CITATION: R. v. Le, 2026 ONSC 2236

COURT FILE NO.: CR-24-20000529-0000

DATE: 20260414

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

TAMMY LE

Aitan Lerner, for the Crown

Amar Mahil, for Tammy Le

HEARD: February 12, March 20 and April 10, 2026

pinto j.

sentencing decision for TAMMY LE

1On November 14, 2025, I convicted Rayan Graham and Tammy Le of four firearm-related offences following a judge-alone trial: see R. v. Graham, 2025 ONSC 5720.

2Mr. Graham and Ms. Le were jointly convicted of:

a) Possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm (Glock 43X handgun), contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46;

b) Possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm (Shadow Systems DR920 handgun), contrary to s. 92(1) of the Criminal Code;

c) Possession of a prohibited device (overcapacity cartridge magazine), contrary to s. 92(2) of the Criminal Code; and

d) Possession of a firearm (Shadow Systems DR920 handgun) knowing that the serial number had been defaced, contrary to s. 108(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

3I sentenced Mr. Graham separately: see R. v. Graham, 2026 ONSC 1734. He received an overall sentence of eight and a half years’ imprisonment prior to the application of credits. The eight and a half years sentence was based on seven years for the possession of a loaded, prohibited firearm contrary to s. 95 of the Criminal Code, plus one and a half years for breach of two firearm prohibition orders.

4In respect of Ms. Le, the Crown seeks an overall sentence of four years imprisonment before the application of credits. Conversely, the defence seeks a conditional sentence order (“CSO”) of 2 years less 18 days followed by 3 years of probation. For the reasons that follow, I sentence Ms. Le under a CSO of 2 years less 18 days to be served in the community. Certain ancillary orders shall apply.

Circumstances of the Firearm Possession Offences

5The circumstances of the firearm possession offences against Mr. Graham and Ms. Le are that, on January 29, 2024, members of the Toronto Police Service (“TPS”) executed a search warrant on a townhouse unit in Toronto. The target of the search was Mr. Graham, who police believed was in possession of an illegal firearm. Police had been conducting surveillance on the townhouse since January 26, 2024, noting the activity of individuals including the two accused.

6At 6:40 p.m., members of the TPS’s Emergency Task Force (“ETF”) breached the front door of the townhouse and announced that they had a warrant to search the premises. Peering through the front door, police observed three children in the living room area on the first floor. One of the children indicated that their parents were upstairs. Police repeatedly called for any occupants to identify themselves and come to the main entrance, but no one appeared.

7Police detected movement on the second and third floors. ETF officers entered the premises and continued to order the occupants to present themselves. Still, no adults appeared. Police moved the children to the kitchen, away from the stairs leading upstairs.

8Around three minutes after police entered, Ms. Le emerged on an upstairs landing. She came down and was detained in the kitchen without incident. Police continued to shout orders demanding that Mr. Graham come down unarmed. Mr. Graham started speaking to police from upstairs but did not come down. A standoff between Mr. Graham and the police ensued. The actions of police were captured on their body-worn cameras.

9About six and a half minutes after police entered, Mr. Graham appeared on the landing at the top of the stairs. Police ordered him to put his hands over his head and come down. He did not immediately comply. Police noticed a bulge on the side of Mr. Graham’s pant leg and believed that he may have been armed. Police used a taser twice on Mr. Graham. He fell to the floor on the landing. Police handcuffed and arrested him and provided him with his rights to counsel.

10A police search of the premises found two handguns located in a laundry basket in a second-floor bathroom and ammunition on an upper shelf in a third-floor bedroom. Police also found a firearm shoulder holster and almost $5,000 in Canadian currency in a second-floor bedroom.

Firearms

11Police located a Shadow Systems, Model DR920 Elite, 9 mm Luger calibre, centre fire handgun. This handgun is considered a restricted firearm under s. 84 of the Criminal Code. When found, the firearm had its serial number obliterated. A weapons examiner restored the serial number. The Shadow Systems firearm did not contain ammunition.

12Police located a second firearm, a Glock, Model 43X, 9 mm Luger calibre, centre fire handgun. This is considered a prohibited firearm. The Glock was loaded with a single round in the chamber and an over-capacity magazine containing nine rounds.

13Neither Mr. Graham nor Ms. Le possessed the appropriate registrations, permits, licenses, certificates, or authorizations to legally possess the handguns.

14The firearms were located in an open box of “Dove Men Care” deodorant that had been placed in a white full-faced balaclava, left under some clothing in a laundry basket in the second-floor bathroom. The laundry basket was found on the bathroom floor beside the bathtub.

Ammunition

15Police found three boxes of ammunition wrapped in bags in an “Amazon” box located on an upper shelf in the south bedroom on the third floor consisting of:

53 rounds of 9 mm “Winchester” and “American Eagle” ammunition in two boxes; and
47 rounds of 22 calibre “Remington Thunderbolt” Long Rifle ammunition in another box.

16Police also found a single spent 9 mm ammunition casing in the north bedroom on the second floor.

Second Floor

17In addition to the two handguns found in the bathroom on the second floor, in the bathroom garbage bin, police found a small wet Ziplock baggie and a black “Infinity” digital scale that was still in working order.

18I concluded that the children found in the townhouse were:

Ms. Le’s children Noah, 7, and Leah, 9; and
Karalyn, Ms. Le’s niece, 9.

19Based on the evidence at trial, I concluded that, as of January 29, 2024, Mr. Graham and Ms. Le were in a romantic, possibly marital, relationship.

20There was significant evidence that, as of January 29, 2024, Ms. Le was living with her two children in the townhouse which she was the owner of, or co-owner of, with her family.

21I concluded that Mr. Graham’s real connection to the townhouse was not that he lived there, but rather that he often stayed at the townhouse, possibly overnight. I find that, as Ms. Le’s partner and as a parental figure to her children, he had unrestricted access to all parts of the townhouse and Ms. Le’s Hyundai.

22No controlled substances were found by police, and there was no evidence of drug buys taking place at the townhouse. However, the presence in the second-floor bedroom of $5,000 in cash, plastic baggies with elastics, and a firearm shoulder holster, and, in the second-floor bathroom, a balaclava mask, a wet baggie, and a working digital scale suggested that the accused were involved in illegal drug activity for which they used the handguns police found in the bathroom as a tool of the trade.

23I concluded that Mr. Graham did not come down for 6 minutes and 34 seconds. By contrast, Ms. Le did not come down for 2 minutes and 50 seconds. I concluded that the only reasonable explanation why they took as long to come down as they did is that they were hiding or disposing of contraband in the home.

24I found Mr. Graham and Ms. Le guilty of the four firearm-related charges.

Circumstances of Ms. Le

Pre-Sentence Report for Ms. Le

25I was provided with a pre-sentence report (“PSR”) for Ms. Le written by Baily Carroll, a Probation and Parole (“P&P”) Officer, dated February 10, 2026.

26Ms. Le was born on April 3, 1991 in Toronto to parents of Vietnamese origin. Her parents came to Canada from Vietnam as refugees. At the time of her offences on January 29, 2024, she was 33 years old. She is 35 at the time of sentencing. [ she is now 35, was 33 years old at time of offence)

27Ms. Le has no prior criminal record.

28Ms. Le has two children, a daughter, now 11, born in 2014 and a son, now 9, who was born in 2017. Both children are from a relationship that ended in 2017. The children’s father is not involved in their lives. According to Ms. Le, her son was born premature and has had significant ongoing health issues related to asthma. According to Ms. Le’s mother, the two children have been significantly impacted by the events that occurred on the day of Ms. Le’s arrest and are still “shocked and frightened.”

29Ms. Le is one of five siblings. She has two older sisters, one twin sister, Ms. Christine Le, and one younger sister, Ms. Karen Le. She reported having a positive relationship with all her siblings. Ms. Le and her family are supported by community housing and have always resided in the same home. There were nine people living in the residence, including Ms. Le, her two children, Ms. Christine Le and her two children, Ms. Karen Le and her child, and Ms. Le’s mother, Ms. Nguyen.

30Ms. Le’s parents divorced when Ms. Le was young. Ms. Le reported remaining close with her father despite him not residing in the same home. Ms. Nguyen and her ex-husband shared custody of the children, and the father was involved in the children’s upbringing.

31Ms. Le reported a positive upbringing and normal childhood free from abuse. In 2019, Ms. Le’s mother suffered a brain aneurysm and has since required significant care. Ms. Le takes care of her mother’s medications, cares for her own children and her sisters’ children.

32Ms. Le reported that aside from her sisters, she has only one friend, Ms. Roselle Ravao. Ms. Le disclosed that she was connected with Mr. Graham, the co-accused, while he was in custody. All collaterals contacted by the P&P officer denied ever knowing Mr. Graham. At the time of the PSR report, Ms. Le was single.

33Ms. Le successfully completed high school as well as partially completed a college program. She did well in school and was not diagnosed with any learning disabilities. When Ms. Le was 23 years old, she attended a medical administrative program at a college in Toronto for roughly a year. However, she did not complete her exams as she became pregnant.

34As of October 2025, Ms. Le was receiving disability support due to a mental health diagnosis. Prior to this, and since the birth of her daughter in 2014, Ms. Le received unemployment insurance. Many years ago, Ms. Le worked as a nail technician but no longer does. She intended to look further into either a medical administrative program or real estate course once her sentence was determined.

35Ms. Le denies past or present issues with alcohol or illicit drugs. No one in her family has issues with alcohol or illicit substances.

36Ms. Le was cooperative and respectful during her interactions with the P&P officer. Despite being found guilty, Ms. Le maintains her innocence. She indicated that she had no knowledge of the firearms, claiming that they were not hers, and that she would never knowingly bring an individual around her children who had access to firearms. Ms. Le claimed that she met Mr. Graham through a friend and began speaking to him on the phone while he was in custody. She had only known Mr. Graham for roughly three months and claims to have had no knowledge of his criminal background.

37The collaterals contacted by the P&P officer described Ms. Le as responsible and a great mother, aunt, and godmother.

38Ms. Le has been compliant with all her bail conditions.

Crown Sentencing Position for Ms. Le

39The Crown submits that a total sentence of four years is warranted in Ms. Le’s case. Ms. Le should receive a sentence of four years for the s. 95(1) index offence of possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, with concurrent sentences for the other firearm related offences.

40While only one of the two firearms in the townhouse was loaded, both guns were found in a laundry basket in a second-floor bathroom. A large amount of ammunition was found one floor above in a bedroom. There were nine occupants living in the house, five of them children, at the time of Ms. Le’s arrest.

41The Crown submits that it is well recognized that for offenders convicted of possession of a loaded firearm, the primary focus of sentencing will be on denunciation and deterrence.

42The Crown pointed to the aggravating factors of the loaded Glock 43X with a round chambered and an overcapacity magazine, a second handgun with defaced serial number, and ammunition and holster on site. The handguns were deliberately concealed in a laundry basket in a common bathroom, possibly minutes after police entry. Ms. Le did not come down right away, and her actions were consistent with efforts to hide contraband.

43While recognizing the mitigating factors of Ms. Le as a single mother with two young children, albeit supported by her family, the Crown submits that general and specific deterrence remain relevant, and that a custodial sentence is required. Treatment and family responsibilities can be addressed through institutional programming and tailored ancillary orders.

44Additionally, the Crown seeks the following ancillary orders:

a) A DNA order under s. 487.051(3) of the Criminal Code as the s. 95(1) conviction is a secondary designated offence; and

b) An order that Ms. Le be prohibited from carrying or applying for weapons for life, pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code.

Defence Sentencing Position for Ms. Le

45The Defence submits that a CSO of 2 years less a day for the index s. 95(1) offence is appropriate, with all other firearm related sentences to run concurrently. The Defence also submits that Ms. Le should be subjected to a period of three years of probation.

46The Defence submits that a custodial sentence is not appropriate for Ms. Le, who is the primary caregiver to her two children and her elderly mother. Ms. Le has lived in community housing her entire life and is currently unemployed and supported by ODSP. Ms. Le would like to return to school and complete the medical administrative program that she left when she became pregnant.

47The Defence emphasises that Ms. Le has no previous criminal record. She spent 12 real days in custody from January 29 to February 9, 2024.

48Ms. Le has strong rehabilitative potential since she has strong family support and lives in a home surrounded by family members. She has no alcohol or substance abuse issues and has fully complied with her bail conditions.

49Ms. Le has mental health issues that need attention. Her mental health would suffer in a penitentiary setting.

50The Defence acknowledges that Ms. Le maintains her innocence and claims that she did not know about the firearms found in the townhouse. Ms. Le only had a relationship with Mr. Graham for three months but must suffer the grave consequences of that association. While denunciation and deterrence are appropriately the primary sentencing goals when firearms are involved, the other sentencing goals like rehabilitation and restraint must not be forgotten.

51The Defence focuses on the devastating collateral consequences of a custodial sentence and submits that a CSO to be served in the community can meet the various sentencing objectives.

52The Defence provided seven letters of support for Ms. Le:

a) A letter from a psychiatrist, Dr. Phuong Tran, advising that Ms. Le has been under his care since September 23, 2019 except for the almost five-year period of December 4, 2019 to October 30, 2024. Dr. Tran has been treating Ms. Le for depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”). Ms. Le’s symptoms include depressed mood, poor sleep, appetite, energy, and memory, as well as feelings of helplessness and hopelessness, with some passive suicidal ideation. She has auditory hallucinations and paranoia of being followed. She reports flashbacks of the traumatic incident in her house in January 2024. Dr. Tran provided a list of Ms. Le’s medications and noted that her progress has been slow, even with medication. He reported that Ms. Le has been compliant with her treatment and anticipates that she will follow up regularly with her monthly appointments.

b) A letter from Karen Le, Tammy Le’s sister, that describes Tammy as a hardworking and caring individual, mother, and family member. Karen describes Tammy as having distanced herself from a harmful environment and expressing sincere remorse and reflection about her choices.

c) A letter from Christine Le, Tammy Le’s twin sister. The letter similarly describes Tammy as being the sole provider and caretaker for her two young children and being deeply involved in raising and supporting several nieces and nephews. Christine describes Tammy as having crossed paths with the wrong person, presumably Mr. Graham, during a period of stress and uncertainty in her life. Christine suggests that Tammy ended up trusting someone she barely knew. Christine believes that Tammy has completely changed her environment, stays home, and has cut off negative influences in her life.

d) A letter from Roselle Ravao, a friend, who has known Ms. Le for over 20 years. In speaking very positively about Ms. Le in terms of her being a single parent to two children, Ms. Ravao also describes Ms. Le as being a dedicated caregiver for her mother, who suffered an aneurism.

e) A letter from Roy Rios, Ms. Le’s brother-in-law, who describes Ms. Le as having learned a tough lesson from her involvement with the criminal justice system. Mr. Rios describes Ms. Le as now having a strong commitment to personal growth and to living as a responsible, law-abiding individual.

f) A letter from Reverend Joseph Tap Tran, a pastor at the Vietnamese Martyrs Parish. Ms. Le is a member of the congregation and attends Sunday mass regularly and volunteers at the church. Rev. Tran describes Ms. Le as a faithful, loving, caring, and sincere individual.

g) A letter from Ms. Le’s godfather, Dung Van Truong. Mr. Truong has known Ms. Le’s family from their time in Vietnam and here in Canada. Mr. Truong speaks positively of Ms. Le as supporting her extended family, assisting in interpretation for the Vietnamese community, and being a devoted mother.

53The Defence does not object to the ancillary orders requested by the Crown.

54Both the Crown and Defence presented several case authorities to support their overall sentencing positions.

Applicable Case Law

55I endorse the comments of Stribopoulos J. in R. v. Nagra, 2026 ONSC 29, at para. 37:

The gravity of unlawfully possessing a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm cannot be overstated. Illegally possessed handguns pose an inherent and serious risk to public safety. They are far too frequently used to intimidate, injure, and kill, with devastating consequences for victims and their families. Given this, the case law recognizes that illegal firearms constitute a serious threat to the community, and that their possession must be discouraged through exemplary sentences that denounce and deter and thereby enhance public safety: see Nur, at para. 206 (C.A.); R. v. Mohiadin, 2021 ONCA 122, at para. 12; R v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, 159 O.R. (3d) 641, at para. 71.

56In R. v. George, 2024 ONSC 6016, at paras. 74-75, Penman J. commented on the appropriate sentence for loaded firearm possession offences for well-situated first-time offenders:

Loaded firearm possession for first offenders typically attracts a sentence in the range of 3 to 5 years. Sentences at the higher end of the range are typically applied where there is evidence that a firearm was possessed in connection with other criminality, such as drug trafficking connected to the firearm possession: R. v. Marshall, 2015 ONCA 692, at paras. 47-48; R. v. Graham, 2018 ONSC 6817, at para. 38, aff’d 2020 ONCA 692; R. v. Beharry, 2022 ONSC 4370, at para. 31.

For example, in R. v. Carrol, 2014 ONSC 2063, Molloy J. analyzed the effect of Nur and R. v. Smickle, 2013 ONCA 678 on the appropriate range of sentence for well-situated first offenders. Nur was 19 years old, he had pleaded guilty, he had strong support from his pro-social family, and he had excellent rehabilitative prospects. Smickle was found posing with a gun while alone in the privacy of an apartment. Both were first offenders. Molloy J. held that 2 years less a day to 3 years was now the appropriate range of sentence in this kind of first s. 95 offence case involving well situated first offenders.

57In R. v. Hussey-Rodrigues, 2024 ONSC 2671, Presser J. issued a CSO of 2 years less 24 days, followed by 3 years of probation to a first-time offender who was 18 years old at the time of his firearm offences. The circumstances were that when police officers approached Mr. Hussey-Rodrigues walking toward an address that was the subject of a search warrant, he ran and police gave chase. In the struggle that ensued, a loaded prohibited firearm fell to the ground, and Mr. Hussey-Rodrigues was convicted of illegal firearm possession. Like Ms. Le, Mr. Hussey-Rodrigues was one of five children and came from a close-knit and supportive family. Presser J. found that for nine months, the offender was the primary caregiver and effectively a single parent to his five-year old son. Support letters spoke to the offender’s exceptional parenting of his high-needs child who had developmental issues in challenging circumstances. Presser J. recognized that possession of a handgun, particularly in circumstances where the offender was on a public street and ran from police, constituted extremely dangerous criminal conduct.

58It took just under five years for Mr. Hussey-Rodrigues’s case to get to trial and, for the whole time, he lived under restrictive bail conditions. Moreover, Presser J. recognized that, in that timeframe, Mr. Hussey-Rodrigues significantly rehabilitated himself, particularly by being an exemplary parent and volunteering. Presser J. accepted that Mr. Hussey-Rodrigues was not the same person who committed the offences almost five years earlier. In examining the collateral consequences of a custodial sentence, Presser J. determined that Mr. Hussey-Rodrigues’ high-needs son would suffer devastating consequences if his father was incarcerated and that a CSO was still a proportional sentence that incorporated denunciation and deterrence.

59Presser J. also determined that there was no evidence that Mr. Hussey-Rodrigues was using the gun in aid of other criminal activity, such as to protect a drug stash, or that he was engaged in any other criminal activity. He was still held to have committed a “true crime”, albeit not one that placed him at the most serious end of the s. 95 spectrum.

60Presser J. found that a CSO of two years less a day was appropriate. The final sentence became 2 years less 24 days once credits for pre-sentence custody were incorporated. The CSO was to be served in the community. Notably, Presser J. found that incarceration would be harmful to Mr. Hussey-Rodrigues’ rehabilitation as it would disrupt his ongoing work and undo the continuity, stability, and routine that were essential to his son’s development.

61In R. v. Moses, 2022 ONSC 332, Quigley J. found that the fit sentence for a 40-year-old first-time offender who illegally possessed a loaded restricted firearm was a CSO of two years less a day. The circumstances of the offences were that police executed search warrants at two different residential addresses. At one address, they found a handgun containing a magazine loaded with seven rounds of ammunition, and at the other, which was the offender’s residence, they found matching ammunition. Quigley J. found that there was no evidence that the offender was engaged in other criminal activity or that the possession of the firearm was in conjunction with participation in the drug trade. It was noted that the possession was not in a public place and that the offender was not associated with any gang activity. In terms of mitigation, the offender had a strong and stable family life, was considered “a very good father”, and was fully employed. A very significant factor in the case was that the offender was a permanent resident but not a citizen of Canada, and a sentence of imprisonment would have resulted in the offender being deemed “inadmissible to Canada.” Noting, at para. 43, the simple but instructive caution that justice demands that no offender should ever be sentenced to one day more than he or she deserves, Quigley J. found that a CSO of two years less one day to be served in the community was appropriate.

62Summarizing the law in respect of when a CSO may be an appropriate sentence in respect of a firearm offence under s. 95(1), in Nagra, at para. 45, Stribopoulos J. stated:

The Court of Appeal has also recognized that, in appropriate cases, a conditional sentence may be a fit disposition for an offence under s. 95(1). As the Court explained in Morris, a “carefully fashioned conditional sentence that is responsive both to the needs of denunciation and deterrence and to the rehabilitative potential of the offender” can, in some circumstances, meet the objectives of sentencing for such offences: at para. 126; see also paras. 124-128, 180-81; see also R. v. Desmond-Robinson, 2022 ONCA 369, at paras. 12-14. Consistent with that guidance, courts have frequently imposed conditional sentences for s. 95(1) offences, particularly in cases involving first offenders, where the circumstances substantially mitigated their moral culpability, and/or where meaningful rehabilitative progress had already been made and would likely be undermined by incarceration. [Footnotes omitted.]

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors for Ms. Le

63The aggravating factors are:

a) While only one of the two firearms in the townhouse was loaded, both guns were found hidden in a laundry basket in a second-floor bathroom. A large amount of ammunition was found one floor above in a bedroom. That a loaded handgun was found in a house with nine occupants, five of them children, is a very significant aggravating factor.

b) Ms. Le’s behaviour on January 29, 2024 was shocking. Police implored her to come down immediately in a peaceful manner, particularly as there were three children waiting downstairs on the main level. The children yelled, “Mom” and “Mom come.” Yet, Ms. Le waited 2 minutes and 50 seconds before coming down. Ms. Le’s mother, Ms. Nguyen, reported in Mr. Graham’s PSR that Ms. Le’s children have been significantly impacted by the event that occurred on the day of Mr. Graham and Ms. Le’s arrest, stating that they are still “shocked and frightened.”

64It is not an aggravating factor that Ms. Le maintains her innocence or that she has not detailed the nature of her relationship with Mr. Graham. However, in the circumstances, I cannot say that Ms. Le has taken responsibility for her offences or directly shown any insight or remorse. I note that Tammy Le’s sister, Karen Le, indicated in her letter of support that Tammy expressed remorse “for her choices.” It was unstated as to what choices Karen Le or Tammy Le were referring to. Further, the P&P Officer stated that it was unclear whether Ms. Le fully understands the significant risk that having a firearm poses to public safety, as she generally focused on the impact upon herself and her family.

65I accept as mitigating that:

a) Ms. Le is a first-time offender. At 32, she was still young when she committed the offences.

b) Ms. Le’s behavior, now for over two years, while on bail has been appropriate.

c) She is being treated for depression and PTSD.

d) She has very strong family support, albeit limited community support. She lives in a multi-generational family setting where there is likely constant family presence and contact with loved ones.

e) She volunteers with the Vietnamese Martyrs Parish and helps her godfather with interpretation in the local Vietnamese community.

f) There do not appear to be any alcohol or substance dependence issues that would pose a challenge for her rehabilitation. She grew up in a home free from abuse and has no learning disabilities.

g) She has completed high school and appears motivated to return to the work force, possibly in medical administration, now that her children are getting older.

66Overall, I would describe Ms. Le’s prospects of rehabilitation as strong.

Collateral Consequence of a Custodial Sentence

67I have given considerable thought to the collateral consequences of imposing a custodial sentence on Ms. Le.

68Ms. Le has two children, aged 9 and 11 at the time of sentencing, whom she has raised as a single parent from birth. The defence submits that separating Ms. Le from her children would have “incalculable adverse effects” on both Ms. Le and her children. Ms. Le is also a primary caregiver to her elderly mother, who suffered an aneurism. Ms. Le also cares for her nieces and nephews who live in the same household. It would be reasonable to argue that the collateral consequences of incarceration would extend to Ms. Le’s large family.

69In R. v. D.B., 2025 ONCA 577, 178 O.R. (3d) 214, Tulloch C.J.O. writing on behalf of the Court of Appeal commented on the principles governing collateral consequences of sentencing.

Collateral consequences humanize and individualize sentencing by accounting for its effects other than the criminal sanction itself: at para. 12.
Considering collateral consequences is mandatory, not optional: at para. 13.
The law approaches collateral consequences generously, not restrictively: at para. 14.
Failing to meaningfully engage with the collateral consequences of family separation is an error in principle, and one that materially affects the sentence. The prospect of family separation requires sentencing judges to meaningfully consider its consequences, even for serious offences: at para. 19.
Detailed or expert evidence is typically not needed to prove that family separation would cause common well-known consequences, such as the adverse effects of separating parents from young children. However, in rare cases where a sentencing judge lacks sufficient information, they may ask the parties if they wish to call additional evidence: at para. 20.

70Of course, the fundamental principle of proportionality must prevail in every case – collateral consequences cannot be used to reduce a sentence to a point where it “becomes disproportionate to the gravity of the offence or the moral blameworthiness of the offender”: R. v. Suter, 2018 SCC 34, [2018] 2 S.C.R. 496, at para. 56.

Sentencing Decision

71I am guided by the principles of sentencing that are set out in ss. 718, 718.1, and 718.2 of the Criminal Code. The sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and degree of responsibility of the offender. An appropriate sentence is one that reflects a realistic appraisal of the offender’s prospects for rehabilitation, the offender’s individual and family circumstances, and the principle of restraint.

72I find that the appropriate sentence for Ms. Le is two years less a day for the s. 95 index offence. The sentences for her other firearms-related offences should be served concurrent to the s. 95 sentence.

73I begin my analysis of the appropriate sentence by noting that sentencing is a highly individualized process. Here, the Crown submits that a four-year sentence for the s. 95 index offence is the appropriate one. By contrast, the Defence submits, relying strongly on the mitigating factors and the serious collateral consequences to Ms. Le and her family, that a CSO of two years less a day, prior to the application of credits, can still fulfill the various sentencing objectives.

74I acknowledge that, while Ms. Le is a first-time offender, some of the typical factors that would have warranted a sentence in the reformatory range are not present. First, Ms. Le committed the s. 95 offence at the age of 32. She is now 35. She is still young, but her age is not comparable to that of offenders in their late teens or early twenties. I note that are some cases where older offenders have received CSOs. In Moses, the offender was 40; in Beharry, the offender was 32. Second, I cannot say that Ms. Le’s firearm possession offences have no relationship to other possible criminality. I found that the presence of $5,000 in cash, plastic baggies with elastics, a firearm shoulder holster, and, in the second-floor bathroom, a balaclava mask, a wet baggie, and a working digital scale suggested that the accused may have been involved in illegal drug activity for which they used the two handguns as a tool of the trade. Third, I cannot ignore that police found two handguns, not one, not to mention a considerable amount of ammunition.

75Fourth, since the time of her charges, there is no clear record of her rehabilitative efforts. She was charged with the within offences at the end of January 2024 and did not resume seeing her psychiatrist until October 30, 2024. It is now well over two years since the charges were laid, and there is no evidence of her taking educational courses or retraining. I note that, prior to Ms. Le being charged, her source of income was ODSP. It is also possible that Ms. Le’s mental health issues and the stress of this case present additional barriers to making such progress. In sum, I recognize that it is not straightforward to analogize Ms. Le’s circumstances to other first-time-offenders who have received sentences in the reformatory range when charged with s. 95 offences.

76I would also add that is difficult to know what role Ms. Le played in the commission of the offences. Neither Ms. Le nor Mr. Graham testified at trial. I found that Ms. Le and Mr. Graham had joint possession of the two firearms found in the townhouse. The evidence on sentencing indicates that Ms. Le only knew Mr. Graham for three months before her arrest. She met him while he was in custody. At trial, on the basis of a holiday card from Ms. Le to Mr. Graham, I determined that Ms. Le appeared to be in a very close romantic relationship with him, and that he was likely spending nights at the townhouse while living elsewhere. Still, I accept Christine Le’s assertion that Tammy Le had the misfortune of crossing paths with Mr. Graham during a period of stress and uncertainty in her life. Her trust in Mr. Graham has cost her dearly. All collaterals contacted by the P&P officer denied ever knowing Mr. Graham. This suggests to me that, in all likelihood, Ms. Le’s relationship with Mr. Graham developed quickly and intensely.

77I do not exactly know who brought the guns and ammunition to the townhouse, who used and stored them, and for how long they had been in the house. It is also difficult to pierce the veil of what happened in the minutes after police entered the townhouse on January 29, 2024.

78Ms. Le stands convicted of the serious offence of possessing two handguns, one loaded. While accepting that the additional handgun is an aggravating factor, no decision has been brought to my attention that would suggest that the presence of an additional firearm would preclude Ms. Le from consideration of a reformatory range sentence.

79Overall, I find that Ms. Le’s circumstances merit a reformatory range sentencing because such a sentence still satisfies the various sentencing objectives, whereas a longer sentence fails to meet the objectives of proportionality, restraint, and rehabilitation and ignores the significant collateral consequences that would arise from incarcerating Ms. Le. A high reformatory sentence is still a strict sentence that acknowledges the danger associated with illegal firearm possession.

80First, there is no doubt that, as a well-situated first offender, a reformatory sentence is in the range of what is appropriate for Ms. Le. At 35, she is still young and has no known association with criminality other than her brief, at most three-month, association with Mr. Graham.

81Second, Ms. Le’s lack of so-called rehabilitative efforts must be looked at contextually. I find that Ms. Le may not be working outside the home but she is providing support to more than just her own children at home. She is the primary caregiver to her mother and also looks after her sister’s children. She has been on ODSP and her mental health issues appear to pre-date the charges for which she is being convicted. In a sense, there is no outside job for her to resume because she is continuing to do the job she has always done. Ms. Le’s psychiatrist reported that, while her progress has been slow, she will follow up regularly with her monthly appointments.

82Third, I am concerned that issuing a penitentiary sentence for the next three to four years will have a damaging effect on Ms. Le’s mental health, and a devastating impact on her two children, and her elderly mother who has significant health issues. This is a case where perhaps any one of the mitigating factors, standing alone, would not make it an exceptional case deserving of a reformatory sentence, but collectively the factors including her lack of a criminal record, her still-young age, her status as a single mother, her fragile mental health, her significant contributions to her family in a multi-generational congregate setting, and the collateral consequences to her two children and mother and family, convince me that a reformatory sentence is appropriate here.

83Finally, I am convinced that Ms. Le’s brief time in custody in 2024, and her journey leading up this sentencing have left a very deep impact on her and she is determined to not involve herself in any criminal activity or be associated with individuals therein. In her own words, “this situation has left her very guarded, and she just wants to focus on her family.”

84Having decided that a sentence in the reformatory range is a fit one, I turn to whether Ms. Le should serve this sentence in the community.

A conditional sentence to be served in the community is appropriate

85First, under s. 742.1 of the Criminal Code, the court may impose a jail sentence of less than two years to be served in the community if the offence is not one on the excluded list of offences and does not have an attached minimum sentence.

86Ms. Le’s offences fit those criteria, and so a conditional sentence is available.

87Second, a conditional sentence must not endanger the safety of the community, and it must be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing as set out in ss. 718 to 718.2.

88Regarding conditional sentences and the fundamental purpose of sentencing, the Supreme Court in R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61, at para. 22, stated:

The conditional sentence incorporates some elements of non-custodial measures and some others of incarceration. Because it is served in the community, it will generally be more effective than incarceration at achieving the restorative objectives of rehabilitation, reparations to the victim and community, and the promotion of a sense of responsibility in the offender. However, it is also a punitive sanction capable of achieving the objectives of denunciation and deterrence. [Emphasis in original.]

89Ms. Le has not breached her conditions of bail since her arrest.

90I do not find that Ms. Le serving her sentence in the community will endanger its safety, and I find that such a sentence remains consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing.

Discussion of Credits for Ms. Le

91Ms. Le was arrested on January 29, 2024.

92The period between January 29 to February 9, 2024 is 12 real days. As per R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 575, Ms. Le is entitled to receive an enhanced credit for the equivalent of 18 days.

CSO and Probation

93The Summers credit of 18 days shall apply.

94Accordingly, I impose a remaining sentence of 2 years less 18 days to be served in the community as a conditional sentence.

95The sentence of 2 years less 18 days served as a conditional sentence shall have the following terms: In addition to the statutory conditions in s. 742.3, which I impose, Ms. Le shall reside at her residence with her children or at such address as approved by her supervisor. She shall be under house arrest for the first 12 months of the conditional sentence and shall only leave the house for the purpose of work, to attend school, to attend appointments with her supervisor, to attend counselling, to attend medical appointments for herself or members of her immediate household, to obtain necessities once each week for four hours, and for any other reason that her supervisor approves. In any event, during the period of house arrest, she shall be in the house between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. each day for seven days each week.

96For the remaining months of the conditional sentence, she shall be permitted to leave her residence, but she shall be subject to a curfew between the hours of 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. each day for seven days each week. The only exceptions are for medical emergencies for herself or a member of her household or with the prior approval of her supervisor. During the entire period of the conditional sentence, she shall attend counselling, educational training, or work as directed by her supervisor and sign any necessary releases; she shall abstain from owning, possessing, or carrying a weapon, and she shall not apply for or possess a firearm acquisition certificate or gun licence.

97I have signed an Adult CSO that specifies the terms of Ms. Le’s conditional sentence. In the event of any inconsistency between these Reasons for Sentence and the CSO, the CSO prevails.

Probation

98Following this period of confinement, Ms. Le will be on probation for three years. In addition to the statutory conditions, she shall report to her probation officer forthwith following the conclusion of the conditional sentence and as often as the probation officer deems necessary; she shall reside at an address approved by her probation officer; she shall maintain employment or attend school and provide proof thereof to her probation officer; she shall abstain from owning or possessing any weapon; and she shall attend and participate in any counselling and/or treatment as directed by her probation officer and sign any necessary releases.

Ancillary Orders

99I also order that Ms. Le be subject to:

a) A DNA order under s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code in respect of counts which are secondary designated offences; and

b) An order that Ms. Le be prohibited from carrying or applying for weapons for life, pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code.

Conclusion

100Under the 4-count Joint Indictment, Ms. Le is sentences as follows:

a) Count 1 – s. 95(1) – 2 years less a day.

b) Count 2 – s. 92(1) – 2 years less a day concurrent with count 1.

c) Count 3 – s. 92(2) – 1 year concurrent with count 1.

d) Count 4 – s. 108(1)(b) – 1 year concurrent with count 1.

101Given the Summers credit of 18 days, Ms. Le shall serve a remaining sentence of 2 years less 18 days to be served in the community as a conditional sentence.

102In terms of ancillary orders, Ms. Le is subject to:

a) A DNA order under s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code; and

b) A weapons prohibition order for life under s. 109 of the Criminal Code.

Pinto J.

Released: April 14, 2026