CITATION: R. v. Abdelgadir, 2026 ONSC 1818

COURT FILE NO.: CR-21-40000553 CR-23-40000399

DATE: 20260326

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

His Majesty the King

– and –

Samir Abdelgadir

Defendant

Erin Pancer and Sean O’Neill, for the Crown

Glen Orr, for the Defendant

HEARD: January 27, 2026

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

NISHIKAWA J.

1After a judge alone trial, on March 4, 2025, I found the defendant, Samir Abdelgadir, guilty of the offence of kidnapping under s. 279 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 (the “Code”): R. v. Abdelgadir, 2025 ONSC 1799 (the “Reasons”). Since that date, the sentencing hearing was adjourned a number of times for various reasons including a change of counsel. On January 27, 2026, I dismissed Mr. Abdelgadir’s motion to adjourn to bring a disclosure application for oral reasons given on the record.¹

The Circumstances of the Offence

2My findings of fact are detailed at length in my Reasons. In brief, on the morning of March 4, 2020, the 14-year-old victim, S.J., was kidnapped soon after he left his home to go to school. Three men emerged from a Jeep, grabbed S.J. and forced him into the vehicle as he screamed and struggled to resist. Two other vehicles accompanied the Jeep to and from the Driftwood Avenue complex where S.J. was kidnapped: a white Mercedes and a black Chevrolet Tahoe. In my reasons, I found that Mr. Abdelgadir was the driver of the Tahoe.

3S.J. was then taken to a vacant house on Edgeforest Road in Brampton. He was bound and blindfolded. At trial, S.J.’s half-brother, Olalekan Osikoya, admitted that he had stolen 90 kilograms of cocaine from the people for whom he worked. While S.J. was held at the house, the kidnappers called and sent messages to Mr. Osikoya, demanding that he return the cocaine that he had stolen.

4Thirty-six hours after he was taken, S.J. was released in a vacant lot in Caledon, where he was later located by police. The Jeep that was used to kidnap S.J. was found near the Forks of the Credit. Hamed Shahnawaz and Soleiman Nassimi admitted to setting the Jeep on fire but testified at trial that they believed it was for an insurance fraud scheme.

5In my reasons, I found that the kidnapping was a coordinated, planned event among a number of individuals. Mr. Abdelgadir was an associate of kilogram-level drug traffickers, Giovanni Raimondi and Scott McManus; Mr. Osikoya testified to delivering cocaine regularly to Mr. Abdelgadir. As one of the principals of the drug operation, Mr. Raimondi had a strong motive for the kidnapping.

6I did not find that Mr. Abdelgadir was the mastermind of the plot to kidnap S.J. and to hold him ransom for the return of 90 kilograms of stolen cocaine or the proceeds thereof. Nor did I find that Mr. Abdelgadir was one of the individuals who grabbed S.J. and forced him into the Jeep. Nonetheless, I found that Mr. Abdelgadir knew in advance of the plan to kidnap S.J. that morning and drove the Tahoe to Driftwood Avenue where S.J. was to be abducted. He stood by in the Tahoe as back-up, at the ready, to assist if needed. Based on his presence nearby, he knew that S.J. had been grabbed and forced into the Jeep. He played an integral role in the kidnapping, which is a continuing offence, by ensuring that it took place. After S.J. was forced into the Jeep, Mr. Abdelgadir drove away from Driftwood Avenue in tandem with the Jeep and Mercedes. He did not drive to the house on Edgeforest where S.J. was eventually held. At no time did Mr. Abdelgadir attempt to assist S.J. regain his liberty. Four days after the kidnapping, Mr. Abdelgadir met with Mr. Shahnawaz. I found that it was reasonable to infer that the meeting was to discuss damage control, including the destruction of the Jeep.

Victim Impact Statements

7S.J., his brother and his father each provided a victim impact statement (“VIS”). They all describe the harmful and lasting impact that the kidnapping had on each of them and on their family. S.J.’s mother passed away after the kidnapping and before the trial.

8S.J. describes how his life completely changed from one day to the next. S.J. states that the kidnapping damaged the person he thought himself to be and brought about one of the worst moments of his life. After the kidnapping, S.J. could not sleep on his own, because when he tried to sleep, he relived every detail of the abduction. He states that he had to “mentally kill” that part of him to move on. He has difficulty finding words to describe the experience, stating “there was so much aggression directed toward me that I thought I was going to die and that feeling has never left me.”

9S.J. describes the breakdown of his family after the kidnapping, and how his support system has been lost. He attributes the death of his mother to the pain brought on by the experience: “The only person that would be able to help me with this pain I speak of, took on more pain to reestablish my life in a better way. And she died trying.” He now feels he has no foundation to fall back on and does not know when it will get better.

10S.J.’s father, T.J., describes how S.J.’s kidnapping made him feel that he failed in his mission to protect his son and that he does not know how to repair that. He feels he let his whole family down because of the strain the incident put on the family. He describes watching S.J. become a different person, from the “family jokester” to barely speaking to him. “The permanent damage that has been done to me and my family as a result of someone kidnapping my son echoes [in] every part of me.”

11S.J.’s brother, E.J., describes S.J. as “everything right about our family in one person.” S.J. was the most “lively character”, someone who they “could not keep quiet long enough because he always had something smart or funny to say.” After the kidnapping, “he damned near went mute.” E.J. states that the kidnapping tore him apart because he feels a part of S.J. died that day. Not only was S.J.’s innocence taken away, but also their support system. Their father left the home, then their mother became sick and died.

12It is clear from the VISs that the kidnapping forever altered S.J. and that it tore the family apart. S.J. and his family continue to grapple with the aftermath of the deeply traumatic event, years after it occurred.

The Circumstances of the Offender

Criminal Record

13Mr. Abdelgadir was approximately 40 years old at the time of the offence. He is now 45 years old. He has no criminal record but has spent time in custody in the past.

The Impact of Race and Culture Assessment

14On June 20, 2025, when sentencing submissions were to be heard, I denied Mr. Abdelgadir’s request for an adjournment to obtain an Impact of Race and Culture Assessment (IRCA). The sentencing hearing was nonetheless adjourned to August 15, 2025 because of a flood in his then counsel’s office. Mr. Abdelgadir’s counsel at the time subsequently brought an application to be removed from the record, which further delayed sentencing. In the interim, Mr. Abdelgadir took steps to obtain an IRCA from the Viola Desmond Justice Institute, which was completed on January 12, 2026. The authors of the IRCA are Maria Mendez, registered psychotherapist, and Danita Williams, senior assessor and peer-reviewer. The IRCA provides a very lengthy and detailed account of the cultural, racial, and historical factors that have influenced Mr. Abdelgadir’s identity, life experiences, and interactions with the criminal justice system. I have summarized the most pertinent parts of the IRCA here.

15Mr. Abdelgadir was born in 1981 in North Sudan into a Muslim family. He is the younger of two sons. His parents divorced in the early 2000s, when Mr. Abdelgadir was approximately 19 years old. Mr. Abdelgadir was estranged from his father when his parents divorced, and they remain distant. His brother lives in Dubai.

16Mr. Abdelgadir was very close with his late mother, whom he described as his “best friend.” She started living in Canada in 2008 but traveled frequently between Mississauga and the Middle East due to divorce proceedings. She died in 2024. His mother’s sister lives in Milton, Ontario.

17Mr. Abdelgadir spent his early childhood in Khartoum, Sudan, followed by Aden, Yemen, until war broke out and his family was forced back to Sudan. From ages 6-7, Mr. Abdelgadir was a refugee living in various places in Europe. From the ages of 7-10, Mr. Abdelgadir returned to South Yemen’s capital, where firearms were commonplace. At age ten, the family relocated to Fiji, where Mr. Abdelgadir’s father became an ambassador. Subsequently, Mr. Abdelgadir’s adolescence was spent between Bahrain and other locations following his father’s various UN assignments.

18Mr. Abdelgadir’s early life was unstable, unsafe, and violent. Further, as a child he reported witnessing his father beating his mother. His father, who was an alcoholic, also used physical discipline against him and his brother, including breaking Mr. Abdelgadir’s finger on one occasion.

19Mr. Abdelgadir has been heavily impacted by his father’s employment with the UN, multiple relocations, exposure to armed conflict, and unsafe environments. Mr. Abdelgadir’s exposure to violence began in his childhood, where he witnessed bodies piled in the streets during the civil war in Yemen in the 1980’s. Mr. Abdelgadir was subject to racism during his childhood in Bahrain. The IRCA describes that he faced significant discrimination as a Black Muslim, and that his family’s home was attacked. He was suspended from school several times for fighting.

20As a child, Mr. Abdelgadir attended various UN and government-supported schools. When Mr. Abdelgadir was 19 years old, he moved to Mississauga where he lived with his aunt and later with his mother. He then moved to Hamilton while attending McMaster University. In the early 2000’s, he completed a Bachelor of Commerce and Economics at McMaster University where he also served as Vice President of the African-Caribbean Association. Notably, Mr. Abdelgadir lost his father’s financial support during this time.

21The IRCA outlines that in 2007, he was also initially accepted into a Master of Business Administration program at Toronto Metropolitan (then Ryerson) University, but his involvement with the criminal justice system prevented him from pursuing further education. His long-term aspirations include resuming his education and completing graduate studies in economics.

22The IRCA describes Mr. Abdelgadir’s housing arrangements as “precarious” and describes his unsuccessful attempts at finding an apartment following his graduation from McMaster, which it attributes to discrimination. In 2002, his father assisted him with a down payment on a condominium in Mississauga. In 2006, his brother provided him financial support to purchase a house in Hamilton “to move away from marijuana sales and pursue legitimate entrepreneurship”.

23The IRCA outlines several health issues affecting Mr. Abdelgadir. He was diagnosed with certain mental health conditions while incarcerated between 2011-2015 and received psychotherapy at the time. The IRCA highlights the effect of incarceration on the onset and severity of psychiatric disorders. The IRCA reports that Mr. Abdelgadir was also diagnosed with a trauma-related mental health condition which was treated with medication in 2016.

24Mr. Abdelgadir also sustained severe physical injuries from being shot three times in May 2023, which required an eight-month hospitalization. His mother was near him when the shooting happened, causing Mr. Abdelgadir significant distress. He has lasting impairments, including difficulty walking for extended periods and chronic exhaustion when outside for more than an hour. He continues to attend a clinic twice weekly for ongoing care. He believes his strict bail conditions further complicate his ability to access treatment and maintain mobility. He uses marijuana daily to manage pain. The IRCA notes that Mr. Abdelgadir “acknowledges symptoms consistent with PTSD, including nightmares, flashbacks, anxiety, and difficulty concentrating”.

25Mr. Abdelgadir “also relies on cannabis use as a coping strategy”. The IRCA outlines the use of marijuana as a coping mechanism within “a complex interplay between cultural expectations, religious prohibitions, trauma-related coping, and efforts to distance himself from the destructive pattern he witnessed in his father”, namely, alcohol abuse. Mr. Abdelgadir does not consume alcohol and considers cannabis use a harm-reduction strategy.

26The IRCA states that Mr. Abdelgadir believes that he may have attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). He never received formal diagnoses as a child but was prescribed pills which he believed may have been for anxiety, and which he continued to take in university for concentration.

27The IRCA highlights Mr. Abdelgadir’s reported difficulty in obtaining employment as a Black Muslim man in Canada in the early 2000’s. He was “largely unable to secure gainful employment”, working odd jobs during his last years of university when his father stopped financing his education. After submitting résumés without receiving callbacks, he then moved towards “informal economies” including marijuana sales, which he describes as both “a coping mechanism and a means of survival”.

28Mr. Abdelgadir worked in a restaurant briefly and also started a landscaping business post-graduation for two summers before investing in real estate, flipping houses and condominiums for profit. He also invested with other partners in two fast-food franchise locations in Hamilton and Woodbine Mall but was eventually “forced out” which he attributes to negative media exposure resulting from to his criminal charges. His brother provided the financial support for many of these ventures.

29The IRCA also describes Mr. Abdelgadir’s interactions with police as being racially motivated. The IRCA describes police entering his home, seizing money and intimidating him as part of broader systemic racial profiling, which included spending four and a half years in jail on firearm charges that were eventually dismissed. He estimates having been arrested or detained approximately twenty times, with charges ranging from substance possession to serious violent offenses, and that his charges in the mid 2010’s were due to his being “near the people or locations under scrutiny” rather than an intentional role, which “highlight how association and racial stigma can lead to wrongful criminalization, even in the absence of evidence”. The IRCA also highlights Mr. Abdelgadir’s “frustrations” with the police department and criminal justice system, alleging he has been extorted by members of the Hamilton police.

30Mr. Abdelgadir has been imprisoned up to twenty times for long periods of time on previous charges. He was first arrested at age 21 for drug possession. He was taken into custody “multiple times” for substance-related charges, including marijuana and cocaine possession, as well as curfew violations.

31As the IRCA highlights, Mr. Abdelgadir “emphasizes that his stagnation was not the result of a lack of ambition or ability, but rather the consequence of systemic racism, repeated police targeting, and unjust criminalization that disrupted his educational and employment trajectory. He maintains that these external barriers, rather than personal failings, explain the interruptions in his professional development.”

32Mr. Abdelgadir blames the current charges on systemic racism and police targeting. His current financial situation is precarious, having lost significant assets due to prolonged court cases, civil litigation, and repeated incarceration. Currently, he relies on family and friends for support, including his friend who serves as his surety, and occasional community assistance. His goals include a return to stability through legitimate business ventures, particularly in housing renovation and entrepreneurship.

33A number of Mr. Abdelgadir’s friends and relatives were interviewed for the IRCA. Many of the interviewees corroborated the difficulties he faced in obtaining employment after graduating university and his negative experiences with police. They commented positively about his character, including his kindness, generosity, religious adherence, and willingness to help others. He was particularly devoted to helping is mother and others in the community. A few of the interviewees described Mr. Abdelgadir as naïve or gullible, making him susceptible to negative influences.

The Pre-Sentence Report

34A pre-sentence report (“PSR”) was ordered and was completed on June 12, 2025, by Probation and Parole Officer Ryan Nowak (the “Officer”). The Officer interviewed Mr. Abdelgadir, a maternal aunt, two maternal cousins and Det. Sean Sutton, the officer-in-charge of the investigation.

35In the PSR, Mr. Abdelgadir described his childhood years in Yemen and Fiji in mainly positive terms, though he started to observe problematic behaviour on the part of his father, such as being absent from the home for extended periods of time. He described witnessing domestic violence “a few times” and that his father used physical discipline against him, which was considered “normal” at the time.

36When Mr. Abdelgadir was in second year at McMaster University, his parents separated and his father stopped supporting him financially. He turned to selling marijuana after being unable to find employment. He could not afford to participate in an internship program because he had to pay for his schooling.

37Mr. Abdelgadir reported being harassed by police in Hamilton who requested “ransom” money every month to stay off his back. On one occasion, they raided his house and took $50,000 in cash from him, which he was planning to use to fund his MBA program. Mr. Abdelgadir advised that he was wrongfully held in custody for over four years due to false firearm-related charges.

38Mr. Abdelgadir believes he was targeted in relation to the shooting that injured him because of close relationships with pro-criminal peers in the community.

39Mr. Abdelgadir’s cousins both described his childhood as challenging and that he experienced racism in every country he lived in. One of his cousins corroborated that Mr. Abdelgadir’s father was an alcoholic and unfaithful to his wife. His cousins describe him as smart, kind and always trying to help people. One cousin stated that Mr. Abdelgadir feels he has an obligation to help those he met in custody, leading to his pro-criminal associations. The Officer reports that his maternal relatives “choose to keep a distance” from Mr. Abdelgadir due to his negative media exposure and ongoing safety concerns.

40The Officer described Mr. Abdelgadir as polite, respectful, and engaged throughout the process. He readily provided information. Mr. Abdelgadir does not accept responsibility for the offence and believes he was unfairly prosecuted. He is described by the Officer as “reluctant or unable to consider the impact his behaviour has had upon others.”

Analysis

The Parties’ Positions

41The Crown argues that a denunciatory sentence is essential and seeks a sentence of sixteen years in a penitentiary.

42The defence’s position is that taking into consideration the mitigating factors, the appropriate sentence is five years, before subtracting time spent in pre-sentence custody. The defence argues that Mr. Abdelgadir’s role in the kidnapping is unclear in my Reasons and that the lack of clarity ought to mitigate in his favour on sentence.

The Principles of Sentencing

General

43In determining an appropriate sentence, I must consider the sentencing objectives in s. 718 of the Criminal Code, which provides as follows:

The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:

(a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;

(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;

(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;

(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and

(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community.

44Pursuant to s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code, “[a] sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.” Imposing a proportionate sentence is a highly individualized exercise, tailored to the gravity of the offence and the blameworthiness of the offender: R. v. M.(C.A.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500, at para. 40.

45The sentencing judge must also have regard to the following:

any aggravating and mitigating factors, including those listed in s. 718.2(a)(i) to (vii) of the Criminal Code;
the principle of parity, in that a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances (s. 718.2(b));
the principle of totality, meaning that where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh (s. 718.2(c)); and
the principle that courts should exercise restraint in imposing imprisonment (ss. 718.2(d) and (e)).

46The principles of parity and individualization mandate that a sentence must both be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences and highly individualized: s. 718.2(b); R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46, 3 S.C.R. 366, at para. 12.

Kidnapping

47In sentencing offenders for kidnapping, the paramount sentencing considerations are denunciation and deterrence: R. v. Levy, 2024 ONSC 1452 at para. 20. Kidnapping is one of the most serious offences in the Criminal Code, as reflected in the maximum punishment available under the Code, which is life imprisonment. In the case of kidnapping of a person under the age of 18 years old, the minimum sentence is five years.

48In R. v. Wong & Poon, 2008 BCCA 64, 231 C.C.C. (3d) 166, at para. 26, the British Columbia Court of Appeal held that periods of imprisonment for 10 years or more are appropriate in cases involving planned schemes of kidnapping for ransom. Ontario courts have called kidnapping for ransom a “particularly despicable specie of the crime warranting sentences of imprisonment of 10 to 20 years”: R. v. Critton, [2002] O.T.C. 451, 54 W.C.B. (2d) 543 (Ont. S.C.), at para. 114. See also: R. v. Thind et al, 2011 ONSC 6635, at para. 44, aff’d 2013 ONCA 719. Because of the high degree of planning and premeditation involved in this type of offence, a severe sentence is viewed as more likely to have a deterrent effect.

49Kidnapping “strikes at the heart of the community’s sense of safety and security. It is an offence that is intended to incite fear and terror in not only the person kidnapped but also his or her family and friends, many times using that fear to extort money in return for that person’s safe return.”: Wong, at para. 27. This is true even where the victim is not physically injured. As reflected in the minimum sentence under the Criminal Code, the kidnapping of a child is particularly heinous and must be condemned: R. v. Hill, [1994] O.J. No. 4613 (Gen. Div), aff’d [1995] O.J. No. 1859 (C.A.), at para. 28.

50In R v. Brar, 2014 BCCA 175, 355 B.C.A.C. 199, at para. 23, the British Columbia Court of Appeal noted that kidnappings do not fall into distinct categories, but listed multiple criteria indicative of the gravity of the offence on a spectrum, including:

(a) the purpose of the kidnapping, specifically whether it is carried out for ransom or as a means of extorting a payment or repayment from the victim;

(b) the extent to which there is planning and premeditation;

(d) the extent to which there is violence, torture or significant physical injuries;

(e) whether third parties are threatened;

(f) whether guns are used;

(g) whether there is gang involvement;

(h) whether the kidnapping occurs in the course of the commission of another offence; and

(i) the circumstances in which the kidnapping ends.

The Appropriate Range

51The Crown cited numerous cases to support its position that a 16-year sentence is appropriate. I have summarized the cases with the most analogous factual circumstances here:

R. v. Nguyen, 2009 BCCA 546, 277 B.C.A.C. 120, (13 years). The offender assisted in moving a person who was held captive for eight days, supporting a broader group of kidnappers. The victim was tied up, blindfolded, and threatened. The offender was “higher on the ladder” in the group, had full knowledge of the scheme, and was involved in some of the planning. He was 20 years old at the time of the offence, with no criminal record. The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence of 13 years, noting that a co-accused who was less involved in planning received 12 years.
R. v. Watson, 2024 ONSC 6899 (15 years). Watson was the right hand to the mastermind of a kidnapping, recruiting and supervising the team that kidnapped the victim. (The principal, Zang, was sentenced to 20 years: R. v. Zang, 2024 ONSC 1360). The victim, an international student, was taken from his home, bound and blindfolded, while attempts were made to drug him. The victim was held for 12 days in inhumane conditions and was restrained throughout his captivity. Watson set up the “temporary headquarters” where the crime was planned and staged. He was present on site for the kidnapping in a ‘stake out’ role, though he was not directly involved. He was 31 years old at the time of the offence and had a lengthy criminal record. He also had serious health issues, including multiple sclerosis.
R. v. Levy, 2024 ONSC 1452 (13 years). The offender, Matthews, who pleaded guilty, was sentenced to 13 years for kidnapping and two years consecutive for administering a noxious substance to overcome resistance, for a global sentence of 15 years. Matthews was hired by Watson (above) to break into an apartment and kidnap the victim, which he did with a third man. Matthews transported the victim in a bag and dolly to a vehicle and later took shifts watching the victim, communicating with other captors. He had a lengthy criminal record.
R. v. D’Onofrio, 2022 QCCQ 7241 (15 years). The offender pleaded guilty to kidnapping. The victims were two grandparents of an individual with a $3.5 million drug debt, who were abducted in the U.S. and brought to Quebec. Police rescued the victims after two days. The offender had a criminal record.
R. c. Arnold, 2023 QCCS 1630 (13 years). Arnold was the co-accused of D’Onofrio. Arnold assisted the kidnappers throughout the kidnapping and extortion, arranging a border crossing and providing supplies. He was in constant communication with the kidnapper and had a direct stake in the scheme through an outstanding debt. No violence or firearms were used. The offender had a lengthy criminal record but no crimes of violence.

52The defence relies on the following case to support its position that a sentence of five years is appropriate:

R. v. Kear and Johnsen (1989), 51 C.C.C. (3d) 574 (Ont. C.A.). Two bondsmen from the United States came to Ontario to apprehend an individual and return him to the court in Florida, from which he had absconded. They believed they had lawful authority to apprehend him and return him to Florida. They were found guilty of kidnapping and sentenced to 21 months in a provincial institution. The Court of Appeal reduced the sentences to time served finding that it was in the interest of justice because of the serious prejudicial effect of the sentences imposed on them.

53The Kear case bears little relation to the factual circumstances of this case and predates the amendments to the Criminal Code stipulating the mandatory minimum where the victim is under the age of 18 years.

54In this case, S.J. was taken as leverage to extort from Mr. Osikoya either the return of the stolen drugs or repayment. The kidnapping was planned and premeditated. The perpetrators were involved in large scale drug trafficking, which requires some degree of organization. The length of the confinement was limited to 36 hours during which S.J. was bound and blindfolded and heard his captors threaten Mr. Osikoya with physical injury to S.J. It was an agreed fact that S.J. heard the driver tell the person in the backseat that if S.J. moved, he should shoot him. I find that S.J. believed that the men who kidnapped him had a firearm. However, based on the evidence before me, I cannot find beyond a reasonable doubt that a firearm was used. S.J. was released without significant physical injuries and without the need for police intervention to free him. However, he was left without proper clothing in the cold in a secluded, wooded area.

55In terms of Mr. Abdelgadir’s role in the kidnapping, there was an absence of evidence to find that he was the mastermind of the plan to kidnap S.J. While I found that he knew of the plan to abduct S.J., drove to Driftwood Avenue to assist, and knew that S.J. had been kidnapped and put into the Jeep, there was no evidence that Mr. Abdelgadir went to the Edgeforest house while S.J. was being held there.

56In my view, based on the case law cited above and the factual circumstances of this case, the appropriate range is 11 to 13 years. The kidnapping of an innocent boy for criminal financial gain, steps from his home, while on his way to school, is a very serious offence. However, the cases in which courts have ordered a sentence of 15 years involved lengthier periods of confinement, physical violence, police intervention to free the victims, offenders with significant criminal records, or additional aggravating factors.

The Principles Applied

Aggravating Factors

57 Section 718.2(a) of the Criminal Code identifies circumstances that are to be considered aggravating. In this case, a relevant aggravating factor is that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, considering his age and other personal circumstances: Code, s. 718.2(a)(iii.1).

58S.J. was an innocent, vulnerable victim. At the time, he was a 14-year-old Black boy in grade 9, living in an economically disadvantaged neighbourhood. S.J. was not involved in the drug trade or any other illicit conduct. An indication of S.J.’s vulnerability is the evidence that when he did not arrive at school, the school authorities failed to report his absence to his parents. S.J.’s parents had no information that he was not at school and could not take any action until they found out that he was missing at the end of the day. As a result, they did not contact police until over nine hours after S.J. had been kidnapped. Although neighbours who witnessed the kidnapping that morning had called 911 right away, the incident could not be connected to S.J. until he was reported missing.

59The harm caused to S.J. is immeasurable. His life changed forever the day that Mr. Abdelgadir and others decided to kidnap him as leverage for his brother’s actions. He left his home, a place where he felt safe and secure, to go to school. In the minutes before he was to meet his father, who had gone to get the car from the parking lot, he was grabbed and forced into the Jeep. He was forced into a vehicle by three men, against his will, while he screamed and struggled to resist. He was blindfolded and bound for 36 hours, as he heard the demands and threats of violence being made by his captors when they contacted Mr. Osikoya. S.J. traced his initials in the dust on a mirror at the house where he was held: a sign that he had been there, that he had lived.

60S.J.’s life was irreversibly changed. S.J. continues to be haunted by these events. A particularly revealing comment in his VIS is that at 14 years old, he didn’t even think he could die and now he always feels “one step away from death because of how I was targeted.” S.J.’s brother and father describe him as a formerly lively, funny and smart child who was always joking, but who is now quiet and “in pain”.

61S.J.’s parents were also irreparably harmed. They had to frantically determine what happened to their son and were helpless to do anything to save him. They feared that he would not return alive. They experienced a nightmare that no parent should have to live through. The VIS of S.J.’s father reflects that he continues to struggle with guilt about not having been able to protect S.J. In the aftermath of the kidnapping, the family unit “fell apart”. While not an aggravating factor on sentencing, I note that S.J.’s mother is now deceased, leaving him without a significant support to help him continue to process the trauma.

62The perpetrators of the kidnapping gave no thought to the immediate or long-term effect of their actions on S.J. or his wellbeing. To the extent that they thought of his family, it was to coerce Mr. Osikoya to return stolen cocaine. The captors took photos and video of S.J. to further their scheme, without regard to his dignity. S.J. was abducted for purely criminal financial reasons.

63As stated earlier, the kidnapping was a planned, premeditated, and coordinated crime because all the elements identified in my Reasons had to be organized and executed.

Mitigating Factors

64Prior to the commission of this offence, Mr. Abdelgadir had no criminal record. In the past, Mr. Abdelgadir has been held in pre-trial custody on other charges for lengthy periods of time. None of the charges resulted in a conviction.

65At the sentencing hearing, Mr. Abdelgadir expressed sympathy with the harm caused to S.J. and the loss of his mother but continues to deny his involvement in the kidnapping. He believes that he has been unfairly targeted and is the victim of an unfair process. Mr. Abdelgadir’s continued denial of the conduct at issue is relevant to his rehabilitative potential. His refusal or inability to accept responsibility for the offence committed or for the harm he caused to S.J. means that he lacks insight about why he engaged in such harmful, unlawful activity and the consequences of his actions on others.

66Needless to say, Mr. Abdelgadir has not expressed remorse. I note that a lack of remorse is not an aggravating factor but the absence of a mitigating factor.

67In terms of systemic factors, in R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, 159 O.R. (3d) 641, at para. 102, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the social context relating to the offender’s life experiences may be used if it is relevant to mitigate the offender’s degree of responsibility for the offence and/or to assist in the blending of the principles and objectives of sentencing to achieve a sentence which best serves the purposes of sentencing. If past hardship, including the impact of anti-Black racism, is connected to the criminal activity, that is a relevant mitigating factor to be taken into account. While a direct causal link is not required, there must be some connection between the overt and systemic racism identified in the community and the circumstances that are said to explain or mitigate the criminal conduct in issue: Morris, at paras. 96-97.

68The PSR and IRCA provide significant insight into the impact of anti-Black racism on Mr. Abdelgadir. I will not repeat all the details summarized earlier. Mr. Abdelgadir has experienced a significant degree of anti-Black racism that has manifested itself in many aspects of his life, most significantly in his decision to sell marijuana to support himself as a student, which led to his repeated interactions with the police. The length of time that Mr. Abdelgadir has spent in custody over the years, without being convicted of an offence, has not only had a detrimental impact on him but also on his ability to pursue employment and prosocial relationships. These experiences played some role in limiting his opportunities and contributing to the circumstances leading to the criminal conduct at issue here. To be clear, the effects of anti-Black racism do not excuse Mr. Abdelgadir or lessen the seriousness of the offence. However, I am satisfied that there is some connection between Mr. Abdelgadir’s life experience, anti-Black racism, and his commission of the offence such that it mitigates somewhat his degree of responsibility for the offence.

69Mr. Abdelgadir’s experience of anti-Black racism can also be taken into account in blending the principles and objectives of sentencing. While I recognize the primacy of denunciation and deterrence in relation to the offence of kidnapping, given the foregoing and Mr. Abdelgadir’s lack of a criminal record, rehabilitation should also be an important sentencing objective in the circumstances: see Morris, at paras. 80-81.

70In my view, there is a medium risk of Mr. Abdelgadir reoffending. He has some rehabilitative potential, based on his lack of a criminal record, his education and his past entrepreneurial experience. Mr. Abdelgadir is smart, educated, and a self-starter. He experienced periods of rewarding, pro-social activity when he was in university with his involvement in helping international students. Mr. Abdelgadir’s relatives and friends describe him as someone who is always trying to help others. However, despite having family assistance to invest in real estate and to buy franchises, Mr. Abdelgadir found himself pulled into unlawful activity and regularly associating with pro-criminal, dangerous individuals. The PSR identified as risk factors for reoffending Mr. Abdelgadir’s negative peer associations, lifestyle issues, a lack of effective problem-solving skills, poor decision-making, and a lack of victim awareness.

71The defence has not provided information as to any efforts that Mr. Abdelgadir has made toward rehabilitation, though I recognize that his physical injury and mother’s death are likely to have limited his ability to pursue such programs.

72Further, I must also take into account collateral consequences of a lengthy sentence on Mr. Abdelgadir. A lengthy period of incarceration would have negative consequences on Mr. Abdelgadir’s serious health issues, including the ongoing physical complications of his gunshot wounds and his mental health conditions.

Summary of the Application of the Sentencing Principles

73As stated earlier in these reasons, in sentencing Mr. Abdelgadir, I am required to give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence. Because the offence involved planning and premeditation, and harm to a vulnerable person, the degree of moral blameworthiness is high. The circumstances of this case are not at the lower end of the spectrum in terms of seriousness.

74At the same time, given the impact of anti-Black racism on Mr. Abdelgadir and his personal experiences in various aspects of his life as detailed in the IRCA, my consideration of those objectives must be balanced with a consideration of the objective of rehabilitation: see Morris, at paras. 80-81.

75While the Crown’s recommended sentence of 16 years is high, the defence’s proposal of five years is disproportionately low and not consistent with the case law.

76Based on all of the circumstances, taking into consideration the gravamen of the offence, as well as the aggravating and mitigating factors detailed above, and applying the principles of totality and restraint, I find that an appropriate sentence is 11.5 years.

Summers Credit

77Under s. 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code, Mr. Abdelgadir is entitled to credit for pre-sentence custody at a rate of 1.5:1: R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 575.

78At the sentencing hearing, the Crown advised that Mr. Abdelgadir was held in custody for a total of 260 days but that because 85 of those days were on other charges, he should receive credit for 175 days.

79The defence argues that Mr. Abdelgadir should be credited for the entire time he was in pretrial custody because the other charges have now been withdrawn and he would not have been held in custody on those charges but for the kidnapping charge before this court.

80 Subsection 719(3) of the Criminal Code provides that in determining the sentence to be imposed, a court may take into account any time spent in custody by the person “as a result of the offence”. To take the time spent in custody into account on sentence, there must be some causal connection or sufficient relation between the offence for which the offender is being sentenced and the pre-sentence custody. That relation or link is not limited to the offence that directly triggered the detention, but will include offences that contributed to the denial of bail or, in the trial judge's assessment, factored into the offender's decision to not seek bail on the charges that triggered the detention order: R. v. Barnett, 2017 ONCA 897, at para. 30.

81Factors relevant to the analysis include the following: the reasons for bail having been granted on the first set of offences and denied for the second set of offences; whether bail was sought on the later offences; whether there has been revocation of the bail on the first set of offences; the impact if any of the reverse onus provisions of ss. 515(6) or 522(2) of the Criminal Code; whether subsequent charges were withdrawn or stayed; the amount of pre-sentence custody accumulated; the nature and seriousness of the various charges; and the relationship, if any, the charges have to one another: Barnett, at para. 31.

82Mr. Abdelgadir served 85 days in custody for offences that included two charges that related to breaching the conditions of his release on this charge. His original bail was not revoked and he did not seek bail while in custody on those charges. He would have been in a reverse onus situation. The charges were subsequently stayed. In my view, there is a sufficient causative connection to include the 85 days that Mr. Abdelgadir was in custody on other charges in calculating the credit for pre-sentence custody.

83As a result, the total Summers credit is 390 days (260 x 1.5).

Downes Consideration

84The defence also seeks credit for the period during which Mr. Abdelgadir was under house arrest bail.

85The Crown argues that the terms of Mr. Abdelgadir’s release were varied multiple times on his request to be able to work and relocate.

86I recognize that being on bail will always involve a measure of interference with a person’s liberty interests: see R. v. Bullens, 2021 ONCA 421, at para. 4. At the same time, the Court of Appeal has held that it is an “error in principle” for a trial judge to fail to take into account as a mitigating circumstance in sentencing time spent under stringent bail conditions, especially house arrest: R. v. Downes (2006), 79 O.R. (3d) 321, 208 O.A.C. 324, at para. 33. The determination of enhanced credit is not the product of a formula but is within the discretion of the trial judge.

87The criteria to be considered in assessing the weight of the mitigation to be given includes the amount of time spent on bail conditions, the stringency of those conditions, their impact on the offender’s liberty and the ability of the offender to carry on normal relationships, employment and activity. The mitigating effect that such considerations have on the sentence to be imposed falls within the discretion of the trial judge.

88The onus is on the offender to establish the facts supporting the impact of the conditions on a balance of probabilities in accordance with s. 724(3) of the Criminal Code: R. v. Place, 2020 ONCA 546, 166 W.C.B. (2d) 16, at para 20. In addition, the fact that a defendant did not abide by the conditions diminishes the applicable extent of mitigation: Crawford, at para. 190.

89Mr. Abdelgadir was on house arrest bail for a total of approximately three years. In his affidavit, Mr. Abdelgadir deposed that the stringency of the bail conditions had a significant impact on his emotional and mental wellbeing, and his ability to conduct his life, including attending to his mother before her death and attending physiotherapy for his injury.

90In view of the relevant considerations, including the amount of time Mr. Abdelgadir was on bail, the stringency of the terms and the level of interference with Mr. Abdelgadir’s activities, I exercise my discretion to allocate some Downes credit for the time Mr. Abdelgadir spent on bail, although I decline to assign a specific amount to it.

91I am also mindful that Downes credit cannot take the sentence below mandatory minimum or result in a sentence that is disproportionately low: R. v. Panday, 2007 ONCA 598, 87 O.R. (3d) 1 at paras. 24-28, application for leave dismissed, [2008] S.C.C.A. No. 20.

Duncan Consideration

92Mitigation can also be given on account of particularly difficult and punitive presentence custody conditions, including extended time spent on lockdown and a lack of access to facilities. In determining whether any enhanced mitigation should be given, the court will consider both the conditions of the presentence incarceration and the impact of those conditions on the accused: R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754, 133 W.C.B. (2d) 367, at paras. 6-7.

93The defence submits that Mr. Abdelgadir should be given enhanced credit for a portion of his time in presentence custody because of the harsh conditions in which he was held, including lockdowns and triple-bunking at the Maplehurst Correctional Centre (MHCC) and the Toronto South Detention Centre (TSDC).

94The conditions at the TSDC have repeatedly been described by the courts as intolerable, deplorable and excessively harsh. As Molloy J. put it in R. v. Shaikh and Tanoli, 2024 ONSC 774, 2024 W.C.B. 350, at para. 15, the question is not whether some credit should be given, but rather the extent of it.

95The defence did not specify the amount of credit sought. The records show that there were 26 lockdowns and 37 days of triple-bunking at the MHCC. I was not provided with the number of lockdown days at the TSDC.

96Mr. Abdelgadir has submitted an affidavit regarding the conditions of his presentence custody at both the TSDC and MHCC. He was frequently triple-bunked and states that he did not receive necessary medical treatment in a timely manner, which was detrimental to his physical and mental health.

97In R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344, 174 W.C.B. (2d) 88, at para. 52, the Court of Appeal held that “‘Duncan’ credit is not a deduction from the otherwise appropriate sentence, but is one of the factors to be taken into account in determining the appropriate sentence.” The Court of Appeal has stated that quantifying the Duncan credit in the same manner as the “Summers” credit for presentence custody might improperly skew the calculation of the ultimate sentence: Marshall, at para. 53.

98I am mindful of Doherty J.A.’s caution in Marshall that the quantification of Duncan credit could improperly skew the calculation of the ultimate sentence, in the sense that it could lead to a sentence that is disproportionately or artificially low. In the circumstances of this case, I find that some Duncan consideration is warranted. However, I decline to assign a specific number of days and will take it into consideration in the overall sentence.

Ancillary Orders

99The defence did not oppose the ancillary orders sought by the Crown.

Disposition

100After subtracting Summers credit, Downes credit, as well as credit for Duncan consideration, the sentence that remains to be served is 9.5 years.

101For all the foregoing reasons, I sentence Mr. Abdelgadir to imprisonment for 9.5 years for the offence of kidnapping.

102The following ancillary orders shall be made:

(a) Pursuant to s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code, a DNA order; and

(b) Pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code, a weapons prohibition order for life.

“Nishikawa J.”

Released: March 27, 2026