confirm these details.

43Mr. Graham has demonstrated positive behavior while in custody and has not incurred any institutional misconducts during his incarceration at the TSDC or the TEDC. Mr. Graham’s institutional behavior suggests an ability to comply and function effectively in structured settings with appropriate supervision and support.

44Mr. Graham admitted to the P&P officer that poor decision-making and negative peers have contributed to his involvement with the criminal justice system in the past. When discussing the present charges, he was reluctant to talk about the offences, other than stating he was “surprised” by his co-accused and feeling his past criminal involvement had a bearing on his continued involvement with the law.

45The 2026 PSR concluded that Mr. Graham has a history of justice system involvement, including prior serious charges related to firearms. The current charges also involve firearms suggesting an ongoing pattern of very concerning behaviour that has not been impacted by previous justice interventions. Mr. Graham appears to have difficulty with problem-solving and decision-making with results of disregard for community safety.

Mr. Graham’s Criminal Record

46Mr. Graham has a significant criminal record.

Date and Location of Court	Offence(s)	Disposition(s)
August 30, 2013 Toronto	a) Fail to comply with Recognizance contrary to s. 145(3) of the Criminal Code b) Uttering threats contrary to s. 264.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code c) Possession of a Schedule II substance for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19 (the “CDSA”) d) Assault contrary to s. 266 of the Criminal Code	Suspended sentence and 12 months’ probation 163 days pre-sentence custody and discretionary weapons prohibition order under s. 110 of the Criminal Code for 5 years
December 15, 2017 Toronto	a) Kidnapping contrary to s. 279(1) of the Criminal Code	13 months incarceration, followed by 2 years’ probation, 16 months pre-sentence custody and mandatory weapons prohibition under s. 109 of the Criminal Code
October 8, 2020 Toronto	a) Break and enter with intent contrary to s. 348(1) of the Criminal Code	12 months conditional sentence, followed by 3 years’ probation and discretionary weapons prohibition under s. 109 of the Criminal Code
June 23, 2022 Toronto	a) Possession of a Loaded Prohibited or Restricted Firearm b) Possession of a Firearm or Ammunition Contrary to Prohibition Order	2 years less a day conditional sentence, followed by 3 years’ probation and mandatory weapons prohibition under s. 109 of the Criminal Code
February 10, 2025 Newmarket	a) Possession of a Schedule I Substance for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the CDSA b) Possession of a Schedule I Substance for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the CDSA	139 days, followed by 2 years’ probation (credit for the equivalent of 590 days pre-sentence custody) and mandatory weapons prohibition under s.109 of the Criminal Code

Crown Sentencing Position for Mr. Graham

47The Crown submits that a total sentence of nine years is warranted in Mr. Graham’s case. Mr. Graham should receive a sentence of seven years for the s. 95(1) index offence of possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, with concurrent sentences for the other firearm related offences, plus two years for the breach of release offences, to be served consecutively to the sentence for the index offence.

48Mr. Graham is a firearms recidivist. He has a significant criminal record starting in 2013 that includes possession for the purpose of trafficking, assault, uttering threats, kidnapping, break and enter, and possession of a loaded firearm.

49It is a highly aggravating that when Mr. Graham committed the within set of offences on January 29, 2024, he was already serving a conditional sentence for a 2022 firearm possession offence.

50While only one of the two firearms in the townhouse was loaded, both guns were found in a laundry basket in a second-floor bathroom. A large amount of ammunition was found one floor above in a bedroom. Ms. Le’s PSR confirms that there were nine occupants living in the house: Ms. Le, her two children, a twin sister and her two children, a younger sister and her child, and Ms. Le’s elderly mother. That a loaded handgun was found in a house with nine occupants, five of them children, is a very significant aggravating factor.

51Mr. Graham was already under prohibition orders for firearms possession from 2013, 2017, 2020, and 2022. Nothing seems to be deterring Mr. Graham from possessing dangerous firearms.

52The Crown recognizes certain mitigating factors such as Mr. Graham completing his high school certificate in custody. However, the Crown submits it has already taken mitigating factors—including those identified in the Morris decision that pertain to Black Canadian offenders—into account when arriving at its overall nine-year sentencing request.

53Additionally, the Crown seeks the following ancillary orders:

a) A DNA order under s. 487.051(3) of the Criminal Code as the s. 95(1) conviction is a secondary designated offence;

b) An order that Mr. Graham be prohibited from carrying or applying for weapons for life, pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code; and

c) A forfeiture order.

Defence Sentencing Position for Mr. Graham

54The Defence submits that a global sentence of seven years is appropriate, broken down into six years for the s. 95 index firearms prohibition offence, and one year consecutive for the various FTC offences.

55The Defence submits that the sentence that Mr. Graham is to receive will be the longest that he is going to serve. He is facing a significant term of incarceration arising from the single incident of firearms possession in the townhouse.

56Mr. Graham has acknowledged that he has made poor choices. Still, he has made progress in the last year owning up to his addiction issues, acknowledging his relationship with his older daughter, improving his relationship with his father, and completing his high school diploma.

57The Defence submits that Mr. Graham has faced some difficult situations in his life such as growing up in a poor neighbourhood as a young, Black man. When he was shot by police in 2019, he spent a long time in hospital. The appropriate sentence should not be one that crushes Mr. Graham’s hopes of returning as a productive member of society.

58The Defence provided three letters of support for Mr. Graham:

a) A letter from Ms. Megan MacDonald, Director of the Education Program at Amadeusz confirming Mr. Graham’s voluntary participation in an Amadeusz education program at the TEDC. Amadeusz is a charitable organization that supports people aged 18 to 25 to create positive change in their lives through access to education, community support, and care.

b) Another letter of support from Amadeusz, but this time from Ms. Sheena Blake Brown, Director of Prosper, an intensive case management program that works with individuals with firearms charges to create and execute an individualized plan of support based on their needs and goals. The Director indicated that through Mr. Graham’s involvement with Prosper, he had demonstrated that he is a dedicated, capable, and engaged participant in the program.

c) A letter from Ms. Falguni Shukla, Program Coordinator, Corrections Literacy Initiative (“CLI”) at Centennial College. The letter confirmed that Mr. Graham successfully completed the mathematics course through the CLI program, which was delivered at TEDC. Ms. Shukla noted that Mr. Graham was responsible and detail-oriented with his education and cooperated consistently with his instructor.

59The Defence does not object to the ancillary orders requested by the Crown.

60Both the Crown and Defence presented several case authorities to support their overall sentencing positions.

Applicable Case Law

61I endorse the comments of Stribopoulos J. in R. v. Nagra, 2026 ONSC 29, at para. 37:

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: see Nur, at para. 206 (C.A.); R. v. Mohiadin, 2021 ONCA 122, at para. 12; R v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, 159 O.R. (3d) 641, at para. 71.

62I also agree with the comments of Charney J. in R. v. Cole, 2024 ONSC 4243, at paras. 56-62, where he stated that the sentences for prohibited firearm recidivists range from six to nine years, and that sentences for breaches of s. 109 orders should be served consecutively to any substantive offence:

As I review the cases, sentences for prohibited firearm recidivists range from six to nine years: see the sentences reviewed in R. v. Dawkins, 2021 ONSC 4526, R. v. McNichols, 2020 ONSC 6499, at paras. 20-29 and R. v. David, 2019 ONSC 3758, at paras. 27-28. In R. v. Graham, 2018 ONSC 6817, Code J. summarized the range for s. 95 recidivists at para. 39:

In the case of s.95 recidivists, like Graham, MacDonnell, J. analysed the effect of the 2013 post-mandatory minimum sentence cases in R. v. Hector, 2014 ONSC 1970. He noted that in R. v. Charles (2013), 2013 ONCA 681, 303 C.C.C. (3d) 352 (Ont. C.A.) and in R. v. Chambers, 2013 ONCA 680, the Court of Appeal upheld sentences of seven years and eight years for s.95 recidivists who had each breached two prior s.109 prohibition orders. MacDonnell, J. implicitly held that the cases indicate an appropriate total range of six years to nine years for s.95 recidivists who breach s.109 orders, after the 2013 striking-down of the mandatory five-year minimum sentence. More recently, in R. v. Slack (2015), 2015 ONCA 94, 321 C.C.C. (3d) 474 (Ont. C.A.), the Court upheld a total sentence of ten years, made up of eight years for a s.95 recidivist who also received a two year consecutive sentence for breach of prohibition orders. A number of recent cases in this Court have imposed total sentences of eight and nine years for recidivist s.95 offences and breaches of s.109 prohibition orders. See: R. v. J.G. [2005] O.J. No. 4599 (S.C.J.); R. v. Alexander 2012 ONSC 6117, [2012] O.J. No. 5087 (S.C.J.); R. v. Dunkley [2014] O.J. No. 3062 (S.C.J.).

In the present case, the number and type of firearms, including three loaded handguns, each with an overcapacity magazine, two of which had been converted to automatic weapons, and a fourth overcapacity magazine, all of which were discarded in a public place by Mr. Cole in order to hide them from the police, places Mr. Cole within the six to nine year range as a s. 95 recidivist.

Sentences at the higher end of the range appear to be reserved for offenders with even longer records than Mr. Cole, or cases where the gun was discharged, or cases where there was also a conviction for possession for the purposes of trafficking. Sentences below six years appear most commonly where there has been a guilty plea.

Sentences for breaches of s. 109 orders should be served consecutively to any substantive offence: R. v. Ellis, 2013 ONSC 3092, at para. 30, aff’d 2016 ONCA 598:

In the absence of a consecutive sentence, the accused effectively receives no greater punishment as a result of his clear violation of a previous court order. The intentional violation of an unequivocal court order requires some effective additional sanction. Offenders must understand that court orders governing their conduct must be followed or there will be real consequences for their violation.

See also: R. v. Graham, 2018 ONSC 6817, at para. 41:

I am of the view that the sentences for breach of the two s.109 orders should be consecutive to the sentence for the s.95 offence. I adopt the reasoning of the leading authorities in this Court, to the effect that separate punishment is required if court orders are to have real meaning.

See also: R. v. Chambers, 2013 ONCA 680, at paras. 20-22.

The range for s. 109 offences appears to be 6 months to 2 years, consecutive to the sentence for the firearms offence.

63In R. v. Dunkley, 2014 ONSC 3922, the accused was found guilty after trial. Mr. Dunkley was stopped while driving and found to be in possession of a loaded restricted firearm. Mr. Dunkley was 34 years old and on parole at the time of the offence for an armed robbery. He had a lengthy criminal record spanning nearly 20 years. He was under two separate weapons prohibitions. Even though there was no evidence that the firearm was to be used in furtherance of a crime, the Court rejected the argument that Mr. Dunkley was not involved in any criminal activity at the time of his arrest, noting that simply possessing the illegal firearm and breaching his court orders was by itself a criminal activity. The most aggravating feature was that he was on parole at the time of the offence. The court sentenced him to eight years for possession of the loaded restricted firearm and two years consecutive for breach of the two weapons prohibition orders.

64In R. v. Reid, 2026 ONSC 136, Molloy J. sentenced the accused to seven years for possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and one year consecutive for breach of a s. 109 prohibition order. Police had executed a search warrant in Mr. Reid’s apartment and found a loaded firearm with an over-capacity magazine and a device that converted it to a fully automatic weapon. The serial number was removed. There were two small children (ages two and three) in the apartment at the time the police found the gun. Mr. Reid, who identifies as Black and was 31 years old at the time of the offence, pleaded guilty and accepted responsibility at an early stage of proceedings. Based on his conduct in detention and multiple letters of support, Molloy J. found there was a real prospect for rehabilitation in this case. However, Mr. Reid had a long criminal record dating back to 2011 with multiple serious firearms-related charges. The fact that the gun had been altered to be more lethal was a significant aggravating factor.

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors for Mr. Graham

65The aggravating factors are:

a) Mr. Graham has a significant criminal record that includes possession for the purpose of trafficking, assault, uttering threats, kidnapping, break and enter, and possession of a loaded firearm.

b) When Mr. Graham committed the within set of offences on January 29, 2024, he was already serving a conditional sentence for a 2022 firearm possession offence.

c) While only one of the two firearms in the townhouse was loaded, both guns were found hidden in a laundry basket in a second-floor bathroom. A large amount of ammunition was found one floor above in a bedroom. That a loaded handgun was found in a house with nine occupants, five of them children, is a very significant aggravating factor.

d) Mr. Graham’s behaviour on January 29, 2024 was atrocious. Police implored him to come down immediately in a peaceful manner particularly as there were three children waiting downstairs on the main level. Yet, Mr. Graham could be heard yelling from upstairs and for around six and a half minutes refused to come down. When he did appear on the landing, he did not comply with the officers’ orders and was tased. Ms. Le’s mother, Ms. Nguyen, reported that Ms. Le’s children have been significantly impacted by the event that occurred on the day of Mr. Graham and Ms. Le’s arrest, stating that they are still “shocked and frightened.”

66It is not an aggravating factor that Mr. Graham said very little to the second P&P Officer about the nature of his relationship with Ms. Le or about his present conviction but, in the circumstances, I cannot say that Mr. Graham has taken responsibility for his offences or shown any insight or remorse.

67I accept as mitigating that:

a) Mr. Graham’s institutional behavior has been appropriate.

b) He self-disclosed being diagnosed with depression.

c) He has made progress in terms of improving his relationship with his father, and disclosing that he has a 15-year old daughter.

d) He completed his high school diploma while in custody, which is no small achievement.

68Overall, I would describe Mr. Graham’s prospects of rehabilitation as guarded. The within sentence, which will be served in a penitentiary, will be the longest that Mr. Graham will receive. At his current age of 36, he can no longer be described as a youthful offender. Rather, he has engaged in serious criminality over the last 15 or so years.

The Jump Principle

69I have considered the jump principle and determined that it has less relevance to Mr. Graham’s sentencing.

70In R. v. Parker, 2024 ONCA 591, 173 O.R. (3d) 118, at para. 41, the Court of Appeal explained the jump principle.

The jump principle cautions a court against imposing a dramatically more severe sentence than the sentences imposed upon the offender for similar offences in the recent past, provided the subsequent offence is not significantly more serious: R. v. Borde (2003), 2003 4187 (ON CA), 63 O.R. (3d) 417, at para. 39; R. v. Green, 2021 ONCA 932, at para. 11. The court has clearly explained that the jump principle “has little application where the severity of the offender’s crimes shows a dramatic increase in violence and seriousness”: Borde, at para. 39; Green at para. 12.

71The jump principle has less relevance where rehabilitation is not a significant factor influencing the sentence: R. v. Simeunovich, 2023 ONCA 562, 168 O.R. (3d) 632, at para. 22, leave to appeal refused, [2024] S.C.C.A. No. 48, citing R. v. Robitaille, 1993 2561 (BC CA), 31 B.C.A.C. 7 (C.A.), at para. 9, or “when dealing with multiple convictions for an offender with a lengthy criminal record, or where previous sanctions have been ineffective in deterring the offender”: R. v. Green, 2021 ONCA 932, at para. 12

72At first glance, it appears that the jump principle applies since Mr. Graham received a two-year less a day sentence in 2022 for possessing a loaded illegal firearm, and now, in 2026, the Crown is requesting a significantly higher sentence of seven years for the index s. 95 offence. Also, I cannot say that Mr. Graham’s current offences show a dramatic increase in violence and seriousness.

73However, several factors pull the other way. First, a significant factor why Mr. Graham received a reduced sentence in 2022 was that he was shot by police. Second, I note that even the defence position on Mr. Graham’s current sentencing is that he should receive a six-year sentence for the s. 95 offence. Third, between Mr. Graham’s 2022 and present 2025/2026 convictions, he was convicted in February 2025 on two counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking (“P4P”) in Newmarket. Fourth, Mr. Graham’s rehabilitation is not a significant factor influencing sentencing. Finally, and most importantly, Mr. Graham has a significant criminal record, and previous prohibitions and sanctions for firearm-related charges have been ineffective in deterring him from repeating these offences.

74Consequently, I find that the jump principle has little application to Mr. Graham’s present sentencing.

Sentencing Decision

75I 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.

76I find that the appropriate sentence for Mr. Graham is seven years for the s. 95 index offence. The sentences for his other firearms-related offences should be served concurrent to the s. 95 sentence.

77Mr. Graham is a firearms recidivist with a significant criminal record. Mr. Graham’s sentence does not belong at the bottom end of the range of six to nine years for firearms recidivists. The aggravating factors are significant and the mitigating factors slight. The Crown is reasonable in asking for seven years, which aligns with the case law. Mr. Graham does not have as serious a criminal record as the offender in Reid, who received a s. 95 sentence of seven years, but Mr. Reid had pleaded guilty at an early stage. At 33 years old at the time of his offences, Mr. Graham is not very young. His prospects of rehabilitation are guarded. The offender in Dunkley received a comparable sentence of eight years, albeit with a more extensive criminal record.

78I find that Mr. Graham should receive a one-year sentence for count 1 on his FTC charges involving breach of a firearms prohibition order to be served consecutive to the sentence for his s. 95 offence. Further, Mr. Graham should serve a six-month sentence for count 2 on his FTC charges, involving another breach of a firearms prohibition order, to be served consecutive to count 1 on his FTC charges. The sentences for the remaining breach offences should be served concurrent to the sentence for count 1 on the breach indictment.

79The overall result will be that Mr. Graham will be sentenced to a total of eight and a half years in prison before the application of credits.

80While I would have still found an overall sentence of nine years to be reasonable, I have factored in all the mitigating factors, including the over incarceration of Black Canadian offenders in our prison system and Duncan credits, as discussed below.

81I have also considered the principles of totality and restraint. I do not find that an overall sentence of eight and a half years offends those principles.

Discussion of Credits for Mr. Graham

82Mr. Graham was arrested on January 29, 2024. At the time, he was serving a conditional sentence of two years less a day arising from a conviction in Toronto dated June 23, 2022.

83On February 10, 2025, Mr. Graham resolved a set of P4P charges in Newmarket. He received a sentence of two years less a day and an enhanced credit for the equivalent of 590 days arising from pre-sentence custody from January 29, 2024 to February 10, 2025. This left him with a sentence of 139 days still to serve on the Newmarket charges.

84Consequently, any time prior to February 10, 2025, cannot again count as pre-sentence custody for his sentence on the within firearm-related and FTC charges. Moreover, since Mr. Graham still had to serve the residual portion of his Newmarket sentence of 139 days after February 10, 2025, his Newmarket sentence ended on June 29, 2025. Accordingly, Mr. Graham can only be credited for any pre-trial custody starting June 30, 2025.

85The period between June 30, 2025 and March 20, 2026 is 264 real days. As per R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 575, Mr. Graham is entitled to receive an enhanced credit for the equivalent of 396 days.

86Mr. Graham’s lockdown records were filed as part of the sentencing proceeding. He argues that the harsh conditions of his pre-sentence custody should be considered as a mitigating factor on sentencing.

87In R. v. Kumi, 2025 ONCA 3, at para. 14, the Court of Appeal explained the difference between a Summers credit and a Duncan credit:

As held in R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344, at paras. 51-53, a Summers credit and a Duncan credit are analytically distinct. A person convicted of an offence is generally given enhanced credit for time spent in custody awaiting trial, based on the principles set out in R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 575. A Summers credit results in a straightforward deduction in the time left to serve in a sentence, statutorily capped at a maximum ratio of 1.5:1 days’ credit for every day in pre-sentence custody. As recognized in R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754, a sentencing judge may also take harsh presentence custody conditions into consideration when determining an appropriate sentence. A Duncan credit does not generally result in a mathematical deduction of time left to serve in a sentence, however. It is instead a mitigating factor taken into account, along with other mitigating and aggravating factors, in determining an appropriate sentence.

88The Crown’s position on the Duncan credit is that, at nine years, the sentence sought by the Crown already incorporates the Duncan credit.

89By contrast, Mr. Graham’s counsel argues that her client spent a total of 123 days on partial lockdown, two days on full lockdown, and 31 days of triple bunking. Counsel submits that the combination of Summers and Duncan credit should be recognized via a credit of 458 days or 15 months.

90I do not agree with the Defence approach to the calculation of credits. I note that, out of the 123 partial lockdown days, the lockdown period for 103 of them was from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. in the evening. Secondly, the Duncan credit is properly recognized as a mitigating factor in sentencing and I have already done so in determining Mr. Graham’s global sentence of 8-1/2 years.

Conclusion

91Under the 4-count Joint Indictment, Mr. Graham is sentences as follows:

a) Count 1 – s. 95(1) – 7 years.

b) Count 2 – s. 92(1) – 4 years concurrent with count 1.

c) Count 3 – s. 92(2) – 1 year concurrent with count 1.

d) Count 4 – s. 108(1)(b) – 1 year concurrent with count 1.

92Under the 6-count Breach Indictment for Mr. Graham only, he is sentenced as follows:

a) Count 1 – s. 117.01(1) – 1 year consecutive to the firearm possession counts on the joint indictment.

b) Count 2 – s. 117.01(1) – 6 months consecutive to count 1 on this 6-count indictment.

c) Count 3 – s. 117.01(1) – 6 months concurrent to counts 1 and 2 on this indictment.

d) Count 4 – s. 117.01(1) – 6 months concurrent to counts 1, 2, and 3 on this indictment.

e) Count 5 – s. 145(5)(a) – 6 months concurrent to counts 1, 2, 3, and 4 on this indictment.

f) Count 6 – s. 145(5)(a) – 6 months concurrent to counts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 on this indictment.

93In terms of ancillary orders, Mr. Graham is subject to:

a) A DNA order under s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code;

b) A weapons prohibition order for life under s. 109 of the Criminal Code; and

c) A forfeiture order under s. 462.37 of the Criminal Code (proceeds of crime) and s. 491 of the Criminal Code (weapons, ammunition).

Pinto J.