His Majesty the King v. Julian St. Louis, 2026 ONSC 22

CITATION: R. v. St. Louis, 2026 ONSC 22

COURT FILE NO.: CR-24-50000344-0000

DATE: 2026/01/02

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

JULIAN ST. LOUIS

Defendant

COUNSEL:

Y. Brar, for the Crown

R. Chartier, for the Defendant

HEARD: November 28, 2025

M. SHARMA, J.:

RULING ON FACTS ARISING FROM JURY VERDICT

PURSUANT TO S. 724(2) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA

[1]. This is my ruling on factual findings for the purposes of sentencing following a trial by judge and jury. Brief oral reasons were given on December 23, 2025, with written reasons to follow.

Overview

[2]. In the early morning of October 15, 2022, Mr. St. Louis was at a party at a third-floor apartment at 79 Clearview Heights, Toronto. There was music, drinking, partying and poker being played.

[3]. CCTV video footage from 4:26 a.m. showed Mr. St. Louis leaving the party and walking downstairs to the building’s exit. Following immediately after him was Mr. Edward. Mr. Edward and Mr. St. Louis interact on the 2^nd^ floor landing of the stairwell. The two stopped briefly at the exit to the building on the ground floor, where Mr. Edward appears to be pushing Mr. St. Louis, and Mr. St. Louis pushes back before opening the door and exiting. Mr. Edward follows.

[4]. Outside the building, CCTV footage showed Mr. Edward continued to push or reach towards Mr. St. Louis, and Mr. St. Louis pushed back. Mr. St. Louis then pulls out a handgun from his jacket pocket. He fires three shots towards the ground. After the final shot is fired and Mr. St. Louis gives a final push to Mr. Edward, Mr. Edward ceased to push or follow Mr. St. Louis. Mr. St. Louis then walks away from the scene.

[5]. Mr. Edward sustained gunshot wounds to his left leg and left foot.

[6]. Mr. St. Louis was charged with four offences under the Criminal Code of Canada (“Code”). A trial by judge and jury commenced on June 16, 2025. On July 4, 2025, the jury reached the following verdicts:

Count 1: Not guilty of Discharge of firearm with intent to wound (s. 244(2)(a)), but guilty of the lesser included offence of Reckless Discharge of a firearm (s. 244(1)(b)).

Count 2: Guilty of Aggravated assault (s. 268(2))

Count 3: Not guilty of Possession of a loaded prohibited firearm without authorization (s. 95(2)(a))

Count 4: Not guilty of Possession of a firearm without authorization (s. 92(1)).

[7]. Mr. St. Louis intends to bring a constitutional challenge to the mandatory minimum sentence for reckless discharge of a firearm, as found in s. 244.2(3)(a) of the Code. A ruling on the facts arising from the jury’s verdict is required under s. 724(2) of the Code for the purposes of sentencing. It is also required so that there is a factual foundation for the constitutional challenge: Mackay v. Manitoba, 1989 26 (SCC), [1989] 2 SCR 357 at para. 9. A date for hearing submissions on sentencing and the constitutional challenge is fixed for February 13, 2026.

Positions at Trial

[8]. At trial, the Crown argued that Mr. St. Louis brought the gun with him to the party, and that Mr. St. Louis intended to shoot at Mr. Edward to wound him.

[9]. Mr. St. Louis testified. He denied owning or bringing a gun to the party. He said that while he was playing poker at the party, Mr. Edward pulled out a gun and pointed it at him demanding the return of $20. Mr. St. Louis said he snatched the gun from Mr. Edward’s hand and left the party shortly thereafter. He said Mr. Edward followed him because he wanted the gun back.

[10]. When they interacted on the landing of the stairs, he said Mr. Edward demanded the return of the gun. Mr. St. Louis said he didn’t return it because Mr. Edward was angry. If he returned it, Mr. St. Louis thought Mr. Edward would shoot him.

[11]. When they arrived at the ground level exit, Mr. St. Louis said Mr. Edward was grabbing for the gun which was in his pocket, and said he was going to rob Mr. St. Louis. After they exited the building, Mr. St. Louis testified that Mr. Edward continued to grab at his pocket for the gun and was telling Mr. St. Louis to return it. Mr. St. Louis testified that Mr. Edward said “Give me the gun! I’m going to kill you!” He said he was afraid at that moment, pulled out the gun and shot it towards the ground to scare off Mr. Edward.

[12]. He said he was also afraid that others might be in the bushes. He had witnessed a man by the name of Tola shoot someone outside this property in the past. Mr. St. Louis believed Tola and Mr. Edward were friends. He feared this might be a “set-up” and others might be hiding in the bushes near the exit to the building.

[13]. Mr. Edward testified for the Crown. He denied the gun was his, that he demanded Mr. St. Louis return it, that he was grabbing at Mr. St. Louis to get it back, and that he threatened to kill him.

[14]. At trial, Mr. St. Louis argued that he possessed the gun out of necessity to avoid being shot by Mr. Edward, and that he shot at the ground in self-defence. His continued possession was out of necessity; had he returned it to Mr. Edward he would have been shot.

Legal Principles

[15]. Subsections 724(1) and (2) of the Code state:

724 (1) In determining a sentence, a court may accept as proved any information disclosed at the trial or at the sentencing proceedings and any facts agreed on by the prosecutor and the offender.

(2) Where the court is composed of a judge and jury, the court

(a) shall accept as proven all facts, express or implied, that are essential to the jury’s verdict of guilty; and

(b) may find any other relevant fact that was disclosed by evidence at the trial to be proven, or hear evidence presented by either party with respect to that fact.

[16]. In R. v. Ferguson, 2008 SCC 6, [2008] 1 SCR 98 at paras. 17-18, the Supreme Court held the following principles govern when a sentencing judge must determine what facts arise from a jury’s verdict:

First, the sentencing judge “is bound by the express and implied factual implications of the jury’s verdict”: R. v. Brown, 1991 73 (SCC), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 518, p. 523. The sentencing judge “shall accept as proven all facts, express or implied, that are essential to the jury’s verdict of guilty” (Criminal Code, s. 724(2)(a)), and must not accept as fact any evidence consistent only with a verdict rejected by the jury: Brown; R. v. Braun (1995), 1995 16075 (MB CA), 95 C.C.C. (3d) 443 (Man. C.A.).

Second, when the factual implications of the jury’s verdict are ambiguous, the sentencing judge should not attempt to follow the logical process of the jury, but should come to his or her own independent determination of the relevant facts: Brown; R. v. Fiqia (1994), 1994 ABCA 402, 162 A.R. 117 (C.A.). In so doing, the sentencing judge “may find any other relevant fact that was disclosed by evidence at the trial to be proven” (s. 724(2)(b)). To rely upon an aggravating fact or previous conviction, the sentencing judge must be convinced of the existence of that fact or conviction beyond a reasonable doubt; to rely upon any other relevant fact, the sentencing judge must be persuaded on a balance of probabilities: ss. 724(3)(d) and 724(3)(e); see also R. v. Gardiner, 1982 30 (SCC), [1982] 2 S.C.R. 368; R. v. Lawrence (1987), 1987 9452 (ON SC), 58 C.R. (3d) 71 (Ont. H.C.). It follows from the purpose of the exercise that the sentencing judge should find only those facts necessary to permit the proper sentence to be imposed in the case at hand. The judge should first ask what the issues on sentencing are, and then find such facts as are necessary to deal with those issues.

Analysis

[17]. Counsel have prepared the following chart listing the factual findings that are relevant to the shooting. It also sets out the position of the Crown and Defence on each issue.

[18]. I agree that factual findings on these issues are relevant to sentencing. There was evidence disclosed at trial that permits me to make findings of fact on these issues, and therefore, no further evidence is required. Certain facts were essential to the jury’s verdict.

[19]. In the chart below, I provide my ruling on each fact in issue and provide brief reasons.

Fact in Issue

Crown Position

Defence Position

Credibility of Mr. St. Louis generally

Mr. St. Louis was not credible or reliable. The court should make findings based on the evidence that is independent.

The court should accept Mr. St. Louis’s evidence as he was credible and reliable.

Mr. St. Louis’s credibility is relevant because it informs my factual determinations of other facts relevant to sentencing.

I found Mr. St. Louis to be credible and reliable for the following reasons:

His testimony was consistent with the testimony of his girlfriend, Catherine Anthony. I found Ms. Anthony to be highly credible. She corroborated Mr. St. Louis’s evidence that, after the shooting, he intended to deposit the gun at a police station but that Tola arrived at their door demanding the return of the gun. She also confirmed payments made to Tola which Tola demanded because the magazine from the gun was not returned to Tola. She also corroborated Mr. St. Louis’s evidence of a back injury.
Mr. St. Louis’s recounting of events was plausible, given his background and experience with gun violence from his past in St. Lucia. His demeanour in the CCTV video footage was not inconsistent with Mr. St. Louis’s recounting of events.
To the extent he provided inconsistent or questionable answers in his cross-examination, I found they were on trivial matters, or he was able to provide an explanation. His testimony was otherwise unshaken in his cross-examination.
He admitted that he spent time at 79 Clearview Heights before, and that he knew it was dangerous, but he explained that he had friends who lived there. He also explained the reason why he did not return the gun to Mr. Edward, and why he removed the magazine from the gun when Tola came to Ms. Anthony’s home to collect it – namely, that he did not wish to return a gun that was loaded for fear of being shot. He explained he was afraid of Tola because Mr. St. Louis had witnessed him kill someone in the past. I found his explanations of these matters to be plausible and compelling.
Mr. St. Louis has no criminal record.

Credibility of Mr. Edward

Mr. Edward was not credible or reliable.

I agree that Mr. Edward was neither a credible nor reliable witness.

He admitted to drinking that evening but could not remember how much. He also admitted to smoking cannabis. Both would have impacted his memory.
Mr. Edward was evasive and gave testimony that was inconsistent with prior testimony. I found his evidence to be self-serving. He could not recall what he was saying to Mr. St. Louis as the two left the party and walked down the stairs. At best, he said it was about “money or something”. He denied that he brought a gun to the party, and that he threatened to shoot or kill Mr. St. Louis if he didn’t return the gun to him. He admitted that he refused to give a statement to the police. He couldn’t recall testifying at the preliminary inquiry for this proceeding. From that transcript, he said he was not able to recognize himself or Mr. St. Louis from the video, but at this trial, he was. Mr. Edward, two weeks prior to this trial, was convicted of trafficking a 15-year-old girl.

What was said at the poker table.

This is an essential finding by the jury. The court must find at a minimum that there was a doubt as to whether Mr. Edward pointed the firearm at him and demanded the money. The Crown does not seek to refute this.

The court should accept Mr. St. Louis’s evidence that Mr. Edward pointed the firearm at him and demanded the money.

Because I find Mr. St. Louis credible, I accept his evidence that Mr. Edward pointed a gun at Mr. St. Louis demanding the return of $20 that had fallen to the floor. I accept Mr. St. Louis’s evidence that this was after Mr. Edward had bragged about trafficking women and robbing the customers of the women who were trafficked. Mr. St. Louis was able to recount this event with particularity.

The snatching of the gun.

This is an essential finding by the jury. The court must find at a minimum that there was a doubt as to whether Mr. St. Louis snatched the gun and left shortly thereafter. The Crown does not seek to refute this.

The court should accept Mr. St. Louis’s evidence. Mr. St. Louis snatched the gun and left shortly thereafter.

I am satisfied that Mr. St. Louis snatched the gun from Mr. Edward after Mr. Edward pointed it at Mr. St. Louis. I accept Mr. St. Louis’ evidence that he left shortly thereafter.
This finding is consistent with Mr. Edward’s behaviour after Mr. St. Louis left the party, where he tried to get the gun back from Mr. St. Louis. If the gun did not belong to Mr. Edward, he would not have tried to recover it from Mr. St. Louis.
I find that Mr. St. Louis snatched the gun at the poker table from Mr. Edward to defend himself. This is not inconsistent with the jury verdict, because the jury found Mr. St. Louis not guilty of the two firearm possession charges. It is also consistent with Mr. St. Louis’s life experience with gun violence in St. Lucia. From which, Mr. St. Louis testified, he learned that one must react quickly when someone points a gun at you.

What was said in the stairwell (balance of probabilities, mitigating fact sought)

Mr. St. Louis’s evidence is not credible or reliable. It is not known what Mr. Edward was saying to him in the stairwell, but it is not likely that it was a request to return the gun as Mr. St. Louis waited for him to catch up and walked out with him.

The court should accept Mr. St. Louis’s evidence that Mr. Edward demanded the return of the gun as they were coming down the stairs. There is no “normal” reaction to being threatened.

I find that Mr. Edward was demanding the return of the gun on the stairwell, and later threatening Mr. St. Louis if he refused to do so.
Mr. St. Louis gave a compelling reason why he did not return the gun to Mr. Edward – Mr. Edward had pointed it at Mr. St. Louis minutes earlier and he was afraid of being shot. He also knew that Mr. Edward was a friend of Tola, and Mr. St. Louis had witnessed Tola shoot someone.
The video did not capture any audio. It showed Mr. St. Louis pausing on the 2^nd^ floor landing. If Mr. Edward called for Mr. St. Louis, or even if Mr. St. Louis simply heard someone following immediately behind him down the stairs, it would explain why Mr. St. Louis paused briefly on the stairs. Mr. St. Louis’s body language and demeanour as shown in the video is not inconsistent with fear. I prefer Mr. St. Louis’ evidence of what transpired over that of Mr. Edward.

What was said by the door (balance of probabilities, mitigating fact sought)

Mr. Edward’s own evidence was that he was trying to take money from Mr. St. Louis by force. The court should be satisfied that Mr. Edward was trying to rob Mr. St. Louis.

The court should accept Mr. St. Louis’s evidence that Mr. Edward was saying I’m going to rob you.

I accept Mr. St. Louis’s evidence that when he reached the glass exit door to the building, Mr. Edward was trying to get the gun out of Mr. St. Louis’s pocket and was saying that he was going to rob Mr. St. Louis. This is consistent with my finding on Mr. St. Louis’s credibility. It is also consistent with the video evidence.
Mr. Edward’s behaviour is consistent with that of a person threatening another. When they arrived at the ground floor landing, there was a glass door to the entrance of the building. The video footage captured Mr. St. Louis arriving at the door first, but Mr. Edward manoeuvred his body and left arm between Mr. St. Louis and the glass door. Mr. Edward is seen pushing his body against Mr. St. Louis, and his left hand is between Mr. St. Louis and the exit door, reaching toward Mr. St. Louis’ right side. Mr. St. Louis pushed Mr. Edward back, then pushed the glass door open and exited the building. Mr. Edward followed Mr. St. Louis outside.

What was said outside (balance of probabilities, mitigating fact sought)

There is no independent evidence about what occurred outside. The interaction is brief and they do not appear to be speaking.

The court should accept Mr. St. Louis’s evidence that as Mr. Edward was grabbing at Mr. St. Louis’s pocket, he said “give me the gun, I am going to kill you.”

I accept Mr. St. Louis’s testimony that Mr. Edward was grabbing at Mr. St. Louis’s pocket, demanding the gun back and threatening to kill Mr. St. Louis. This is also consistent with the video footage.
Mr. Edward’s behaviour was consistent with a person threatening another, and with what Mr. St. Louis testified was happening. Outside the building, video footage only captured the back of Mr. St. Louis as he walked away from the building. Mr. Edward continued to push and reach towards Mr. St. Louis at his waist level three times, ultimately pushing Mr. St. Louis against a black fence that boarded the walkway to the entrance to the building. There, Mr. St. Louis pushed back. Mr. Edward then moved in front of Mr. St. Louis and was facing him. Mr. Edward continued to push or reach at Mr. St. Louis’s waist level, and Mr. St. Louis pushed back one final time before pulling out the handgun from what appears to have been the front right pocket of his jacket. Because of the black fence on either side of the walkway, Mr. St. Louis’s only means of leaving was to get passed Mr. Edward who stood in front of him.

Where Mr. St. Louis was aiming the gun (beyond a reasonable doubt, aggravating fact)

Mr. St. Louis was aiming the gun at the ground by Mr. Edward’s feet. He was reckless as to whether a bullet would strike Mr. Edward.

I find that Mr. St. Louis was aiming the gun at the ground, and was reckless as to whether a bullet would strike Mr. Edward. This is an express or implied finding from the jury’s verdict, and I find it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Mr. St. Louis fired two shots in the direction of the ground. Mr. Edward continued to stand in front of Mr. St. Louis, pushing him and blocking him from leaving. Mr. St. Louis fired one further shot in the direction of the ground. He then pushed Mr. Edward with his right hand that held the gun and was only then able to move in front of Mr. Edward.

Why Mr. St. Louis fired the gun three times and whether he feared for his life (balance of probabilities, mitigating fact sought)

Mr. St. Louis was trying to get Mr. Edward to back off. Mr. St. Louis fired and then shoved Mr. Edward back with the hand that had the gun in it. He was relatively calm, and although maybe concerned, the court should not be persuaded on a balance of probabilities that he was scared for his life.

The court should accept Mr. St. Louis’s evidence that he was trying to scare Mr. Edward. He was panicked and scared for his life. This is the more likely than not explanation

I accept that Mr. St. Louis fired the gun three times because he feared for his own life and safety. This is consistent with Mr. St. Louis’s evidence, and it is also consistent with the video evidence and what a reasonable person in the same circumstances as Mr. St. Louis would perceive.
Mr. Edward pointed a gun at Mr. St. Louis minutes earlier, decided to chase after Mr. St. Louis after he left the party, demanded the return of gun, threatened to rob or kill Mr. St. Louis, and continued to push Mr. St. Louis and grab at his pockets for the gun. This continued until Mr. St. Louis was trapped in the fenced in walkway with Mr. Edward in front of him, blocking Mr. St. Louis from escaping. A reasonable person with the same attributes and experiences as Mr. St. Louis would legitimately fear for their own life and safety if they were in these same circumstances. If Mr. St. Louis feared that others were also hiding in the bushes as part of a “set-up”, this would have only heightened such fears.
I cannot conclude that Mr. St. Louis’s demeanour, as he walked away after shooting his gun, was calm or that it was inconsistent with fear. After he shot the gun, Mr. St. Louis looked back to ensure Mr. Edward was not continuing to pursue him. He explained that he did not run away because his back was hurting him. Ms. Anthony confirmed that Mr. St. Louis had suffered a back injury.

M. SHARMA, J.

Released: January 2, 2026