CITATION: R. v. Ellis, 2026 ONSC 2025
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
– and –
ISAIAH ELLIS
S. Ford, for the Crown
T. Evangelista, for the Defence
HEARD: September 4, 2025, and March 6, and 27, 2026 at Welland
THE HONOURABLE JUstice A. J. Ohler
REASONS FOR SENTENCE[^1]
1On September 4, 2025, Isaiah Ellis entered guilty pleas to two offences:
Joshua DELANEY and Isaiah ELLIS, on or about the 28th day of February, in the year 2023, at the City of Thorold and elsewhere in the Central South Region, did kidnap J.U., with intent to cause him to be confined against his will, contrary to section 279, subsection (1.1) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Isaiah ELLIS, on or about the 28th day of February, in the year 2023, at the City of Thorold and elsewhere in the Central South Region, did, without lawful excuse, point a firearm, namely a rifle, at another person, namely J.M., contrary to section 87, subsection (2) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
2On May 2, 2025, Joshua Delaney pled guilty to the lesser included offence of unlawful confinement pursuant to s. 279(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. He was sentenced to a term of five years imprisonment and ancillary orders.
The Facts of the Offence
3On the entry of the guilty pleas, the Crown read in an agreed statement of facts, made exhibit 1 on the hearing. The following is a summary of those facts.
4Joshua Delaney is Mr. Ellis’ older biological brother. They were both raised by the same set of foster parents, though Mr. Ellis was eventually adopted. At the time of the offence, Mr. Delaney and Mr. Ellis were living together in St. Catharines, Ontario.
5On February 28, 2023, Mr. Ellis and Mr. Delaney were in the company of two youth, E.S. and I.O., both of whom were 16 years old. All four would be charged with offences relating to the events of that day. Mr. Delaney, E.S., and I.O. entered guilty pleas with respect to their involvement before Mr. Ellis’ pleas.
6In the afternoon of February 28, Mr. Delaney drove Mr. Ellis, E.S., and I.O. to the home of 15-year-old J.U. in Thorold, Ontario. Mr. Delaney was driving his own car, an older model Chevrolet Impala. The party of four arrived at J.U.’s home at approximately 3:40 p.m. J.U. walked out to the car; Mr. Ellis drew a rifle, pointed it at J.U. and told him to get in.
7J.U. got into the backseat, sitting between the two youths, both of whom were armed with knives. J.U.’s cellphone was taken from him.
8For the next hour and a half, Mr. Delaney drove around the area. The movement of the Impala was tracked by cellphones belonging to Mr. Delaney and J.U. At 3:41 p.m., J.U.’s cellphone left his home, travelled to a gas station and then to a park.
9Over the next 11 minutes, the party of four questioned J.U. about where they could find his friend, 15-year-old J.M. They spoke about how they were going to get paid for finding J.M.
10While inside the car, Mr. Ellis rested the rifle on the centre console between the front seats, draping his coat over the stock. The barrel of the rifle was pointed at J.U. He told him, “If you move, I’ll shoot.”
11Mr. Ellis unlawfully possessed the firearm, which he used to threaten and intimidate the victim. As subsequent events would confirm, the rifle was loaded.
12Still at the park, the party of four attempted to use J.U.’s cellphone to contact J.M. Mr. Ellis brandished a hammer and continued to intimidate J.U. Mr. Delaney discouraged Mr. Ellis, stating that they “needed [J.M.] first.”
13Mr. Delaney then drove to J.M.’s home in Wainfleet, Ontario, arriving at about 5:10 p.m.
14Mr. Ellis told J.U. to walk to the front door of the house and ask for J.M. Mr. Ellis accompanied him to the front door. J.M. came outside and followed J.U. and Mr. Ellis down the driveway to the car. J.U. got back inside.
15Mr. Ellis and E.S. told J.M. to get in the car. J.M. refused. Mr. Ellis drew the rifle and pointed it at J.M.’s back. A physical altercation between J.M. and Mr. Ellis ensued. The rifle discharged. Thankfully, no one was struck by the shell.
16Mr. Delaney ran to assist Mr. Ellis. E.S. engaged with J.U. I.O. stood by and watched.
17On hearing the fight in the driveway, J.M.’s father ran outside, got into the Impala, and drove it into a ditch. J.U. and J.M. ran inside the house. E.S. and I.O. fled on foot. Mr. Delaney remained at the scene.
18Mr. Ellis drew a knife and engaged J.M.’s father in a verbal argument. Mr. Ellis, still carrying the rifle, then climbed into the ditch, pulled the front license plate off the car, then fled on foot. A nearby trail camera captured Mr. Ellis carrying a license plate. He was no longer carrying the rifle, which police never recovered.
19E.O., I.S., and Mr. Delaney were all arrested in the area around J.M.’s home.
20Police found one Remington .22 calibre casing on the driveway. Mr. Delaney consented to a search of his car. Inside, police found a black hammer, a black folding knife, and a black backpack containing one spent .22 calibre casing and two live rounds. Subsequent analysis would establish that the casing in the trunk and the casing on the driveway had been fired from the same rifle.
21On March 2, 2023, Mr. Ellis was arrested outside his home in St. Catharines. Following the execution of a search warrant, police found the clothing Mr. Ellis was wearing on February 28. They also found two iPhones, a black BB gun, a hatchet/hammer/multitool, and suspected controlled substances. Gunshot residue was detected on Mr. Ellis’ jacket. Swabs taken from Mr. Delaney, E.S., and I.O. did not reveal any gunshot residue.
22The facts above establish that, on February 28, 2023, Mr. Ellis kidnapped J.U. and pointed a firearm at J.M.
Circumstances of the Offender
23At the time of the offences, Mr. Ellis was 18 years old. He did not have an adult criminal record, though there was one prior finding of guilt under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, S.C. 2002, c.1.
24Since his arrest, Mr. Ellis has been held in custody at the Niagara Detention Centre (“NDC”) and the Central East Correctional Centre (“CECC”). He has been convicted of two counts of assault committed while in custody at NDC; the sentences imposed for these offences have been served. The Crown and the defence agreed that time spent serving these sentences (a total of 120 days) ought to be deducted from time spent in pre-sentence custody.
25Following the entry of the guilty pleas, sentencing was adjourned for the preparation of a Gladue report and pre-sentence report.
26In a letter dated November 14, 2025, Aboriginal Legal Services reported that Mr. Ellis’ adoptive mother is Cree; his biological parents are not. Mr. Ellis is not an Indigenous person for the purpose of a Gladue report.
27On the hearing, the court had the benefit of a pre-sentence report and letters from both of Mr. Ellis’ adoptive parents.
28The materials establish that Mr. Ellis had a difficult start to life. At a very young age, he and Mr. Delaney were taken into care by child protective services, as both of his biological parents struggled with drug and alcohol abuse.
29When Mr. Ellis was 18 months old, and Mr. Delaney was just three-and-a-half, both boys were placed with Jim and Joanne Ellis, long-time foster parents. For a period of time, child protective services tried to work with his biological parents towards reunification. Mr. Ellis’ biological father was successful in obtaining primary care with his mother as a co-parent. Both boys eventually returned to the Ellis home.
30After four years, Jim and Joanne made the decision to adopt Mr. Ellis. Mr. Delaney was seven years old at the time; while he did not want to be adopted, he did want to stay in the Ellis family home. Some years later, as a result of his own behavioural issues, Mr. Delaney was moved to a group home.
31Joanne wrote in her letter to the court that Mr. Ellis was a cheerful and loving child, despite exhibiting signs of neglect. He was very closely bonded to his brother. When he began preschool, Joanne began to notice behavioural issues; he was eventually diagnosed with Alcohol Related Neurodevelopment Disorder (“ARND”) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”). The defence filed two reports prepared during Mr. Ellis’ childhood in support of these diagnoses. Both Jim and Joanne believe that these diagnoses make it more difficult for Mr. Ellis to manage his emotions and impulses.
32As a child, Mr. Ellis was a very talented athlete, particularly in soccer. On entering high school, he lost his interest in sports and began spending time with the wrong crowd.
33When Mr. Ellis was 16 years old, and during the COVID-19 pandemic, Joanne became very ill. The decision was made to move to the Ottawa area to be closer to extended family. Mr. Ellis wanted to stay in the Niagara region with Mr. Delaney. Jim and Joanne believed that Mr. Delaney had his own life in order, and they supported the brothers moving into an apartment together.
34According to both of his parents, the last three years spent in custody have had a significant impact on Mr. Ellis. He has expressed remorse for his actions and now understands the harm he caused to the victims and to his own family. He is taking steps towards his future and completed his high school credits while incarcerated at NDC. He would like to attend college in the Ottawa area, where he intends to relocate. Jim and Joanne have pledged to support him in making a fresh start.
35Mr. Ellis told the pre-sentence report writer that he considers his adoptive parents his true parents, and that they have provided him with a loving and stable family.
36Joanne is Cree. She was raised by her mother in Grimsby, Ontario. During her childhood, she did not participate in many traditions. Over time, her culture has become more important to her and she has learned more, which she has shared with her family. Mr. Ellis identifies as an Indigenous person, though he does not have Indigenous ancestry.
37Mr. Ellis admitted to the pre-sentence report writer that, after he moved in with his brother, he began supporting himself through criminal activity.
38According to the writer, Mr. Ellis described the offence as a “mistake” and that he never intended to hurt anyone. The writer quotes Mr. Ellis as saying, “Just because I point it [the rifle] doesn’t mean I want to harm them.” The writer’s impression was that Mr. Ellis acknowledged his actions were wrong “while suggesting the situation could have been worse.”
39Mr. Ellis admitted to prior substance abuse including alcohol, cannabis, and MDMA. He has been sober in custody. He reported that his mental health has deteriorated; he is depressed. His maternal grandmother and a cousin have died while he was in jail. He also witnessed a violent assault on another inmate which resulted in death; he continues to feel the impacts of that trauma.
40Mr. Ellis displayed some insight into the harm he has caused and acknowledged his actions were wrong. He identified substance abuse and a negative peer group as influencing his offending. He is hopeful for a second chance. He has participated in anger management programs to better manage his emotions and told the writer that he is “trying so hard in such a negative place to be positive.”
41The writer concludes the report as follows:
To his credit, the subject demonstrates some insight into the factors contributing to his criminal involvement and has expressed a desire to pursue a conventional lifestyle. It appears his period on remand has exposed him to the consequences of his actions and motivated a desire for a second chance.
42Mr. Ellis addressed the court on this hearing, reading from a letter to the court. He apologized to J.U., J.M., and their families, as well as his own. He wrote that, at the time of the offences, he thought he was above the law. Having had three years to reflect, he acknowledges his immaturity and now knows he does not want to live a criminal lifestyle. He has tried to use his time in custody productively, completing his high school credits and anger management programs. He has a plan for the future, involving a fresh start in a new region and asks the court for a second chance.
Victim Impact
43J.U. and J.M. declined to provide victim impact statements for this hearing. That said, I am prepared to find that the events were traumatic; J.U. was kidnapped at gunpoint and J.M. had a rifle pointed at his back. The rifle was loaded; it was by great good fortune that when the rifle inadvertently discharged no one was hurt. I have no difficulty inferring that both J.U. and J.M. and their families have been impacted by these offences.
The Position of the Parties
44Pursuant to s. 279(1.1)(a.1) of the Criminal Code, where a non-restricted firearm is used in the commission of the offence of kidnapping, this court must impose a minimum sentence of four years imprisonment. Where the victim of the offence is under 16 years of age, s. 279(1.1)(a.2) provides for a minimum sentence of five years imprisonment.
45The offence of pointing a firearm carries a maximum term of imprisonment of five years imprisonment. There is no mandatory minimum.
46The Crown seeks a sentence in the range of seven to seven-and-a-half years imprisonment for the kidnapping of J.U. and 18 to 24 months imprisonment for pointing a firearm at J.M., to be served consecutively, for a global sentence in the range of eight-and-a-half to nine years imprisonment.
47The Crown submits that based on the objective seriousness of the offences and aggravating factors in this case, a sentence of eight-and-a-half to nine years imprisonment is necessary to give effect to the primary sentencing objective of denunciation and specific and general deterrence.
48The Crown also seeks a DNA order, s. 109 weapons prohibition for life, s. 743.21 non-communication order, and forfeiture order. The defence does not oppose any of the ancillary orders.
49The defence seeks the mandatory minimum sentence of five years imprisonment on the kidnapping offence and a six-month sentence for pointing a firearm, to be served concurrently. The defence does not dispute the ancillary orders sought.
The Principles of Sentencing
50In determining the appropriate sentence for Mr. Ellis, I must impose a sentence that gives effect to the fundamental purpose of sentencing as set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code: to protect society and contribute to respect for the law, and the maintenance of a just, peaceful, and safe society.
51The sentence imposed must serve one or more of the objectives set out in s. 718:
(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;
(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;
(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.
52Section 718.01 provides that when a court imposes a sentence for an offence that involves the abuse of a person under the age of 18, it shall give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence. The words “primary consideration” prescribe an ordering of sentencing objectives; while other sentencing objectives are still relevant and must be considered, the effect of s. 718.01 is that other sentencing objectives cannot be elevated to equal or higher priority: R. v. Lis, 2020 ONCA 551, 152 O.R. (3d) 125, at paras. 47-48.
53The fundamental principle of sentencing is codified in s. 718.1: a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. A proportionate sentence is arrived at by considering all relevant aggravating and mitigating factors. This includes the statutory aggravating factors set out in s. 718.2(a).
54The statutory aggravating factor relevant in this case is:
(ii.2) evidence that the offender involved a person under the age of 18 years in the commission of the offence.
55Both E.S. and I.O. were 16 years old at the time they were involved in the commission of these offences. J.U. was 15 years old and used by Mr. Ellis to draw J.M. out of his home.
56Other statutory principles relevant in this case include s. 718.2(b), that a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances, and s. 718.2(c), that where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh.
57Finally, the principle of restraint is codified in s. 718.2(e) – that all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders.
58There is no question in this case that a term of imprisonment is necessary. That said, the principle of restraint also includes that, when incarceration is necessary, the court must impose the shortest sentence of imprisonment that will achieve the various purposes of sentencing: R. v. Batisse, 2009 ONCA 114, 93 O.R. (3d) 643, at paras. 32-35; R. v. Ali, 2022 ONCA 736, 164 O.R. (3d) 81, at paras. 40-42; R. v. A.B., 2023 ONCA 254, at para. 55.
59The principle of restraint applies with particular force when sentencing a youthful first offender: R. v. Priest (1996), 1996 1381 (ON CA), 30 O.R. (3d) 538 (C.A.), at p. 545.
Sentencing Case Law
60The Crown and the defence provided a number of cases in support of their position on the appropriate sentence for the kidnapping conviction. No two cases are entirely alike; sentencing is an individualized exercise. That said, sentences imposed on similarly situated offenders for similar offences can provide the court with the range of sentence to impose.
61There is support in the case law for the seven-year sentence sought by the Crown. In many of the cases, the sentence imposed on youthful first offenders is higher. For instance, in R. v. Hernandez, 2009 BCSC 474, sentences of 12 and 13 years were imposed on 20-year-old first offenders who kidnapped an adult man and held him for three days.
62In R. v. Mann, 2012 BCSC 1266, a 25-year-old first offender was sentenced to ten years imprisonment for his involvement in the group kidnapping of an adult male at gunpoint and subsequent overnight confinement of the man and his wife. In Mann, at para. 15, the court considered the following factors in determining the appropriate sentence to impose: (i) the amount of planning; (ii) the use of a firearm; (iii) the degree of violence used; (iv) the commission of other offences during the kidnapping; (v) the length and manner of the confinement; (vi) the request for a ransom; (vii) the particular vulnerabilities of the victims; and (viii) the police resources engaged.
63In R. v. Stephens, 2013 ONSC 4492, the two accused kidnapped their first victim at gunpoint, then pressured him into assisting in the kidnapping of a second victim. The two victims were held overnight before being released. Sproat J. found at that time a range of seven to nine years imprisonment for well-situated offenders who play a lesser role in the offence. In that case, Stephens, a 22-year-old with a minor criminal record, who wielded a firearm during the offence, was sentenced to eight years imprisonment after trial.
64In R. v. Oppong, 2021 ONCA 352, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of nine years imprisonment for an offender convicted following a trial, who brandished a firearm and punched a male victim in the course of a kidnapping carried out on the behalf of a criminal organization. The offender was 24 years old at the time of sentencing, with a youth record and minor adult criminal record.
65The defence provided cases in the range of four to six years imprisonment: R. v. Okito, 2023 ONSC 1514; R. v. Morrison-Lonie, 2013 ABCA 202; R. v. Mills, 1998 15020 (B.C.C.A.); R. v. Millan, 2023 ONSC 2514. Each of these cases is distinguishable on the facts, involving offences that involved the use of an imitation firearm, where the victim was not under the age of 16, or where the offender before the court played a secondary role in the offence.
Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
66Taking guidance from the cases considered above, I find the following aggravating factors are present in this case.
67The offences were planned and involved three other persons, two of which were youths. The group of four went to J.U.’s home, with a firearm, for the purpose of taking him into their control in order to find J.M. This was not a random act.
68The offences occurred at the homes of J.U. and J.M. and their families. J.U. was made to take part in Mr. Ellis’ criminal conduct by drawing J.M. out of his home.
69The offences occurred in the context of other criminality, including the unlawful possession of a firearm, threats to J.U. with the rifle and a hammer, and threats to J.M.’s father with a knife.
70There is some evidence of a financial motivation for the offences, as the group spoke of “getting paid.”
71Finally, the offences included the use of a firearm, which was discarded and never recovered, creating risk to the public. The rifle unintentionally discharged during the physical altercation between Mr. Ellis and J.M.
72I am not prepared to find as an aggravating factor that: (i) J.U. was particularly vulnerable as he was home alone after school, or (ii) that the police engaged substantial resources to locate Mr. Ellis, diverting resources from the investigation of other offences. The agreed statement of facts is silent on both issues.2
73The Crown asks the court to treat as “neutral” factors on sentencing: (i) that Mr. Ellis has not used his time in pre-sentence custody particularly well, having been convicted of assaulting two of his fellow inmates, and (ii) that Mr. Ellis has expressed “qualified remorse” by minimizing the seriousness of his offence to the pre-sentence report writer.
74With respect to the first submission, the Crown did not argue that Mr. Ellis’ subsequent convictions ought to be treated as precluding the mitigating effect of the conditions of pre-sentence custody, nor did the Crown argue that subsequent offending could aggravate the offences currently before the court. Mr. Ellis has been convicted of and served his sentence for both offences. I decline to give his subsequent offending any weight.
75With respect to the second submission, I do not find Mr. Ellis has demonstrated “qualified remorse” for his offences. The Crown relies on the pre-sentence report writer’s impression that Mr. Ellis was minimizing the seriousness of his offences; I note that the writer has not directly quoted Mr. Ellis (as done in other portions of the report) to the effect that Mr. Ellis flippantly said that his offences could have been worse. I had the opportunity to hear Mr. Ellis speak. I accept his remorse and his acceptance of responsibility as entirely genuine.
76There are significant mitigating factors present in this case.
77Mr. Ellis was 18 years old at the time of these offences and 21 years old at the time of sentencing. He has no criminal record.
78Mr. Ellis had a difficult start to life, as detailed above. He has ADHD and ARND, both of which make it difficult for him to control his impulses and his emotions. He has the support of his parents, who intend to help him reintegrate into society when he has served his sentence. He has a realistic plan for his future. I agree with the submission of the defence that the time spent in pre-sentence custody has had a significant impact on Mr. Ellis.
79Mr. Ellis pled guilty. The Crown submitted that his guilty plea should be given diminished value given it came on the eve of trial and after the Crown was successful on its pre-trial motions. In addition, the Crown argues that the case against Mr. Ellis on the two counts to which he pled guilty was overwhelming.
80I decline to give reduced weight to Mr. Ellis’ guilty pleas. By pleading guilty, Mr. Ellis saved J.U. and J.M. from having to come to court to testify. I accept his guilty plea as an acceptance of responsibility and his remorse. Having heard him speak in court, I find that his remorse is genuine. I also accept he has demonstrated some insight into his offending conduct.
81Mr. Ellis has been in custody since the day of his arrest in March 2023. As of March 27, 2026, Mr. Ellis has spent 971 days in jail.
82While incarcerated, Mr. Ellis has completed his high school credits and achieved his diploma.
83The conditions of pre-sentence custody are a mitigating circumstance that should impact the sentence imposed: R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754; R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344, at paras. 51-52.
84The defence subpoenaed institutional records from both NDC and CECC, requesting lockdown reports, instances of triple-bunking, and time spent in the yard.
85Most unfortunately, the records provided by both institutions are difficult to understand on their face. For instance, the NDC fresh air report appears to have been colour-coded; the copies provided to the court are black and white. CECC did not provide a fresh air report at all. CECC did not provide a record of the dates on which Mr. Ellis was triple-bunked. Accordingly, the sentencing hearing was adjourned to permit counsel to conduct further inquiries. I signed additional subpoenas for both NDC and CECC; NDC provided a response to an email from the Crown; CECC did not.
86Mr. Ellis was incarcerated at NDC from his arrest on March 3, 2023 until his transfer to CECC on August 31, 2024. During that time, he was housed both in cells and in a dormitory setting. NDC does not record lockdowns for inmates held in a dormitory setting; those units are self-contained, and institutional lockdowns do not affect inmate access to showers, telephones, or television. It is not clear whether institutional lockdowns restrict access to programming for those housed in dormitories.
87There is no dispute that, while housed in the dormitory at NDC, Mr. Ellis was witness to a horrific assault that resulted in the death of another inmate. The trial of individuals charged in that death was ongoing at the time of this sentencing hearing.
88When housed in a cell, Mr. Ellis was subjected to a full or partial lockdown on 24 occasions; he was triple-bunked for 24 days. There appears to have been no overlap.
89Between August 31, 2024 and March 2, 2026, Mr. Ellis was housed at CECC for a total of 538 days.3
90According to the records provided by CECC, Mr. Ellis was locked down for less than six hours on 457 occasions and locked down for six hours or more on 91 occasions. This means that, according to the records provided by CECC, he was locked down on 548 occasions, exceeding the total days of incarceration by ten.
91It would have been preferable to have clear and accurate records of Mr. Ellis’ detention. Instead, the court relied on the submissions of the Crown and the defence. By the Crown’s count, Mr. Ellis was on some kind of lockdown for 360 days, 130 of which were full lockdowns; the defence did not disagree with 130 days of full lockdown but counted the total number of days on restriction as 363 days.
92By either measure, Mr. Ellis experienced some kind of lockdown on 67 percent of the days he was in custody at CECC. The total number of days does not provide a full picture of the impact of lockdowns; a review of the records reveals several instances when Mr. Ellis was on lockdown multiple days in a row.
93CECC did not provide a record of the days on which Mr. Ellis was given access to fresh air – which was included in the initial subpoena – but noted that when a unit is on lockdown for a full day, yard time is not offered. Again, at least 67 percent of the time, Mr. Ellis was not provided access to fresh air.
94Finally, Mr. Ellis was triple-bunked a total of 384 days, or 71 percent of the time. This means that he has been both locked down and triple-bunked the majority of the time he has spent at CECC. Mr. Ellis has spent the majority of his time locked in a cell with two other men, without any access to a shower, and with one of the men sleeping with his head very near the toilet.
95The conditions at CECC have been the subject of condemnation by the courts for many years. The issues are long-standing. Recently, in R v. Elansooriyanathan, 2025 ONSC 5823, Boswell J. said:
The conditions of Mr. Elansooriyanathan’s pre-sentence custody have been completely unacceptable. Judges in the Central East Region have been expressing concerns about the conditions at CECC for years. And they have been regularly reducing offenders’ sentences as a result of the harsh conditions they have experienced while in remand custody there. One might reasonably have expected those expressed concerns to lead to positive change. Instead, conditions have only gotten worse. Chronic lockdowns have been a problem for years. An arguably worse problem is triple-bunking and it appears to have become almost routine over the past two years.
96Additional cases speaking to the conditions at CECC include: R. v. Campsall, 2020 ONSC 4681; R. v. Gorgievski, 2024 ONSC 5899; R. v. McPherson, 2023 ONCJ 160; and R. v. Nguyen, 2025 ONSC 2255.
97The conditions of Mr. Ellis’ detention significantly mitigate the sentence to be imposed.
The Appropriate Sentence for Mr. Ellis
98The kidnapping of J.U. was a very serious offence. J.U.’s confinement was limited in duration as compared to cases relied on by the Crown but was no doubt a terrifying experience. There was some degree of planning to this offence. There appears to have been a financial motivation for the offence. Mr. Ellis used a firearm, unlawfully possessing same. Mr. Ellis was a principal participant in these offences, handling the rifle and threatening both J.U. and J.M.’s father with weapons. While there is no evidence to suggest that he was in a leadership role, he was more than a mere observer. His blameworthiness extends to his flight and the risk to the public in discarding the rifle. His moral blameworthiness for these offences is high.
99These considerations, in combination with the aggravating factors set out above, require the imposition of a sentence on the kidnapping count in excess of the mandatory minimum of five years imprisonment.
100Given the seriousness of this offence, Mr. Ellis’ moral blameworthiness, the statutory aggravating factors, the statutory imperative to give denunciation and deterrence primacy, and the mitigating factors in play, including his age, guilty plea, expression of remorse and the deplorable conditions of pre-sentence custody, a sentence of six years imprisonment is proportionate.
101The imposition of consecutive sentences is appropriate in this case. While the offences occurred on the same day, within a relatively short period of time, they involved separate victims and legally distinct wrongs: R. v. Al-Enzi, 2025 ONCA 485, at para. 8.
102Mr. Ellis pointed a loaded firearm at J.M.’s back. He then engaged J.M. in a physical altercation that resulted in the inadvertent discharge of the rifle.
103For the offence of pointing a firearm, Mr. Ellis is sentenced to 12 months imprisonment.
104In arriving at a global sentence of seven years imprisonment, I have taken into account the principle of restraint and the principle of totality. In sentencing Mr. Ellis to consecutive sentences, I am mindful not to impose a sentence that exceeds his overall culpability: R. v. Simeunovich, 2023 ONCA 562, 168 O.R. (3d) 632, at para. 27.
105A sentence of seven years imprisonment is proportionate given the seriousness of these offences and Mr. Ellis’ moral blameworthiness. That said, even where primacy must be given to denunciation and deterrence, the door to rehabilitation must stay open: R. v. Bertrand Marchand, 2023 SCC 26, 487 D.L.R. (4th) 201, at para. 23. Mr. Ellis is a very young man who has served very difficult time in custody to date. I accept his remorse as genuine and his prospects for rehabilitation to be good. The seven-year sentence of imprisonment gives effect to the prospect of rehabilitation.
106The seven-year sentence will be reduced by the 971 real days in custody, as agreed to by the Crown and the defence. Mr. Ellis will be granted Summers credit at a rate of 1.5:1. Accordingly, the seven-year sentence will be reduced by 1,456 days. Mr. Ellis will serve an additional 1,099 days in custody.
107The Crown and the defence are in agreement on the following ancillary orders: DNA, s. 109 weapons prohibition for life, a s. 743.21 non-communication order for the individuals on the list provided to the court, and a forfeiture order.
108Given the term of incarceration, the victim fine surcharge fee is waived.
A.J. Ohler, J.
Date Released: April 9, 2026
CITATION: R. v. Ellis, 2026 ONSC 2025
COURT FILE NO.: CR-24-00000031-0000
DATE: 2026-04-09
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
-and-
ISAIAH ELLIS
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
A.J. Ohler J.
Date Released: April 9, 2026
1 Mr. Ellis was sentenced on March 27, 2026. At that time, I indicated that written reasons would follow. These are those reasons.
2 The Crown relies on the reasons for sentence in Mann, at para. 21, which concerned sentencing after trial.
3 It would appear Mr. Ellis was transferred out of CECC on various dates for short periods of time. It may well be Mr. Ellis was transferred back to NDC for court appearances; a comparison of the records provided by NDC and CECC does not illuminate the issue.