R. v. Ibrahim, 2026 ONSC 2152

CITATION: R. v. Ibrahim, 2026 ONSC 2152

COURT FILE NO.: CR-24-50000663-0000

DATE: 20260420

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

• and -

AHMED IBRAHIM

Paul Zambonini and Michael Wilson, for the Crown

Christian Pearce and Amanda Warth, for Mr. Ibrahim

HEARD: September 26, 2025 and February 16, 2026

M. Forestell J.

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

Background and Issues

1Ahmed Ibrahim pleaded guilty before me on September 26, 2025, to the offence of manslaughter in relation to the shooting death of Karoline Huebner-Makurat on July 7, 2023.

2The guilty plea and resulting conviction were based on admitted facts. Mr. Ibrahim admitted that he participated, with another man, in the robbery of Damian Hudson and in the course of the robbery, Mr. Hudson and the other man, who I will refer to as the ‘man in black’, engaged in a gunfight. Ms. Huebner-Makurat was struck and killed by a bullet from Mr. Hudson’s gun. Mr. Ibrahim admitted that, by his participation in the robbery, he created an objectively dangerous situation that led to the death of Ms. Huebner-Makurat.

3The case was adjourned until February of 2026 for sentencing submissions.

4Mr. Ibrahim, at the sentencing hearing, further admitted that the robbery of Mr. Hudson was a planned robbery.

5The Crown asks me to find as additional aggravating facts that Mr. Ibrahim knew, before the robbery, that both Mr. Hudson and the man in black would be armed. Alternatively, the Crown asks me to find that Mr. Ibrahim became aware that the man in black was armed within seconds of the robbery commencing and before the shots were fired that killed Ms. Huebner-Makurat.

6Mr. Ibrahim does not admit those facts.

7In determining an appropriate sentence, I must consider any aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence and the offender. Aggravating facts on sentence that are not admitted must be proven by the Crown beyond a reasonable doubt. Section 724(3)(e) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46; R. v. Gardiner, 1982 30 (SCC), [1982] 2 S.C.R. 368, at p. 415.

8The evidence relating to the contested facts in this case consists of the video recordings of the robbery and shooting, the text messages exchanged between Mr. Ibrahim and Mr. Hudson and the facts that have previously been admitted.

9For the reasons set out below, I am not satisfied that Mr. Ibrahim knew with certainty that Mr. Hudson would be armed but I find that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Ibrahim knew that it was likely that Mr. Hudson would be armed. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Ibrahim knew that the man in black would be armed.

10In these reasons, I will first set out the admitted facts. Next, I will detail my findings with respect to the disputed facts before going on to review the other relevant factors and principles of sentencing and my conclusion on the appropriate sentence for Mr. Ibrahim.

Admitted Facts

11The admitted facts are set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts, including the text messages and videos filed.

12This offence occurred just after 12:30 p.m. on a summer day near a busy intersection in Toronto. At the time, a safe injection site operated at the South Riverdale Community Health Centre near the intersection. Drug dealers often frequented the courtyard area directly to the west of the Health Centre to sell drugs to the drug users who were using the safe injection site. Mr. Ibrahim regularly spent time in this area.

13The video evidence demonstrates that there was significant pedestrian and vehicular traffic in the area around the courtyard and Health Centre.

14Two days before the shooting, on July 5, 2023, Mr. Ibrahim exchanged text messages with Mr. Hudson. In those messages, Mr. Ibrahim wrote: “Why tf you going up to workers and talking crazy…the workers over there are mosh, shouldn’t even have brought up gun talks to them they’ll rat you out.” He also wrote “And there cameras all over the that area so you wouldn’t even go far with what your planning to do.” Mr. Hudson wrote, “I don’t care about jail or cameras buddy robbed me”; and “I don’t need to plan ill up it on site anywhere.” Mr. Ibrahim later said, “Do what you gotta do brother Jus don’t be targeting me. I don’t even know who the fuck you are nd you upped it on me behind the site like 3weeks ago.”

15The two men then exchanged messages in which Mr. Ibrahim appears to be asking Mr. Hudson to supply him with drugs for resale. The next day, July 6, 2023, Mr. Ibrahim texted Mr. Hudson to ask if he would be at the site but Mr. Hudson replied that he could not be there.

16Mr. Hudson also sent messages to Ms. Mohamed, a worker at the safe injection site, to the effect that Mr. Hudson would respond with deadly force if he were robbed. Ms. Mohamed shared those messages with Mr. Ibrahim.

17On July 7, 2023, both Mr. Ibrahim and Mr. Hudson were outside the Health Centre by 11:40 a.m. They interacted near the courtyard adjacent to the Health Centre. At 12:20 p.m., the man in black arrived at the intersection near the courtyard. The man in black and Mr. Ibrahim advanced on Mr. Hudson simultaneously. Mr. Hudson ran towards the front of the Health Centre. The man in black and Mr. Ibrahim caught up to Mr. Hudson in front of the Health Centre. A struggle ensued in which Mr. Ibrahim pulled a satchel away from Mr. Hudson while the man in black repeatedly struck Mr. Hudson with a handgun.

18The video footage of the struggle shows that as Mr. Ibrahim gained possession of the satchel, the man in black and Mr. Hudson fell to the ground. An item fell to the ground near the two men. While the man in black and Mr. Hudson continued to struggle on the ground, Mr. Ibrahim reached down and retrieved the item from the ground. Mr. Ibrahim moved away from the struggle, tucking what appears to be a gun under his shirt. The man in black extricated himself from Mr. Hudson and ran, with Mr. Ibrahim, back towards the courtyard. Mr. Ibrahim gave the gun to the man in black.

19Mr. Hudson chased Mr. Ibrahim and the man in black. He caught up to Mr. Ibrahim near the courtyard area and a further struggle ensued that spilled onto the roadway. Within seconds, the man in black and Mr. Hudson exchanged gunfire.

20A bullet fired from Mr. Hudson’s gun struck Ms. Huebner-Makurat as she tried to cross the street to avoid the fight. The bullet went through her back and through her liver, kidney and aorta, killing her.

Disputed Facts

21The Crown relies on the circumstantial evidence of the text messages, the existence of a plan for the robbery, the retrieval of a gun by Mr. Ibrahim and Mr. Ibrahim’s actions in returning the gun to the man in black, to support a finding that Mr. Ibrahim knew that both men would be armed before he participated in the robbery.

22There is no direct evidence that Mr. Ibrahim knew that either or both men would be armed. The evidence is wholly circumstantial. On a sentencing hearing, as at a trial, proof of a disputed inference beyond a reasonable doubt requires that the inference sought must be the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the circumstantial evidence. See: R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33; R. v. S.B., 2023 ONCA 369, at para. 27.

23Before finding a disputed inference to be the only reasonable inference, the trier of fact must consider other plausible theories and reasonable possibilities which are inconsistent with the theory advanced by the Crown. However, the Crown need not negative every possibility. Reasonable alternative theories must be based on “logic and experience applied to the evidence or the absence of evidence, not on speculation”. See Villaroman, at para. 37.

24The evidence of the text messages to Mr. Ibrahim and to Ms. Mohamed supports the reasonable inference that Mr. Ibrahim knew that Mr. Hudson intended to be armed at the safe injection site. That fact, combined with the admitted fact that the robbery was pre-planned and the evidence that the plan was executed in a coordinated manner supports the inference that Mr. Ibrahim knew that the man in black would be armed with a firearm. As a matter of common sense and logic, a plan to rob an armed man would include a plan for at least one of the robbers to be armed. The video evidence of a coordinated attack supports the inference that the roles of the two robbers were planned and determined in advance.

25Mr. Ibrahim submits that there are reasonable inferences other than the inferences sought by the Crown. He argues that the text messages in which Mr. Hudson mentions guns and says that he would “up it on site anywhere”, could have been taken by Mr. Ibrahim to be bravado. Although Mr. Ibrahim has admitted that the robbery was planned, he argues that the planning for the robbery of Mr. Hudson did not necessarily involve advance consideration of using a weapon. Mr. Ibrahim also submits that when the man in black produced the gun and used it to strike Mr. Hudson, and when Mr. Ibrahim retrieved it from the ground, it is reasonably possible that he believed it was an imitation firearm.

26In assessing the evidence of Mr. Ibrahim’s knowledge, I have considered the evidence as a whole and cumulatively. The individual pieces of evidence need not on their own support the inference. See: R. v Uhrig, 2012 ONCA 470, at para. 13.

27Having examined the evidence cumulatively, I conclude that the only reasonable inference is that, going into the robbery, Mr. Ibrahim believed that it was likely that Mr. Hudson would be armed. The text messages between the men, and between Mr. Hudson and Ms. Mohamed as conveyed to Mr. Ibrahim, strongly support this inference. I cannot find that Mr. Ibrahim knew with certainty that Mr. Hudson would be armed but I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Ibrahim knew it to be likely.

28The video evidence demonstrates that in the execution of the plan, Mr. Ibrahim and the man in black acted in a concerted fashion. They each had a role. Within seconds of the robbery commencing, the man in black produced and used a gun. Mr. Ibrahim took Mr. Hudson’s satchel as the man in black pistol-whipped Mr. Hudson. Mr. Ibrahim did not hesitate or falter in his effort to gain possession o the satchel when the man in black produced the gun. When the gun ended up on the ground, Mr. Ibrahim retrieved it and within seconds had returned it to the man in black. All of Mr. Ibrahim’s actions and their timing are consistent with advance knowledge that a gun would be used. They are not consistent with Mr. Ibrahim being unaware that the man in black would be armed.

29Mr. Ibrahim’s actions in returning the gun to the man in black support the inference that he knew that the gun was real and that it was the property of the man in black. His actions are consistent with the inference that the roles of the two men were determined in advance and that Mr. Ibrahim knew, in advance, that the man in black would possess and use a gun while Mr. Ibrahim gained possession of the satchel.

30Viewing the evidence cumulatively and in context, I do not find that it is a reasonable alternative theory that Mr. Ibrahim did not know that the man in black would bring a gun or that he believed it to be an imitation firearm.

31My findings of fact therefore are that Mr. Ibrahim participated in the robbery with the knowledge that Mr. Hudson would likely be armed and with the knowledge that the man in black would be armed. I am satisfied of these aggravating facts beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no other reasonable inference that is consistent with the whole of the evidence.

Victim Impact

32I have reviewed the factual circumstances of the commission of the offence as they relate to the knowledge and actions of Mr. Ibrahim. The circumstances of the offence relevant to sentence also include the impact on the victims. In this case, I have considered the Victim Impact Statements of Ms. Huebner-Makurat’s parents, husband, and friend, and the Victim Impact Statement of one of the witnesses to the shooting death of Ms. Huebner-Makurat.

33The Victim Impact Statements describe Ms. Huebner-Makurat as a cherished wife, mother, daughter and friend. She led a full, happy and active life — one that was tragically and violently ended on July 7, 2023.

34The Victim Impact Statement of Ms. Huebner-Makurat’s husband, Adrian Makurat, includes a video with footage of Ms. Huebner-Makurat, her husband Adrian, and their children. The video is a poignant illustration of the happiness of this family before their terrible loss.

35The video also includes audio of their children speaking of some of their thoughts and feelings about the loss of their mother. As described in the statement and video, the children have lost not only their mother, but also their sense of safety.

36Ms. Huebner-Makurat’s death has had a profound and lasting impact on her loved ones. Her husband has had to try to deal with his grief while emotionally supporting his daughters. Ms. Huebner-Makurat’s parents have lost their only child. Her mother wrote, “Karolina’s death struck me in my heart, in my sense of security in life and the meaning of further life.”

37The shooting of Ms. Huebner-Makurat impacted her family most significantly, but it also impacted the community. Ms. Wykurz, a witness to the shooting who tried to give aid to Ms. Huebner-Makurat, wrote of her ongoing fear moving around the city. This offence occurred on a crowded street. I can and do infer that many individuals who were present for this traumatic event were adversely impacted.

Circumstances of the Offender

38In determining the appropriate sentence, I must also consider the circumstances of Mr. Ibrahim. Mr. Ibrahim is a young Black man. He is 23 years old now and was 20 years old at the time of the offence.

39He was born in Sudan and came to Canada at age four, with his parents and younger sister. He is the second oldest of nine siblings.

40His father was a carpenter but suffered an injury approximately 10 years ago that left him unable to work. His parents supported the family through social assistance. Mr. Ibrahim and his family moved to Teesdale Place, a housing complex in Scarborough in 2008, when he was five years old. There was violence in the home and in the neighbourhood. When he was a child, Mr. Ibrahim was removed from the home and placed in foster care for a period of time before being returned to his parents. He lived with his parents and seven of his siblings in a two-bedroom apartment until he moved out on his own in 2021.

41Mr. Ibrahim has not finished high school. He was expelled from high school three times for fighting. He was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder as a teenager, but this was left unaddressed.

42Mr. Ibrahim was in and out of custody as a youth. His youth record begins in 2019, when he was 16 years old. That year, he was found guilty of theft under and assault. The next year, he was found guilty of theft under and robbery. In 2021, he was found guilty of three robberies. His adult record begins in 2022 and includes convictions for four robberies, possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, failing to comply, and use of an imitation firearm to commit an indictable offence.

43Mr. Ibrahim has used cannabis since he was 13 or 14 years old. He reports becoming addicted to Percocet in 2023.

44Mr. Ibrahim has one child, aged four years. Mr. Ibrahim is no longer in a relationship with his child’s mother, but she facilitates contact between them.

Conditions of Detention

45Mr. Ibrahim has been in custody for 981 days. He was arrested on August 14, 2023, and has been in custody since that time at the Toronto South Detention Centre (the “TSDC”) and the Toronto East Detention Centre (the “TEDC”).

46Excessively harsh conditions of presentence custody may serve to mitigate a sentence. Mr. Ibrahim has been locked down for about a third of his time in custody. He was triple-bunked for at least 202 days. For most of the nights of triple-bunking, Mr. Ibrahim was selected to sleep on the floor. During his 374 days at the TEDC, up to February 15, 2026, Mr. Ibrahim was offered fresh air only 46 times.

47As many judgments of these courts have observed, lockdowns result in inmates being denied access to basic hygiene, telephone contact with family, and rehabilitative programming. Lockdowns contribute to frustration, tension, and violence in the institution. Lockdowns are almost invariably due to staff shortages. The problem of staff shortages causing lengthy and repeated lockdowns has been ongoing for at least a decade. The overcrowding that leads to triple-bunking also causes tension and violence. It, too, has been an ongoing problem.

48I find that the conditions of presentence custody endured by Mr. Ibrahim have been excessively harsh and punitive and should be considered in mitigation of Mr. Ibrahim’s sentence.

The Positions of the Parties

49Mr. Ibrahim seeks a sentence of seven years’ imprisonment before credit for actual days in presentence custody. Mr. Ibrahim submits that his youthfulness, background of poverty, experience in presentence custody and the remorse demonstrated by his guilty plea support a sentence in this range.

50The Crown seeks a sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment before credit for actual days of presentence custody. The Crown position is that a ten-year sentence would reflect the gravity of the offence but would also take into account the background of Mr. Ibrahim and the mitigating factors of his guilty plea and the harsh conditions in the jail.

Law and Analysis

51The fundamental purpose of sentencing as set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code, is to “contribute …to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: (a) to denounce unlawful conduct; (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; …and (f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and to the community”.

52Denunciation, deterrence and the protection of the public are the primary sentencing objectives in sentencing for manslaughter. Rehabilitation plays a lesser role in sentencing for offences like manslaughter but it remains an important consideration for youthful offenders.

53I have considered Mr. Ibrahim’s prospects for rehabilitation in determining the appropriate sentence. These prospects are not encouraging. Mr. Ibrahim has committed violent criminal offences consistently for the four years preceding this offence. However, I acknowledge that Mr. Ibrahim is a young man and that this will be his first significant period of incarceration. His longest sentence was in 2022, when he received a sentence of the equivalent of just over 15 months’ imprisonment.

54In arriving at an appropriate sentence, I must consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances with respect to the offender and with respect to the offence.

55Aggravating circumstances are:

• The robbery was planned;

• A firearm was brought to the robbery by the accomplice with the knowledge of Mr. Ibrahim;

• The offence occurred in a busy public area;

• The robbery was related to the drug trade;

• The offence had a profound impact on the family of the victim and on the community;

• Mr. Ibrahim has a related criminal record; and

• Mr. Ibrahim was on probation at the time of the offence.

56Mr. Ibrahim’s knowledge that his accomplice would be armed while committing the robbery in a busy public place is a seriously aggravating factor. The plague of gun violence in Toronto has been the subject of repeated comment. Gun violence, like this shooting, impacts the sense of safety and peace of mind of all of those who witness it and all who live in the community.

57There are also mitigating factors. Those are:

• That Mr. Ibrahim entered a guilty plea. He has accepted responsibility and is remorseful for his role in this offence;

• He is a youthful offender; and

• He has been incarcerated in punitive conditions while awaiting sentence.

58Section 718.1 of the Criminal Code sets out the fundamental principle that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

59The offence of manslaughter is one that can be committed in a broad range of circumstances. Because the offence results in the loss of a life, manslaughter is always serious, but the seriousness is situated on a spectrum depending on many factors.

60The seriousness of the offence in this case is increased by the fact that Ms. Huebner-Makurat lost her life because of a planned robbery with a firearm.

61Mr. Ibrahim knew that his accomplice would bring a gun and he knew it was likely that the victim of the robbery would be armed. There was objective foresight of the risk of serious harm because a reasonable person would have foreseen the risk that the guns would be used. However, there is no evidence that Mr. Ibrahim subjectively foresaw that the guns would be used.

62The Court of Appeal has held that objective foresight, while sufficient to support the mens rea for manslaughter, is a lower level of culpability than a finding that the offender actually foresaw the risk. See: R. v. Kwakye, 2015 ONCA 108, at para. 5

63Mr. Ibrahim’s degree of responsibility or moral blameworthiness is also contextualized by his background as a young Black man who was raised in poverty and exposed to violence in his home and neighbourhood.

64The range of sentence for this type of offence and this type of offender was described by Code J. in R. v. Wight, 2022 ONSC 5137 at para 43 where he described the lower range of six to 8 years for cases “where, for example the accused was not aware of a firearm possessed by a co-accused or where the accused was a youthful first offender with significant rehabilitative potential”; the mid-range of eight to 12 years for “cases where some significant aggravating factors are present such as the use of a firearm or brutal violence against an elderly victim;” and, the higher range of 12-15 years “where the most serious aggravating factors are present such as a significant criminal record, planned violence, active participation in brandishing or discharging firearms or in a planned home invasion involving beating of the victims.”

65While no case is identical to this one, I find the circumstances of the offences and the offenders in the cases of R. v. Dirie and Ali, 2018 ONSC 5536; R. v. Jones-Solomon, 2015 ONCA 654; and R. v. Thompson, 2008 ONCA 693 to be helpful in identifying the range of sentence for this offender and this offence.

66In Dirie, there were two offenders, Mr. Dirie and Mr. Ali. Mr. Ali tracked down the victim and lay in wait for him and then drove Mr. Dirie to a position where Mr. Dirie could ambush the victim. Mr. Ali did so knowing that Mr. Dirie was armed and that there was a history of animosity between Mr. Dirie and the victim. Mr. Dirie shot and killed the victim. Mr. Ali was convicted of manslaughter. He was a 19-year-old first offender who was a student and had considerable community support. Justice Dambrot imposed a sentence of nine years’ imprisonment.

67In Jones-Solomon, the accused had been part of a planned home invasion in which beating and severely assaulting the victims was part of the plan. The accomplice was armed and this was known to the accused. The accomplice shot and killed the victim. A 13-year sentence was imposed by the trial judge and upheld by the Court of Appeal.

68In Thompson, the offender was an active participant in a bank robbery. He brandished a handgun and threatened the people in the bank. An accomplice shot and killed a bank clerk. Mr. Thompson was sentenced to 13 years’ imprisonment.

69I find that the circumstances of Mr. Ibrahim and the circumstances of this offence call for a sentence in the mid-range, identified by Justice Code in Wight, of 8 to 12 years’ imprisonment. Mr. Ibrahim participated in a planned and violent robbery. He placed numerous people at risk of harm or death. He did so out of greed — to obtain money and drugs from Mr. Hudson. Mr. Ibrahim, while youthful, has an established record for criminality.

70If not for the difficult upbringing of Mr. Ibrahim and the harsh conditions of his presentence custody, I would have placed the sentence at the higher end of 8-12 year range. Taking into account those mitigating factors, I am satisfied that the sentence can be reduced to the middle of that range.

Conclusion

71For these reasons, I sentence Mr. Ibrahim to 10 years’ (or 3,653 days) imprisonment before statutory credit. He has spent 981 actual days in custody which are credited at 1.5:1 as 1,472 days. The remaining sentence to be served is 2,181 days or just under six years.

72There will be a s. 109 order prohibiting Mr. Ibrahim from possession of any prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device and prohibited ammunition for life.

73Manslaughter is a "primary designated offence" in s. 487.04, the section of the Criminal Code dealing with forensic DNA analysis and the securing of DNA samples. Section 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code makes such an order mandatory. Therefore, I order that Mr. Ibrahim provide such samples of his bodily substances as are reasonably necessary for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis.

M. Forestell J.