R. v. Stephens, 2026 ONSC 1950

CITATION: R. v. Stephens, 2026 ONSC 1950

COURT FILE NO.: CR-23-50000664-0000

DATE: 20260408

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

• and -

COREY STEPHENS and

JEROME DALEY

Christina Sibian, for the Crown

Simona Petti, for Mr. Stephens

HEARD: March 5, 2025, and

March 30, 2026

M. Forestell J.

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

OF

COREY STEPHENS

Overview

1Corey Stephens entered guilty pleas on March 5, 2025, to five charges: possession of a loaded prohibited firearm; possession of a prohibited device; possession of prohibited devices for the purpose of transfer; and two counts of breaching firearms prohibition orders.

2The case was adjourned for a lengthy period of time to obtain an enhanced pre-sentence report. Submissions on sentence were made on March 30, 2026.

The Circumstances of the Offences

3The circumstances of the offences are that on June 6, 2023, the police, after obtaining a search warrant, stopped the vehicle Mr. Stephens was driving. A search of the car yielded a loaded 40 calibre Glock semi-automatic handgun equipped with an overcapacity magazine.

4Police searched Mr. Stephens’ residence the same day. There they located:

(i) 186 rounds of .40 calibre ammunition, 80 rounds of .223 calibre ammunition, 18 rounds of 7.62 calibre ammunition, 15 rounds of special .38, 20 rounds of .380 calibre ammunition and 50 rounds of .22 calibre ammunition;

(ii) 24 over-capacity magazines; and

(iii) 13 ammunition magazines.

5In June of 2023, Mr. Stephens was subject to five s. 109 weapons prohibition orders dating from 2008, 2009, 2011, 2017 and 2020.

Circumstances of Mr. Stephens

6Mr. Stephens is 38 years old. He will be 39 next month. He was 36 years old at the time of the offences. He has three children aged 9, 13 and 21.

7Mr. Stephens grew up in poverty. He was raised by his mother in two Toronto neighbourhoods which are underserved and marked by violence. He witnessed violence and was the victim of violence.

8Although he showed considerable academic promise in his early years of school, Mr. Stephens was expelled from school for fighting and was ultimately banned from attending any Toronto school. Mr. Stephens experienced anti-Black racism and bullying in the school system. He did not complete high school until around 2020. To his credit, Mr. Stephens has pursued educational opportunities in recent years. He has completed college courses while incarcerated.

9Mr. Stephens has been steadily employed since the age of 14. He is skilled in various trades and has never had difficulty finding work. He is the primary support for his family.

10Mr. Stephens has a criminal record. It begins in 2009 and includes convictions in 2009 and 2011 for trafficking Schedule I substances and a conviction in 2011, for importing a Schedule I substance. His last convictions were in 2020 when he received a sentence of one day after serving the equivalent of six years’ presentence custody for aggravated assault and robbery.

11Mr. Stephens has spent 1,036 days in presentence custody at the Toronto South Detention Centre (“TSDC”). Lockdown records from the TSDC show that Mr. Stephens has been subject to lockdowns for about one-third of his time in custody. They also show that he has been triple-bunked in a cell meant for two inmates for about two thirds of his time in custody. The affidavit from Mr. Stephens describes the dirty conditions of the jail, including bed bugs, mould in the showers, and insects emerging from the drains. During lockdowns, the shower program was frequently cancelled or the time shortened. Telephone privileges were limited, contributing to isolation from family and community support. All of this contributes to heightened tension and violence in the jail.

12To his credit, Mr. Stephens succeeded in completing 23 programmes while in presentence custody. He took advantage of educational opportunities and completed courses in business fundamentals and organizational behaviour.

Positions of the Parties

13The Crown seeks a global sentence of imprisonment of 8 years before credit for pre-sentence custody. The breakdown of the sentence sought by the Crown is: 3.5 years for possession of a loaded gun and overcapacity magazine in the car; 2.5 years consecutive for the possession of the overcapacity magazines for the purpose of transfer; and 2 years consecutive for the breaches of the prohibition orders. The Crown also seeks a DNA order, a forfeiture order, and a s. 109 firearms prohibition for life.

14Mr. Stephens submits that a global sentence of 6.5 years would have been appropriate before consideration of harsh conditions. He submits that the harsh conditions should serve to reduce the sentence by 2.5 years. This would leave 4 years to serve. The credit for his presentence custody at 1.5 to 1 would reduce this to time served. He takes no issue with the ancillary orders sought.

The Appropriate Sentence

15The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to foster respect for the law and to maintain a just, peaceful and safe society. A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. In arriving at an appropriate sentence, I must consider any aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

16In this case, the aggravating factors with respect to the offences are that the gun was in a vehicle and had an overcapacity magazine; it was readily available and carelessly stored; and Mr. Stephens possessed a large quantity of various types of ammunition and magazines in his home. Aggravating factors with respect to Mr. Stephens are that he has a criminal record and he was subject to five separate weapons prohibitions at the time of the offences.

17Mitigating factors are that Mr. Stephens pleaded guilty and accepted responsibility; he has a good work history and has supported his family; and, he has completed many programmes and courses while in custody.

18I have the advantage of an Enhanced Presentence Report that describes Mr. Stephens’ personal history and the impact of anti-Black racism and socio-economic factors on Mr. Stephens’ life.

19Mr. Stephens’ level of moral blameworthiness is reduced by the fact that he is a Black man who grew up in an area that was underserved and over-policed. He witnessed violence, including gun violence and other crimes in his youth. His contact with the police was negative, beginning from an early age. At age seven, he was extensively questioned by the police having witnessed the aftermath of the shooting of a police officer from his balcony.

20His education was impacted by anti-Black racism. Despite being very intelligent and showing academic promise, he was streamed into special classes and later expelled.

21In spite of these obstacles, he has worked steadily and furthered his education.

22A significantly mitigating factor is that Mr. Stephens has been incarcerated in excessively harsh conditions for two years and nine months. He was triple-bunked and locked down. Many of the triple-bunking and lockdown days were sequential. As Molloy J. noted in R. v. Reid, 2026 ONSC 136, the problems at the TSDC are endemic and ongoing. The overcrowding, lockdowns, and lack of access to basic hygiene, exercise, and family contact have, cumulatively, created an environment that is inhumane and a breeding ground for despair and violence.

23In Reid, Molloy J. reduced Mr. Reid’s sentence by 1.7 years because of the harsh conditions experienced during his 800 days at the TSDC. Mr. Stephens, who was incarcerated during the same time period and under similar conditions, submits that he should receive a greater reduction to reflect his additional 236 days in custody.

24In R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344, at paras. 52 and 53, Doherty J. made certain observations about the approach to punitive conditions of presentence custody:

The ‘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. Particularly punitive pretrial incarceration conditions can be a mitigating factor to be taken into account with the other mitigating and aggravating factors in arriving at the appropriate sentence from which the ‘Summers’ credit will be deducted. Because the ‘Duncan’ credit is one of the mitigating factors to be taken into account, it cannot justify the imposition of a sentence which is inappropriate, having regard to all of the relevant mitigating or aggravating factors.

Often times, a specific number of days or months are given as ‘Duncan’ credit. While this quantification is not necessarily inappropriate, it may skew the calculation of the ultimate sentence. By quantifying the ‘Duncan’ credit, only one of presumably several relevant factors, there is a risk the ‘Duncan’ credit will be improperly treated as a deduction from the appropriate sentence in the same way as the ‘Summers’ credit. If treated in that way, the ‘Duncan’ credit can take on an unwarranted significance in fixing the ultimate sentence imposed: R. v. J.B. (2004), 187 O.A.C. 307 (C.A.).

25While Marshall is sometimes interpreted as precluding the quantification of the reduction in sentence for presentence custody, that is not what Justice Doherty wrote in Marshall. It is ‘not necessarily inappropriate’ to quantify the reduction. What is inappropriate is to allow the reduction to reduce the sentence to an unfit sentence.

26I will begin therefore by considering the range of sentences and the otherwise appropriate sentence before considering the extent of the mitigation for harsh conditions.

27There is no question that the firearms offences in this case are extremely serious. Our courts have repeatedly commented on the plague of gun violence in Toronto and the damage it causes to the social fabric of the community. The possession of a loaded gun is, in itself, extremely serious. The addition of overcapacity magazines and large quantities of ammunition compounds the gravity of the offence. Overcapacity magazines increase the lethality of firearms. Mr. Stephens possessed 24 overcapacity magazines for the purpose of transfer.

28It is well-settled law that, in sentencing for firearms offences, denunciation, deterrence, and the protection of the public are the primary sentencing objectives. Generally, exemplary sentences are required for these offences. See: R. v. Nur, 2013 ONCA 677, aff’d 2015 SCC 15; R. v. Mohiadin, 2021 ONCA 122, at para 12.

29The range of sentence for possession of a loaded firearm is generally around three years, even for a first offender. See: Nur; R. v. Ramos, 2023 ONSC 1094.

30Possession of overcapacity magazines for the purpose of transfer is also an offence that would generally attract a penitentiary sentence even for a first offender. Breaches of weapons prohibitions generally attract sentences that are consecutive.

31This is Mr. Stephens’ first firearms offence, but he is not a first offender. The aggravating factors in this case call for a denunciatory sentence. For the possession of the loaded firearm and prohibited device in the car, I find that a sentence of 3.5 years would have been appropriate before consideration of mitigation for excessively harsh conditions of presentence custody. I find that the possession of the overcapacity magazines for transfer also calls for a denunciatory sentence in light of the aggravating factors, including the quantity. I find that a sentence of 2.5 years would have been appropriate. I find that a sentence of 9 months consecutive would be appropriate for each of the breaches of prohibition orders. This would have been a total sentence of 7.5 years before consideration of harsh conditions of presentence custody.

32I have considered the harsh conditions experienced by Mr. Stephens at the TSDC. The conditions are longstanding. They have not been meaningfully addressed in the last decade. If anything, the conditions appear to have deteriorated in recent years. It is now common to find that inmates at the TSDC have not only been locked down in their cells for a large percentage of the time, but they are also regularly triple-bunked in a cell meant for two men. On the current trajectory, the lockdowns, triple-bunking, lack of cleanliness, lack of fresh air, insect infestation and lack of access to basic hygiene may soon combine to reach the level of a breach of s. 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the right to not be subjected to cruel and unusual treatment. This is, however, not the issue before me today. I must consider the conditions of detention within the Marshall framework.

33Within that framework, I find that the sentence must be reduced to reflect the onerous conditions. However, I am bound by Marshall and cannot reduce the sentence below what would be an appropriate sentence. I find that a reduction of the sentence to one in the range of 2.5 years, as sought by Mr. Stephens, would render the sentence inappropriate.

34I find that the sentence should instead be reduced by 1.5 years as mitigation for the harsh conditions. This will bring the sentence from 7.5 to 6 years before statutory credit for presentence custody.

Conclusion

35Therefore, while I would have imposed a global sentence of 7.5 years absent the harsh conditions of presentence custody, instead I impose a global sentence of 6 years, broken down as follows: 3 years for possession of the loaded firearm (Count 1); 2 years concurrent for possession of the prohibited device (Count 3); 2 years consecutive for the possession of the prohibited devices for the purpose of transfer (Count 10); and 6 months on each of the breach charges (Counts 14 and 15), consecutive.

36Mr. Stephens is entitled to statutory or Summers credit for his time in custody. Credit for 1,036 real days at 1.5 to 1 is 1,554 days, or 4 years and 3 months. This will leave a sentence of 1 year and 9 months’ incarceration to serve.

37I make the following ancillary orders:

(a) An order under s. 109(3) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46 that Mr. Stephens is prohibited from possessing any firearm, crossbow, restricted weapon, ammunition and explosive device, for life;

(b) In my view, given the circumstances of the case, a DNA order is appropriate, and I make that order;

(c) A forfeiture order for the items seized.

M. Forestell J.