R. v. Roberts, 2026 ONSC 193

R. v. Roberts, 2026 ONSC 193

CITATION: R. v. Roberts, 2026 ONSC 193

FILE NO.: CR-23-30000609-0000

DATE: 20260130

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

• and -

Michael roberts

COUNSEL:

Jason Gorda and Adriana Moser, for the Crown

Jordana Goldlist, for Michael Roberts

HEARD: September 19, October 24 and December 15, 2025

KELLY J.

Reasons for sentence

1Mr. Michael Roberts was convicted of second-degree murder following a judge alone trial before Garton J. Mr. Roberts shot Mr. Kuba (Jakub) Sudomericky, a stranger, in the parking lot of a Liquor Control Board of Ontario ("LCBO") store.¹ Mr. Roberts now appears before me for sentencing.²

2The imposition of a life sentence without eligibility for parole until Mr. Roberts has served at least 10 years of his sentence is mandatory following a conviction for second-degree murder. However, the sentencing judge may increase the period of parole ineligibility from 10 years up to a maximum of 25 years.

3Crown counsel seeks a period of parole ineligibility of 15 years. Counsel for Mr. Roberts submits that the appropriate period of parole ineligibility is 10 to 12 years. Counsel agrees on the ancillary orders to be imposed.

4I find that the appropriate period of parole ineligibility is 14 years for the offence of second-degree murder. The ancillary orders for DNA, weapons prohibition and non-communication with various members of Mr. Sudomericky's community are granted.

5What follows are my reasons.

The Law: Parole Ineligibility

6Pursuant to ss. 235(1) and 745(c) of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, the sentence to be imposed on a person convicted of second-degree murder is a term of imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole until the person has served at least 10 years of their sentence. However, s. 745.4 of the Criminal Code provides that the sentencing judge may increase the period of ineligibility from 10 years up to a maximum of 25 years, having regard to:

a. the nature of the offence and circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence;

b. the character of the offender; and

c. the recommendation, if any, of the jury.

7On exercising this discretion, Iacobucci J. stated as follows in R. v. Shropshire, at paras. 29:

In permitting a sliding scale of parole ineligibility, Parliament intended to recognize that, within the category of second-degree murder, there will be a broad range of seriousness reflecting varying degrees of moral culpability. As a result, the period of parole ineligibility for second degree murder will run anywhere between a minimum of 10 years and a maximum of 25, the latter being equal to that prescribed for first degree murder.³

8In addition to the statutory considerations regarding parole, I must also consider the purposes of sentencing set out in s. 718 and the principles contained in ss. 718.1 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code. The principles of denunciation and deterrence are the primary purposes to be considered. The statutory ten-year minimum period of parole ineligibility for second-degree murder limits the weight that can be attached to rehabilitation, although it cannot be excluded from consideration.⁴

9Regardless of the period of parole ineligibility imposed, the sentence remains one of life imprisonment. The sentencing judge does not decide when the offender should be paroled but decides the period that he or she must serve before parole can even be considered. It must be remembered that a person sentenced for murder might never be paroled.⁵

The Nature and Circumstances of the Offence

10In considering whether to increase the period of parole ineligibility, I am required to consider the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding it. The facts giving rise to the conviction were set out, in significant detail, in the reasons for judgment of Garton J. I will simply summarize her findings here:

a. Mr. Roberts was at the LCBO store located at 3111 Danforth Avenue in the City of Toronto on October 25, 2020. At trial, he admitted that he was in possession of a loaded semi-automatic firearm at the time.

b. There was a verbal altercation between Mr. Roberts and Mr. Sudomericky at the cash register about social distancing. They were strangers to each other.

c. Mr. Sudomericky told Mr. Roberts to "get the fuck back". Mr. Roberts moved back after being asked to do so by the cashier. Following that, Mr. Sudomericky left the LCBO. Mr. Roberts followed.

d. Mr. Roberts pursued Mr. Sudomericky in the parking lot. A verbal altercation began there. They were facing each other at the time. Mr. Roberts pulled out his firearm at which point Mr. Sudomericky yelled "no, no, no" turned and started running away. Mr. Roberts fired a shot at close range in his direction. The bullet struck Mr. Sudomericky in the lower back, killing him.

e. Mr. Roberts pleaded guilty to manslaughter, a plea that was rejected by Crown counsel. Mr. Roberts testified that he did not have the intent required for murder. Amongst other things, Mr. Roberts testified that he was acting in self-defence and was provoked. He testified that Mr. Sudomericky approached him in the parking lot, came face to face with him, insulted him with a racial slur and pointed a knife at his abdomen.

f. There was a knife found in the area with a fingerprint belonging to Mr. Sudomericky. However, Garton J. found that it was not used during the dispute.

g. Garton J. convicted Mr. Roberts of second-degree murder, rejecting the defence of self-defence and partial defence of provocation.

11A video of the incident was shown during the sentencing proceeding. The altercation began in broad daylight in an LCBO that was occupied by staff and customers. Mr. Sudomericky is seen leaving the LCBO at a leisurely pace. Mr. Roberts departs, following Mr. Sudomericky into the parking lot. There are cars and people in the parking lot during the shooting incident. It is obvious, that others were at risk during the incident but were not injured.

Victim Impact Statements

12In considering the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding it, I must consider the impact on the victims and their community, particularly the family. In this case, eight Victim Impact Statements were filed. The impact on Mr. Sudomericky's community may be summarized as follows:

Miriam (Mimi) Shea is the mother of the deceased. Mr. Sudomericky was 21 years of age at the time of his death. The murder of her son has forever changed Mimi and her family. She suffers daily. She wakes up in a state of terror. She blames herself for her son's death saying"If I'd been a better mother or moved us out of Toronto or been a better partner to his father then maybe he wouldn't have been in that location that day." Mimi feels guilty. She suffers from PTSD and depression. She describes that she avoids people and places from the past to avoid dealing with "the huge elephant in the room or the pity in their faces". The family lost an "incredible" person who they loved so much.

Nancy Shea is an aunt. She describes the loss of Mr. Sudomericky as profound. Amongst other things, the family has been robbed not only of her nephew, but of the future he could have had. His loss has shattered the family. Her own children have "plunged into a darkness they struggle to escape". Mr. Sudomericky's death has left an "irreplaceable void" in their lives. Their heartbreak will never leave them.

Emma Palick is a cousin who grew up with Mr. Sudomericky. Together they skied in the winters and went to cottages in the summer. Ms. Palick describes her cousin as: charismatic, confident, easy going, bright, funny, adventurous and a character. She feels that his death is a horror movie. She thinks of her cousin all the time and does not think she will be able to "move past or come to terms with his death".

Cheyenne Ciandre is a friend. She says that she has never experienced the pain she did on learning of the death of Mr. Sudomericky. She is, at times, inconsolable. She feels that she will be affected by Mr. Sudomericky's death for the rest of her life. She describes his death as a "catastrophic loss".

Sita Gribben is a friend. Mr. Sudomericky was family. Mr. Sudomericky's death has had a negative impact on his mental health. His alcoholism and depression have spiraled out of control. He feels that he has lost another family member.

Jacob Beecher is a friend who is considered family. Mr. Sudomericky's passing has severely affected him. Initially, he turned to substance abuse to "drown his grief". Although he is clean and sober now, the grief still affects him "heavily". He misses his friend "immensely" and "indescribably". He says"I am grateful that I have so many memories with him to look back on, but it crushes me that we will not be able to create any more."

Li-Lien Gibbons is a parent whose children were close friends with Mr. Sudomericky. She described him as "very polite, respectful and sociable", a "special human". He was the first love of her daughter and mentor to her son. Her son described him as a "light in the room" and "gifted when it came to people". Losing him was devastating and nothing can fill that void.

Georgia Moore is a friend. She describes the pain she has suffered since Mr. Sudomericky's death. He was "funny" and "charismatic". His energy was infectious. He was kind. He was a "great friend" and "an even better person". She describes that "the world lost its colour the day that Kuba was killed". The death of Mr. Sudomericky has altered her life in "ways that will never be fixed".

13These are the circumstances of the offence which I have taken into consideration regarding the appropriate period of parole ineligibility.

The Character of Mr. Roberts

14The next statutory consideration is the character of the offender.

Personal Background

15Mr. Roberts's background was provided by way of an Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report ("EPSR"), dated May 5, 2025. The information contained in the EPSR, may be summarized as follows:

a. Mr. Roberts was born on June 10, 2000, in Toronto. He is currently 25 years of age. He was 20 years of age at the time of this offence.

b. Mr. Roberts is the father to one son who is currently five years of age. Mr. Roberts is described as a loving parent and hopes to have a strong relationship with his son in the future. His relationship with his son's mother ended due to his incarceration. However, she has been bringing their son to visit Mr. Roberts while he is in custody.

c. Mr. Roberts' father was born and raised in Jamaica. He emigrated to Canada in his 20's. He qualified as a welder but only worked for one year before he discontinued his employment due to back pain. Since then, he has relied on disability supports.

d. Mr. Roberts' mother was born in Chile. While his mother was employed in various factory positions, she too became dependent on social assistance because of a back ailment.

e. Mr. Roberts grew up in an area of Toronto known as "Cataraqui", in Scarborough (located at Warden and St. Clair Avenues). Although Mr. Roberts describes his family as "poor", his parents did their best to ensure that they had "stuff".

f. Mr. Roberts is the fourth sibling of five. He appears to have a good relationship with his siblings. He also shares a close relationship with his father, stating that his father was "always there for us". He describes his father as protective and willing to address issues as they arose. He was also close to his mother. She was supportive and participated in programs with him when he was a child. Mr. Roberts described himself as a "mama's boy".

g. Mr. Roberts describes that he was bullied during elementary school. His racial identity (his father was Black, and his mother was white) did not allow him to "fit in with the white or Black kids". He felt isolated and antisocial.

h. The bullying persisted and Mr. Roberts began to defend himself. By grade 9, the bullying escalated to his home being shot at on five different occasions. The family describes that Mr. Roberts was the target of the shootings. He did not seek additional protection because he was worried that he would be labelled a "snitch". His reluctance to engage the police relates to his view of them and how they "functioned in his community".

i. Christmas presents were sparse, and food insecurity was prevalent. The family relied on the offerings of the local food bank and charity from neighbours. This led to feelings of shame for the family, including Mr. Roberts.

j. The Roberts family settled in Cataraqui in 2000. They occupied a four-bedroom townhouse. Issues in the neighbourhood included drug use and shootings. Most families lived in poverty. The neighbourhood made Mr. Roberts "fearful" and "paranoid".

k. As I have stated, Mr. Roberts' home was shot at five times between 2015 and 2019. This caused Mr. Roberts to feel "scared""traumatized" and always on "alert" when he "navigated" his environment.

l. Mr. Roberts left the neighbourhood and lived in Kingston for approximately one year. He described this time as "amazing" but had to return because the terms of his probation required it.

m. Mr. Roberts explained why he was armed with a firearm on the day in question. He described that he visited the neighbourhood of his son's mother. While there, he was approached, and pistol whipped. He was scared and angry. He shared that given that his sense of safety was already compromised, this incident motivated him to obtain a firearm for protection.

n. Mr. Roberts advised he began being stopped by police when he was 10 or 11 years of age. He was searched and frisked. He believes the police saw him as a criminal because he was Black. The harassment, he says, has continued until today. He says that he was "beat", and his head was "stomped on" by police during a fireworks display which caused him to lose confidence that they would protect him because he was Black.

o. Mr. Roberts reported that the police were contacted in every instance that their home was shot at. He stated that the police did nothing to protect his family. His sister stated that their family was "never a priority for the police". She felt that their lack of responsiveness and lack of concern for their safety was rooted in racism.

p. As stated above, Mr. Roberts was bullied in school. His attendance at school was sporadic due to issues he faced, but he has obtained his high school diploma since being incarcerated.

q. Mr. Roberts believes that he suffers from PTSD but has not been diagnosed. He wishes to participate in a mental health assessment and access related counseling supports to deal with the stressors he believes have negatively affected his life.

r. Mr. Roberts advises that he smoked two to three marijuana joints per day. He consumes alcohol socially.

s. Mr. Roberts has also had sporadic employment at places such as Canadian Tire, Planter's Peanuts and at various construction companies. When he was arrested, he was assisting his sister by delivering goods for her business. He hopes to become a realtor or construction worker in the future. He wishes to show himself and his son that "I am better than this. I am too young to continue to be involved in a criminal lifestyle."

t. Mr. Roberts continues to have the support of his family. They describe him as a "hard worker""loyal""honest" and "caring". He is "respectful" and "kind". They are hoping that he can have a fresh start in a better environment so that he may live a prosocial life.

u. Mr. Roberts, too, has expressed his willingness and determination to change his life's path for the "better".

v. Mr. Roberts has a criminal record with the following entries as a youth:

Date	Offence	Penalty
April 10, 2015	Assault cause bodily harm	1 month of open custody and 2 months' custody; supervision order of 15 months, in addition to 77 days of pre-sentence custody
April 30, 2015	Possession of property obtained by crime under $5,000	Probation for 12 months, in addition to 3 days of pre-sentence custody
October 2, 2018	Possession of property obtained by crime under $5,000	Probation for 15 months

w. Mr. Roberts has only one entry as an adult. The incident occurred prior to his arrest on these offences but the conviction occurred after his arrest on this offence:

Date	Offence	Penalty
August 8, 2022	Assault a Peace Officer	1 day, in addition to 30 days of pre-sentence custody, together with a discretionary weapons prohibition for five years.

16In the report, Mr. Roberts has expressed remorse for the shooting of Mr. Sudomericky. He said he regrets arming himself with a firearm. He expressed concern for the family and feels sorry for them. He wishes he had had more control over his actions, but he did not. He feels that he has "grown up" while he has been incarcerated.

17Mr. Roberts expressed remorse at the sentencing hearing. He apologized to the family of Mr. Sudomericky. His apology appeared to be sincere.

18Several letters were filed in support of Mr. Roberts. They may be summarized as follows:

Fabiola Donoso is Mr. Roberts' mother. She describes that Mr. Roberts has "always been a caring and supportive son, and without him, there has been a heavy void in our lives". She says that he is a "good boy who just needs a chance to show that he can do better and live the right way".

Donovan Roberts is Mr. Roberts' father. Again, he writes that this offence is out of character. He describes his son as "unproblematic, gentle and someone who mostly kept to himself". This offence has caused his son to leave his choices behind (i.e. turning to drugs and possessing a gun) so that he can be a role model for his son. He believes that his son is willing to change and has the "potential to make a positive difference in his life, his child's life, and in our community".

Chantell Roberts is Mr. Roberts' sister. She describes that the offence giving rise to Mr. Roberts' conviction is totally out of character and not reflective of the man she knows. He is loyal, has shown determination and has a strong work ethic. Since the shooting, he has shown "real remorse, shame, and regret for his actions". He is committed to change. She will provide emotional support and encouragement upon his release. She is confident that he can move on in a "responsible and positive way".

Shamell Roberts is Mr. Roberts' sister. Amongst his other accomplishments while incarcerated, she describes that Mr. Roberts has devoted himself to becoming closer to God. This has brought him strength, guidance, and a sense of peace. He has positive outlets that have given him a healthier focus. She states that Mr. Roberts is focused on continuing his education, seeking stable employment, and building a meaningful life.

Armani Roberts is Mr. Roberts' son. He says that he misses his father. He describes his father as good. He thinks of his father often and the happiness he experiences when he hears his voice, plays video games with him and goes to the park.

Roseann Barrowes is an aunt. She believes that Mr. Roberts is committed to rehabilitation and a successful return to the community. She describes him as "quiet, sweet, loving, intelligent and respectful". She will assist in providing a safe and positive environment upon his release.

Salvador Donoso is Mr. Roberts' uncle. He states"Despite the challenges life has presented him, he has consistently shown strength, determination, and the ability to learn while walking with faith." He describes Mr. Roberts as a "loving person who puts others before himself". Mr. Roberts as selfless. He believes that his nephew's resilience demonstrates that he is capable of moving forward in the right direction.

Dejour Jones Campbell is Mr. Roberts' brother-in-law. Although he acknowledges that Mr. Roberts has made mistakes in the past, he has witnessed tremendous growth by Mr. Roberts during his incarceration. He has taken accountability and is dedicated to rehabilitation. He states"Michael is more than his mistakes – he is a good person at heart, with strong family values and the capacity to contribute positively to society".

Megan MacDonald is the Manager of the Education Program at Amadeusz. She confirms that Mr. Roberts voluntarily participated in the program for continuing education. She describes Mr. Roberts as "dedicated, capable, and [an] engaged participant". He attended regularly, completed assignments and took initiative in learning. His Ontario Secondary School Diploma shows that Mr. Roberts graduated from high school in October 2023.

Keihlah Belleau is the Native Inmate Liaison Officer at the Toronto East Detention Centre. He describes that Mr. Roberts has shown meaningful engagement and respect while participating in the Indigenous culture and spiritual programming. He has observed "genuine reflection" and "personal growth" in Mr. Roberts. He states that Mr. Roberts has taken accountability for his actions and has begun to make positive changes.

Conditions While Incarcerated

19Since his arrest, Mr. Roberts has been incarcerated at the Toronto East Detention Centre ("TEDC") and the Central North Detention Centre ("CNDC").

20Mr. Roberts describes that the conditions at the TEDC are rough due to posturing and name calling. He has been beaten while incarcerated and has had to defend himself when prevented from using the phone, etc. He has sustained a number of injuries such as a broken front tooth, knuckle and elbow. During recovery, he was sent to the "hole" and was in his cell 24 hours per day. He has been prevented from being housed in the medical dorms and access to other ranges due to his "STG" (safety threat group) label (assigned to him when he lived in Cataraqui and interacted with the police, although Mr. Roberts denies a gang affiliation).

21Records from the TEDC from October 26, 2020, to March 17, 2025, and again from June 27, 2025, to September 8, 2025, show that 431 of those days were spent in lockdown, although 176 were for Mr. Roberts' own behaviour. During that time, as well, he was housed with two inmates for 779 nights (of the 1,878 nights he spent there to December 15, 2025).

22Records from the CNDC show that Mr. Roberts was in lockdown for 32 days, two of which were for his behavior. Of the 30 days spent in lockdown, all but seven were due to "staffing issues".

23Other records show the following regarding Mr. Roberts' pre-sentence incarceration:

a. Mr. Roberts was housed in the 'stabilization unit' on 12 occasions due to his behaviour. During this time, attempts are made to let inmates out of their cells for a minimum of two hours. Mr. Roberts did not receive the full two hours on 105 occasions.

b. Mr. Roberts was housed in the "SAFER level Maximum Unit" from January 14 to February 15, 2022, and again from July 16 to November 21, 2022. The SAFER program classifies inmates based on their history, including misconducts. On 97 occasions, Mr. Roberts was not let out of his cell for the full two hours.

c. While in the general population, due to staffing shortages, Mr. Roberts was locked down 188 times. He was locked down due to security issues on 38 occasions.

24Mr. Roberts has suffered from COVID-19 on two occasions while incarcerated.

25Mr. Roberts was a server at the TEDC but believes he was transferred to the CNDC in mid-March 2025 due to speaking to his superiors about the enforcement of certain rules that negatively affected him and his fellow inmates.

26Mr. Roberts described the following negative conditions which resulted from the lockdowns:

a. No space to walk in;

b. No privacy;

c. No showers, resulting in "bird baths" (i.e. showering in the sink); and,

d. Limited access to the phone.

27Mr. Roberts described the CNDC as "the worst place in the world". He testified that it is dirty and there are incessant lockdowns. He believed that he was grouped with other Black inmates on "max ranges" that he describes as "constant in the carceral system". He was unable to have family visits due to the distance from his family's home.

28Mr. Roberts was the subject of 33 "misconducts or occurrence reports" during the time he was incarcerated. On occasion, Mr. Roberts was the victim of an incident. On others, he was accused and found guilty of assaultive behaviour for things such as fights and threats on other inmates and correctional officers. Other incidents included possession of contraband. On several occasions, Mr. Roberts was found not guilty of the misconduct alleged.

29While incarcerated, Mr. Roberts completed his GED and participated in the following programs: Anger Management (January 06, 2022), Anger Management (March 14, 2023), Anger Management (December 01, 2020), Changing Habits (March 11, 2021), Goal Setting (March 09, 2021), Looking for Work (March 25, 2021), Managing Stress (January 27, 2022), Managing Stress (December 12, 2020), Recognizing Healthy Relationships (March 13, 2023), Recognizing Healthy Relationships (April 15, 2021), Recognizing Healthy Relationships (April 09, 2021), Substance Use (December 11, 2020), Supportive relationships (January 06, 2022), Thoughts to Action (December 01, 2020), Understanding Feelings (February 09, 2022), Understanding Feelings (January 08, 2021), Use of Leisure Time (February 09, 2022) and Use of Leisure Time (January 08, 2021).

Recommendations of the Jury

30The third matter that a sentencing judge is required to consider in determining whether to increase the parole ineligibility period is any recommendation made by the jury. Of course, there were no recommendations made by the jury as this matter proceeded before Garton J., sitting alone.

Analysis

31The issue for me to determine is whether the time that Mr. Roberts must wait before being considered for parole should be increased beyond the minimum period of 10 years for the offence of second-degree murder.

32In each case where the issue of parole ineligibility is considered, the offender will be a person who, without lawful justification, has not only killed someone but had the intent to kill or meant to cause harm knowing it would likely kill the victim. A conviction for murder will always be founded on inherently serious conduct deserving of the significant sanction of imprisonment for life.⁶

33Section 754 of the Criminal Code, however, does not require unusual circumstances to justify a deviation from the minimum period of parole ineligibility. Extending the parole ineligibility period is not restricted to cases involving extreme brutality or the worst offenders. However, it is only those circumstances that can be said to be aggravating beyond the essential elements for second-degree murder that will justify an increase above the 10-year minimum parole ineligibility period for second-degree murder.⁷

34In determining an appropriate sentence for Mr. Roberts, regard must also be had to the sentencing objectives in s. 718 of the Criminal Code. Deterrence and denunciation are the most important factors to be considered in sentencing Mr. Roberts, although rehabilitation will also be considered.

35A further consideration is that all sentences must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender as set out in s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code. The gravity of the offence, in this case, is significant.

36Sentencing judges must also consider the principle of parity: similar offenders who commit similar offences in similar circumstances should receive similar sentences, pursuant to s. 718.2(b) of the Criminal Code.⁸

37I have been referred to cases in which the courts considered the appropriateness of increasing parole ineligibility for persons convicted of second-degree murder. I have considered all of them in reaching my decision and observe that no two cases are alike. However, I refer to the case of R. v. Hayles-Wilson,⁹ where Code J. addressed the range of parole ineligibility period for second degree murder involving handguns. He set out the ranges, at paras. 19 and 21-29 of his reasons. They were summarized in R. v. Jaleem Abdella-Smith at para. 36:

At the bottom end of the range are cases where a 12-year parole ineligibility period has been imposed. These involve circumstances such as an impulsive shooting by someone licensed to own his gun; less public venues for the shooting; youthful offenders; no criminal record; good prospects of rehabilitation; the offence was out of character, and/or the offender had changed and gained insight into his prior behaviour; a unanimous jury recommendation of the minimum ten year parole ineligibility period: see e.g. R. v. Maciel, 2007 ONCA 496; R. v. Paredes (2014), 2014 ONCA 910, 317 C.C.C. (3d) 415 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Lewis, 2012 ONSC 2488.

In the middle of the range are cases where parole ineligibility periods of 14 to 16 years have been imposed. These involved circumstances such as multiple shots fired in a public place; multiple victims; elements of impulsiveness to the offence, including provoking behaviour by a victim; motiveless, impulsive and senseless shootings; shootings arising from a 'a definite plan' to 'shoot someone' though not necessarily kill them (Monney); accused routinely carried a loaded handgun; offender was a 'committed gangster'; youthful offenders with minor records; youthful offenders with relatively serious prior criminal records, including firearms prohibitions; some prospects for rehabilitation: see e.g. R. v. Danvers, supra; R. v. Grant (2016), C.C.C. (3d) 514 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Doucette (2015), 2015 ONCA 583, 328 C.C.C. (3d) 211 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Monney, supra; R. v. John, 2011 ONSC 3313; R. v. Stewart 2008 70846 (ON SC), [2008] O.J. No. 5449 (S.C.J.).

At the top end of the range are cases where parole ineligibility periods of 18 to 22 years have been imposed. These involve circumstances such as premeditation; planning and preparation; shots in the double-digits with a semi-automatic handgun; multiple victims or serious risk to multiple victims, including innocent bystanders; lengthy criminal records for violence, including prior shootings; an offender 'firmly entrenched in the criminal lifestyle'; a gang member; no possibility of rehabilitation: see e.g. R. v. Weese, 2016 ONCA 449; R. v. Chambers, 2018 ONSC 2070; R. v. Belic (2008), 76 W.C.B. (2d) 508 (Ont. S.C.J.); R. v. Sarrazin, 2000 Carswell Ont. 5078.¹⁰ [Emphasis original]

38Situating an offender such as Mr. Roberts in his proper place amongst the precedents is fact specific and an inexact science. As stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Lacasse"Sentencing ranges are nothing more than summaries of the minimum and maximum sentences imposed in the past, which serve in any given case as guides for the application of all the relevant principles and objectives."¹¹ However, I find that Mr. Roberts falls in the middle range set out in Hayles-Wilson. This was a senseless shooting.

39In considering the period of parole ineligibility for Mr. Roberts, I find the following to be the aggravating factors:

a. Mr. Roberts went to the LCBO store in broad daylight carrying a hidden firearm. He put members of our community at risk when he did so.

b. This was not an impulsive act, as Mr. Roberts chose to leave with the intent of following Mr. Sudomericky out of the store.

c. Mr. Roberts had his hand in his satchel, where he kept his firearm, as he left the store, showing an intent to use it.

d. Mr. Roberts approached Mr. Sudomericky, in a populated parking lot while armed with a firearm, again putting members of our public at risk.

e. Mr. Roberts chose to use that firearm, pointing it at Mr. Sudomericky in broad daylight with numerous people in the area in their cars, in the store, and in the parking lot.

f. After Mr. Roberts pulled the firearm, Mr. Sudomericky screamed, said "no", turned around, and fled. Mr. Roberts chose to follow Mr. Sudomericky – it was not spontaneous nor was it impulsive when he did so. Mr. Roberts followed Mr. Sudomericky through the parking lot and as he ran towards the street.

g. Mr. Roberts chose to fire his illegal firearm once, hitting Mr. Sudomericky in the back and killing him. Again, this occurred in a very public place, putting others at risk.

h. The impact on Mr. Sudomericky's family and the community is immense. It is unimaginable to deal with the murder of a loved one but even more so when the circumstances are examined: being shot as the result of a verbal dispute over social distancing.

i. A shooting of a stranger in broad daylight in an LCBO parking lot is a shock to our community. No one is immune from gun violence in our community. The offence was horrific.

j. Although relatively minor, Mr. Roberts has a criminal record. There are several misconducts that have accumulated while Mr. Roberts has been incarcerated.

40In considering the period of parole ineligibility for Mr. Roberts, I find the following to be the mitigating factors:

a. Mr. Roberts is currently 25 years of age and was 20 years of age at the time of the offence. He is young.

b. He has a relatively minor record that is dated. Mr. Roberts does not have entries on his record dealing with firearms.

c. Mr. Roberts has a supportive family and is the father of one young son.

d. He has been pro-socially employed in the past which bodes well for his rehabilitation.

e. Mr. Roberts says he knew that Mr. Sudomericky was in possession of a knife at the time of the offence, although Garton J. found that it was not used during the altercation.

f. There was one shot discharged by Mr. Roberts, as opposed to multiple shots.

g. Mr. Roberts has been incarcerated at various institutions and subject to the harsh conditions there while also suffering health issues.

h. Mr. Roberts has shown remorse.

41I am required to, and I have taken judicial notice of and considered the factors set out in the decision of R. v. Morris¹² in mitigation of Mr. Roberts sentence. I accept that systemic anti-Black racism in Toronto exists, and that Mr. Roberts has been affected by it in some ways throughout his life.

42I have considered the conditions of Mr. Roberts' stay in the detention centres and the principles set out in R. v. Lamba.¹³ I accept that Mr. Roberts has experienced conditions that are more difficult or punitive, despite his misconducts. Many lockdowns were the result of staff shortages, something beyond Mr. Roberts' control. I am aware that conditions in the institutions have become harsher both during and since the pandemic.¹⁴ I have considered these circumstances as mitigating.

The Sentence Imposed

43This is a very serious offence that has had devastating consequences for several people. A sentence of life imprisonment is mandatory for the death of Mr. Sudomericky but is also manifestly fit and appropriate. The nature and circumstances of the offence justify an increase of parole ineligibility.

44Mr. Roberts' difficult background cannot diminish the seriousness of this offence and the role he played in it. The principles of deterrence and denunciation remain paramount considerations. As I have stated, this murder was senseless.

45After having considered the totality of the circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that the sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence are met by the imposition of a life sentence with parole ineligibility above the minimum for the murder of Mr. Sudomericky. When I take all factors into account, including the facts, the impact, the harsh circumstances of Mr. Roberts' pre-sentence custody, anti-Black racism, his age, his criminal history, etc., I find that the appropriate sentence is life imprisonment with no parole eligibility until Mr. Roberts has served 14 years.

46It must not be forgotten that the sentence to be imposed in this case is life imprisonment. The 14-year period of parole ineligibility does not mean that Mr. Roberts will be released on parole after serving 14 years. It only means that this is when he first becomes eligible for parole. Whether he will be released will be up to the Parole Board, and that decision will be based in part on how Mr. Roberts conducts himself between now and then.

The Ancillary Orders

47Because Mr. Roberts has been convicted of an indictable offence involving the use of violence that is punishable by life imprisonment, a prohibition order under s. 109(1)(a) of the Criminal Code is mandatory. Pursuant to s. 109(2) of the Criminal Code, I direct that Mr. Roberts be prohibited from possessing any firearm, crossbow, prohibited or restricted weapon, ammunition, and explosive substance for life.

48Murder is a primary designated offence within the meaning of s. 487.04 of the Criminal Code and accordingly, in these circumstances, a DNA order is mandatory. There will be a DNA sample order made under s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code.

49Pursuant to s. 743.21 of the Criminal Code, I order that Mr. Roberts have no contact (direct or indirect) while he is serving his sentence with Miriam Shea, Emma Palick, Nancy Shea, Li-Lien Gibbons, Sita Gribben, Jacob Beecher, Cheyenne Ciandre, Lukas Sudomericky, Jason Schell, Padraig Cullen, Sonnet Rosato, Tom Yilmaz and Dee Pansh.

Kelly J.

Footnotes

1. 12024 ONSC 3832
2. 2At the time of sentencing, Garton J. had retired. I was assigned to conduct the sentencing hearing and to impose sentence.
3. 31995 47 (SCC), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 227, at paras. 27 and 29 ("Shropshire").
4. 4R. v. McKnight (1999), 1999 3717 (ON CA), 44 O.R. (3d) 263 (C.A.).
5. 5R. v. Trudeau (1987), 24 O.A.C. 376.
6. 6R. v. Pandurevic, 2013 ONSC 3323, 2013 CarswellOnt 7716, at para. 28.
7. 7R. v. Kim, 2014 ONSC 2043, 2014 CarswellOnt 4864, at para. 13.
8. 8R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, [2020] 1 S.C.R. 424, at paras. 30-33; R. v. Pearce, 2021 ONCA 239, 71 C.R. (7th) 328, at paras. 17-18; R. v. Courtney, 2012 ONCA 478, 294 O.A.C. 346, at para. 4.
9. 9R. v. Hayles-Wilson, 2018 ONSC 4337, 2018 CarswellOnt 11760, upheld 2022 ONCA 790.
10. 10R. v. Jaleem Abdella-Smith, 2025 ONSC 3765.
11. 112015 SCC 64, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 1089, at para. 57.
12. 122021 ONCA 680, 159 O.R. (3d) 641
13. 132024 ONCA 778
14. 14R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344