SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

Citation: R v. Ayom, 2026 ONSC 1797

Courtfile:CR-25-00000807-0000

Date: 2026 02 26

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

v.

SIMON NGONG AYOM

R E A S O N S F O R S E N T E N C E

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE C. CONLAN

on February 26, 2026, for a GUELPH, Ontario proceeding

APPEARANCES:

E. Quayle

Counsel for the Crown

R. Cutruzzola

Counsel for Simon Ayom

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

W I T N E S S E S

WITNESSES

Examination

in-Chief

Cross-

Examination

Re-

Examination

E X H I B I T S

EXHIBIT NUMBER

ENTERED ON PAGE:

LEGEND

[sic] Indicates preceding word has been reproduced verbatim and is not a transcription error.

(ph) Indicates preceding word has been spelled phonetically.

Transcript Ordered:

February 26, 2026

Transcript Completed:

March 2, 2026

Ordering Party Notified:

March 2, 2026

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2026

R E A S O N S

Conlan, J. (Orally):

Mr. Simon Ayom is before the Court to be sentenced after pleading guilty to, being found guilty of, and now being convicted of three criminal offences.

The guilty pleas were entered before this Court on October 30, 2025.

On or about February 12, 2021, Mr. Ayom did, without lawful excuse, use a firearm in a careless manner or without reasonable precaution for the safety of others, contrary to Section 86(1) of the Criminal Code.

Further, on that same date, Mr. Ayom did possess a loaded prohibited firearm while he was not the holder of an authorization or licence under which he may possess it and a registration certificate for the firearm, contrary to Section 95(1) of the Criminal Code.

And in addition, on that same date, Mr. Ayom possessed a prohibited firearm while he was prohibited from doing so by reason of an order made pursuant to Section 109 of the Criminal Code at Hamilton on December 6th, 2019, contrary to Section 117.01(1) of the Criminal Code. The facts of the offences that Mr. Ayom admitted on an earlier occasion may be summarized as follows.

On the date in question, February 12, 2021, at around 6:40 p.m., Mr. Ayom entered into an ONroute Service Centre just off of Highway 401. When he entered, he had a firearm with him. Once inside, Mr. Ayom pointed the firearm at the ceiling and discharged a round into the ceiling. He then laid down on the ground and set the firearm by his side on the floor. Several innocent bystanders inside the premises witnessed this. They were very afraid of what they saw. They contacted the police. The police arrived and found Mr. Ayom lying on the floor. They arrested the offender without incident and gave him his rights to counsel and caution.

The firearm that Mr. Ayom had with him was a nine-millimetre Ruger firearm with a barrel length of seven millimetres. Mr. Ayom did not have a licence or registration certificate at the time. He was also at the time the subject of more than one prohibition order, and in particular, he was the subject of a Section 109 Criminal Code firearms and weapons prohibition order issued out of Hamilton.

Mr. Ayom is a Black male, 34 years old, with a history of chronic substance abuse and with a lengthy history of serious diagnosed mental health issues, including schizophrenia and substance abuse psychosis.

Mr. Ayom came to Canada as a young man after spending his very early years after birth in the war-torn country of South Sudan. His background in his home country was obviously plagued with things that, fortunately, us in Canada do not have to experience. Mr. Ayom has been in custody for a lengthy period of time. While in pre-sentence custody at Maplehurst Correctional Complex, Mr. Ayom has been the subject of more than 600 days of lockdowns and more than 600 days of triple bunking. He has undoubtedly experienced overly harsh conditions while in pre-sentence custody.

Mr. Ayom has an unenviable and related criminal record.

· As a youth in 2007, he was convicted of robbery, among other offences.

· As a youth in 2008, he was convicted of robbery, among other offences.

· Later in 2008, as a youth, he was convicted of assault, among other offences.

· In 2010, as a youth, he was convicted of robbery with a firearm, as well as use of an imitation firearm, among other offences.

· In 2015, as an adult, he was convicted of firearm offences.

· In 2016, as an adult, he was convicted of assault, among other offences.

· In 2019, as an adult, he was convicted of firearm offences.

· More specifically, out of Hamilton on December 6th, 2019, Mr. Ayom received a sentence of 3 years, 8 months, 25 days. He was credited for the equivalent of 710 days of pre-sentence custody.

That sentence was imposed on conviction for possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm contrary to Section 95(2) of the Criminal Code. As well, on that same date out of Hamilton, on convictions for possessing a firearm contrary to two different prohibition orders, Mr. Ayom was sentenced to six months in custody, consecutive. Also, on the same date out of Hamilton, Mr. Ayom was convicted of failure to comply with a probation order.

Counsel have presented a joint submission for this Court's consideration. In the seminal decision of R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, Justice Moldaver for the Supreme Court of Canada set out the test that judges must apply when presented with a joint submission on sentence.

We know from Justice Moldaver's decision in Anthony-Cook, particularly at paragraph 32, that a judge should not depart from a joint submission on sentence unless the proposed sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or is otherwise contrary to the public interest. The test is intended to set a high bar that must be met before a judge disturbs a joint submission on sentence. The rationale for that high bar is to encourage joint submissions on sentence, to encourage agreements to be reached between defence counsel and Crown counsel, thereby protecting court resources, which would otherwise be overwhelmed under the sheer volume of criminal cases.

The public interest test set out by Justice Moldaver incentivizes guilty pleas, spares victims from testifying, and saves the system from costly and time-consuming trials. It provides accused and counsel with a relatively high degree of certainty when they come before the judge with a joint submission on sentence.

In this case, the joint submission on sentence put forward by counsel would not in any way bring the administration of justice into disrepute. It is not in any way contrary to the public interest. This joint submission arises from extensive pre-trial discussions involving counsel and myself, and it has been articulated very clearly by counsel before the Court today, and I find that it is entirely justifiable. For those reasons, the Court will accept the joint submission on sentence.

In my view, it meets the primary principles of sentencing that are applicable in this case, which are denunciation and deterrence, both general and specific deterrence. As well, this joint submission, in my opinion, adequately accounts for the aggravating and the mitigating factors that are at play including, I might add, the overly harsh conditions in pre-sentence custody. The joint submission has already taken into account that mitigating factor. Otherwise, the sentence imposed by this Court today would be even higher than it is. And make no mistake, the sentence being imposed today is a serious penitentiary sentence.

Mr. Ayom is sentenced as follows. The victim fine surcharge is waived on each of the three convictions. There is a Section 109 Criminal Code firearms and weapons prohibition order issued for life for all items. There is a secondary DNA order issued. There is a forfeiture order issued for the ammunition, the casings, the partial projectile, for the gun itself, and for the six-round magazine. I have signed the forfeiture order.

Certain property is being returned to Mr. Ayom, some Canadian currency under Section 490(9) of the Criminal Code, and I have signed that order as well. And on each conviction concurrent, Mr. Ayom is sentenced to 6 years imprisonment, less pre-sentence custody of 1,100 days, credited as 1,650, for a net sentence from today of 542 days in custody.

I will just repeat that. On each conviction concurrent, the sentence is 6 years imprisonment, less pre-sentence custody of 1,100 days, credited as 1,650 days with the maximum Summers credit, leaving a net sentence from today of 542 days in custody.

Mr. Ayom, I wish you the best moving forward, Sir, in addressing your serious mental health issues and your history of substance abuse. I understand that you have had many challenges to deal with in your life, but you should know, Sir, that if you come back to court on any offence related to a firearm, the sentence imposed is going to be very, very high. It will be significantly higher than six years in the penitentiary and would likely be double digits in the penitentiary.

FORM 3

ELECTRONIC CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPT (SUBSECTION 5 (2))

Evidence Act

I, JAMIE-LEE HIGGINSON

(Name of Authorized Person)

certify that this document is a true and accurate transcript of the recording of

R. v. Ayom

in the

SCJ

(Name of case)

(Name of court)

held at

74 Woolwich Street, Guelph, Ontario

(Court address)

taken from Recording

4611_crtrm#1_20260226_072601__10_CONLANC.dcr

which has been certified in Form 1.

March 1 2026

(Date)

(Electronic signature of authorized person)

7523868536

(Authorized court transcriptionist’s identification number –

if applicable)

Ontario

, Canada.

(Province of signing)

A certificate in Form 3 is admissible in evidence and is proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the transcript is a transcript of the certified recording of evidence and proceedings in the proceeding that is identified in the certificate.