R. v. Kazumba, 2026 ONSC 2490
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
– and –
RIDGE KAZUMBA
E. Jackson and A. Nagra, for the Crown
M. Cremer and C. Perry, for Mr. Kazumba
HEARD: March 12, 2026
REASONS FOR SENTENCE1
1The Royal Caribbean Café was a small restaurant on St. Clair Avenue West in Toronto. The evening of August 24, 2023 appeared to be an unremarkable day at the restaurant. A few people sat at tables eating their meals, including Ridge Kazumba and two of his friends. A few other people stood by the counter waiting for food they had ordered to take out, including Mariah Brooks, Thulani Moncrieffe-Belmar and Esther Butcher. Ms. Brooks’s boyfriend, Nakhari Henry-Robinson, had been waiting for her outside but decided to enter the restaurant. The events that took place over the course of the next few seconds would change the lives of all of these people forever.
2As Mr. Henry-Robinson entered the restaurant, Mr. Kazumba produced a firearm and fatally shot him. He and Mr. Moncrieffe-Belmar then shot at each other several times. Mr. Kazumba suffered a gunshot wound to the hand and Ms. Butcher suffered one to the leg.
3Following a jury trial, Mr. Kazumba was convicted of second degree murder and unlawful possession of a loaded, restricted firearm. These reasons explain the sentences that will be imposed as a result of those convictions.
I. FACTS
A. The Offences
4Ridge Kazumba, a musician, spent the day working in a recording studio with two friends. They went to the Royal Caribbean Café to order food to take out, but once they were there decided to eat in the restaurant. All of the events in the restaurant were recorded on two security surveillance video cameras.
5While in the restaurant, Mr. Kazumba was armed with a loaded handgun. He testified that he had obtained the handgun, which he was unauthorized to possess, because he had been advised by a friend that there were people who wanted to kill him.
6Thulani Moncrieffe-Belmar spent the day with his friend, Nakhari Henry-Robinson. They went to visit Mr. Henry-Robinson’s girlfriend, Mariah Brooks, who worked at a hair salon near the café. Ms. Brooks telephoned the café to order food for herself and then went there to get it, accompanied by Mr. Moncrieffe-Belmar and Mr. Henry-Robinson.
7When they arrived at the café, Mr. Henry-Robinson remained outside while Ms. Brooks and Mr. Moncrieffe-Belmar entered. They walked to a counter at the back, going past the table where Mr. Kazumba and his friends were eating. Mr. Kazumba did not know Mr. Moncrieffe-Belmar or Mr. Henry-Robinson. There is some evidence that Mr. Moncrieffe-Belmar looked at Mr. Kazumba and his friends and there is some disputed evidence that he said something confrontational to them. A few minutes later, Mr. Henry-Robinson entered the café and walked towards the back.
8Like Mr. Kazumba, Mr. Moncrieffe-Belmar and Mr. Henry-Robinson were also armed with handguns, although this would not have been known to Mr. Kazumba. As Mr. Henry-Robinson approached Mr. Kazumba’s table, he moved his right hand to the front pocket of his hoodie, which appeared to have something in it. Mr. Kazumba stood up, took out his gun, and shot Mr. Henry-Robinson in the chest. As Mr. Henry-Robinson turned and began to leave, Mr. Kazumba shot him a second time in the back.
9As Mr. Henry-Robinson fled from the restaurant, Mr. Moncrieffe-Belmar took out his weapon and gunfire was exchanged between him and Mr. Kazumba.2 Mr. Kazumba fled the restaurant, after which Mr. Moncrieffe-Belmar fled as well.
10Mr. Henry-Robinson collapsed soon after the leaving the café and later died of his injuries. According to the pathologist, the first shot fired by Mr. Kazumba caused his death. The injury caused by the second shot did not contribute to his death.
11Mr. Kazumba’s hand was struck by a bullet fired by Mr. Moncrieffe-Belmar. Ms. Butcher, who was in the café to purchase food, was struck in the leg, but it is unknown who fired the shot that injured her.
12Mr. Kazumba acknowledged that he caused Mr. Henry-Robinson’s death, but took the position that he acted in self-defence as he reasonably believed that Mr. Henry-Robinson was about to shoot him. It is clear from the jury’s verdict that it did not accept that Mr. Kazumba was acting in self-defence.
B. Victim Impact
13Mr. Henry-Robinson was 23 years old at the time of his death. He was an athlete and a music lover who enjoyed good food, travelling and spending time with his extended family.
14Several victim impact statements were prepared by members of Mr. Henry-Robinson’s family. I cannot adequately summarize what they have expressed, so what follows are some excerpts from each of their statements.
15His mother, Tenica Henry, said:
I haven’t been able to sleep, my thoughts have been scattered and my mental health rattled. Nakhari’s untimely death has been life altering for his siblings who need social workers to cope with his absence. The children have been trying to get a grip on what happened to him and being caught up in a widely publicized case has intruded in our healing process as well as our day to day life.
23 years old is extremely young to lose your life. What he did that day changed the trajectory of my family’s future as we try to move forward from this tragedy. What’s killing me inside is, I won’t receive any more birthday hugs, I won’t be able to see my son get married or give me grandchildren, I won’t have any more conversations with him about his interests or plans for the future. I can’t take vacations or attend important life events with him, everything has been halted by him!!!!
16Mr. Henry-Robinson’s aunt, Anthea Henry, said:
I felt like everything caved in on me. My heart truly shattered. A piece of joy has been taken from my family. No more birthdays, no more Christmas dinners, no Thanksgiving, no laughter, no more jokes and no more joy. The hurt and pain we are feeling is indescribable.
17Mr. Henry-Robinson’s cousin, Felisha Henry-Lee, said:
How gut wrenching it is to face the fact that your recent memories and togetherness was your last. My days will forever be empty without my cousin’s stories, laughter and charisma. How he shined with music and sang from the core. How he danced like nothing and no one else mattered.
Having to forcibly accept the ending of his story, when it just began. My soul shattered that day and it has been incomplete and my life has been so quiet ever since. All of our lives lost colour.
18His grandmother, Sheila Henry, said:
To lose a grandchild leaves unspeakable pain and a never-ending nightmare. When Khari was born the joy in our family magnified. Khari’s affection towards me and his grandfather will never be anymore and we are missing his love everyday.
C. The Offender
19Mr. Kazumba is 29 years old. He is a Canadian citizen and has no prior criminal record. Mr. Kazumba was born in Toronto and he and his three brothers grew up in the Regent Park area. Mr. Kazumba’s mother died by suicide in 2010. He has a seven-year-old son with a woman from whom he is separated and had a co-parenting arrangement with her until he went into custody following his conviction. He had another son who tragically died while an infant.
20After completing high school, Mr. Kazumba obtained a diploma from the Remix Project, a professional arts training program for musicians. He has been self-employed as a professional rap musician since 2014, recording his own music as well as writing lyrics and doing production work for other artists. He also worked at Wanasah, a non-profit mental health organization for Black youth in the Regent Park area, as both a volunteer and a paid employee.
21A number of letters from members of Mr. Kazumba’s family and community were filed at the sentencing hearing. They describe Mr. Kazumba as a dedicated father, a leader in his community, and a kind and caring person.
22Mr. Kazumba was incarcerated at the Toronto South Detention Centre (“TSDC”) following his arrest in September 2023, where he was subjected to a number of lockdowns, primarily because of staffing shortages, and where he spent some time “triple-bunked” in a cell designed for two occupants. He was released on bail in July 2025 until his conviction in December 2025. Since then, he has again been subjected to a number of lockdowns and “triple-bunking.”
D. Jury Recommendations
23Pursuant to s. 745.2 of the Criminal Code, the jury members were asked whether they wished to make recommendations as to Mr. Kazumba’s parole ineligibility. One juror made no recommendation and nine jurors recommended 10 years.3
II. ANALYSIS
A. Findings of Fact
(i) The Correct Approach
24Section 724(2) of the Criminal Code requires me to accept as proven all facts, express or implied, that are essential to the jury’s verdict and also permits me to find other facts disclosed by the evidence. I must engage in my own, independent fact-finding exercise with respect to any facts that are not expressed or necessarily implicit in the jury’s verdict: R. v. Aragon, 2022 ONCA 244, 413 C.C.C. (3d) 79, at paras. 105-107. I may not consider any aggravating fact unless it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt: Criminal Code, s. 724(3)(e); R. v. Gardiner, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 368, at pp. 414-417.
(ii) Motive and Mr. Henry-Robinson’s Utterances
25As noted earlier, at trial Mr. Kazumba advanced the defence of self-defence. He testified that at some time in July 2023, he was told by a friend that there was reason to believe that some unidentified people intended to kill him and his son, which was why he had obtained an illegal firearm. The theory advanced by the defence at trial was that Mr. Henry-Robinson and Mr. Moncrieffe-Belmar recognized Mr. Kazumba in the restaurant and decided to kill him there. In support of this, the defence relied on evidence that there was some information on Mr. Henry-Robinson’s phone that suggested that he knew who Mr. Kazumba was.
26Mr. Kazumba testified that he did not know Mr. Henry-Robinson. However, when Mr. Henry-Robinson entered the restaurant, he looked at Mr. Kazumba, put his hand into the pocket of his hoodie and said, “Didn’t I tell you I’d catch you slippin’” and “I’m gonna smoke you, I’m gonna smoke you.” Mr. Kazumba testified that he took these statements as a threat to kill him and as a result formed the belief that Mr. Henry-Robinson was about to pull a gun out of his pocket and shoot him. He therefore shot Mr. Henry-Robinson first in order to preserve himself from harm.
27As the jury was told, s. 34(1) of the Criminal Code provides that a person is not guilty of an offence if (1) he believes on reasonable grounds that force is being used or threatened against him; (2) his subjective purpose in responding to the threat is to protect himself; and (3) the act is reasonable in the circumstances: R. v. Khill, 2021 SCC 37, [2021] 2 S.C.R. 948, at paras. 36-37. Provided that there is an air of reality to the defence (which is conceded in this case), the Crown bears the burden of disproving the defence by disproving one or more of the three elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
28Mr. Kazumba did not know Mr. Henry-Robinson and there is no evidence of any motive he may have had to harm him other than that he viewed him as a threat. I accept that Mr. Kazumba’s purpose was to protect himself from a perceived threat. However, I find that Mr. Kazumba’s belief that Mr. Henry-Robinson was using or threatening to use force against him was not reasonable.
29I do not accept that Mr. Henry-Robinson and Mr. Moncrieffe-Belmar had a plan to kill Mr. Kazumba. There is no evidence supporting the existence of any such plan. At its highest, the material on Mr. Henry-Robinson’s phone shows no more than that he may have been aware of who he was, which was not surprising given that Mr. Kazumba was a fairly successful rap artist. I do not accept that Mr. Henry-Robinson said “I’m going to smoke you” or that he uttered any type of threat towards Mr. Kazumba.
30I find that what occurred was that Mr. Kazumba made an impulsive decision to kill Mr. Henry-Robinson based on a genuine but entirely unfounded belief that Mr. Henry-Robinson meant to do him harm. While the force used by Mr. Kazumba might have been reasonable if there was a reasonable basis for him to believe that he had to defend himself, there was no such basis. To put it simply, this was a senseless and impulsive act of unnecessary violence by someone who made the decision to act without thinking based on an unfounded and irrational moment of fear.
(iii) Number of Shots Fired
31It is clear from security video of the incident that Mr. Kazumba and Mr. Moncrieffe-Belmar both fired several shots inside the restaurant. Neither firearm was ever recovered. There was evidence at trial that 21 shell casings were found inside the restaurant and that they all came from one of two firearms, with 15 coming from one and six from the other. The Crown asks that I find as a fact that Mr. Kazumba fired 15 times and Mr. Moncrieffe-Belmar fired six times.
32While this is likely accurate, in my view it is not necessary for me to make any findings in this regard. It is clear from the evidence that the first shot discharged by Mr. Kazumba is the one which caused Mr. Henry-Robinson’s death and that he discharged his firearm several more times after that. Whether he fired another 14 shots or another five shots does not affect that appropriate sentence.
(iv) Whether Mr. Kazumba Continued to Shoot at Mr. Henry-Robinson
33The Crown also asks me to find that after Mr. Henry-Robinson ran out of the restaurant, Mr. Kazumba continued to fire at him. I have viewed the video several times. As noted, Mr. Kazumba fired several times in different directions. While it appears that he did fire at least one shot in the direction of Mr. Henry-Robinson while he was outside the restaurant, I cannot say whether this was intentional. Regardless of whether it was, Mr. Kazumba had already caused Mr. Henry-Robinson’s death and had done so intentionally.
B. Determining Parole Ineligibility
(i) Overview
34Section 745(c) of the Criminal Code states that the sentence that I must impose for a conviction for second degree murder is imprisonment for life. While I have a discretion as to the number of years that Mr. Kazumba must serve before being eligible for parole, the sentence must and will be one of life imprisonment.
35Determinations as to parole ineligibility are governed by s. 745.4 of the Criminal Code. The Supreme Court of Canada has held that “as a general rule, the period of parole ineligibility should be for 10 years, but this can be ousted by a determination of the trial judge that, according to the criteria enumerated in [s. 745.4], the offender should wait a longer period before having his suitability to be released in the general public assessed”: R. v. Shropshire, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 227, at para. 27. Those criteria are the character of the offender, the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding its commission, and the jury’s recommendations.
(ii) The Criteria in [s. 745.4](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html#sec745.4_smooth) of the [Criminal Code](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html)
(a) Character of the Offender
36Prior to committing this offence, Mr. Kazumba had no criminal record and was a gainfully employed, successful musician who supported his son and spent time doing volunteer work. As a number of letters filed at the sentencing hearing show, he enjoys the support of his family, friends and members of his community. It appears that the offence was out of character for him and it is likely that he can once again become a law-abiding and contributing member of society.
37While not strictly speaking related the character of the offender, I do take into account the conditions in which Mr. Kazumba spent time in pre-sentence custody as it is a mitigating factor: R. v. Lamba, 2024 ONCA 778, at paras. 18-25. Despite best efforts, counsel have been unable to obtain complete institutional records setting out the dates on which Mr. Kazumba was subject to lockdowns or “triple-bunked.”4 However, the conditions at the TSDC are notorious and I am prepared to take judicial notice of both the harshness of the conditions and the fact that they would have had an adverse effect on Mr. Kazumba: R. v. Menezes, 2023 ONCA 838, 432 C.C.C. (3d) 394, at para. 78; R. v. Champagnie, 2024 ONSC 4960, at para. 50; R. v. Doyle, 2022 ONSC 2489, at para. 58.
(b) The Nature and Circumstances of the Offence
38Mr. Kazumba killed Mr. Henry-Robinson with an illegal handgun. The unlawful possession of illegal handguns is a prevalent and pressing problem in Toronto. This case illustrates why.
39Handguns are designed for one purpose, which is to kill human beings. They do so very effectively and very quickly. For a person armed with a loaded handgun, nothing more than a fleeting instance of bad judgment and slight pressure on a trigger can end for all time the existence of another human being: R. v. Kawal, 2018 ONSC 7531, at para. 12. That is what occurred in this case. But for the fact that he had a firearm, Mr. Kazumba’s unreasonable and unfounded fears about Mr. Henry-Robinson would likely have quickly passed without consequence. Instead, Mr. Henry-Robinson is dead, Mr. Kazumba is facing imprisonment for life, and the families and loved ones of both men face a lifetime of pain and loss.
40Mr. Kazumba’s use of his firearm resulted in Mr. Moncrieffe-Belmar using his own firearm, which increased exponentially the risk to members of the public and resulted in Ms. Butcher being shot.
(c) Recommendations of the Jury
41As noted earlier, nine jurors made a parole ineligibility recommendation of 10 years and one made no recommendation. These recommendations are made by jurors who may have little or no knowledge about sentencing principles and without the benefit of submissions. That said, as noted in R. v. Pandurevic, 2013 ONSC 3323, at para. 24, “seeking the input of the jury is not a mere exercise in public relations” and “their opinions are valuable insight into the degree of [Mr. Kazumba’s] moral culpability” by members of the community who have heard all of the evidence.
(iii) Positions of the Parties and Other Cases
42Counsel for Mr. Kazumba submits that the appropriate period of parole ineligibility is 10 years. She cites a number of authorities in support of her position: R. v. Pabani (1994), 17 O.R. (3d) 659 (C.A.); R. v. Rajaratnam, 2025 ONSC 3640; R. v. Kozuch, 2024 ONSC 815; R. v. Lewis, 2012 ONSC 2488; R. v. Suthakaran, 2020 ONSC 4245, aff’d 2024 ONCA 50, 433 C.C.C. (3d) 175; Lamba; Pandurevic.
43Crown counsel submits that the appropriate period of parole ineligibility is 14 to 15 years. She also cites a number of authorities in support of her position: R. v. D.S., 2017 ONCA 38, 345 C.C.C. (3d) 1; R. v. Doucette, 2015 ONCA 583, 328 C.C.C. (3d) 211; R. v. Hayles-Wilson, 2018 ONSC 4337, aff’d 2022 ONCA 790, 165 O.R. (3d) 97; R. v. Roberts, 2026 ONSC 193.
44Notably, none of the cases in which a 10-year period of parole ineligibility was imposed involved firearms: Lamba; Pabani; Pandurevic; Rajaratnam. During her submissions at the sentencing hearing, counsel for Mr. Kazumba candidly acknowledged that she was unable to find a single case in which a 10-year parole ineligibility period was imposed for a second degree murder conviction involving a firearm. This is not surprising, as the use of a firearm is a significantly aggravating factor that will almost always require an elevated period of parole ineligibility: Suthakaran (C.A.), at para. 67.
45While this case requires a parole ineligibility period greater than 10 years, it is nonetheless distinguishable from the cases relied on by the Crown where 14 or 15 years was imposed. Those cases involved either an additional aggravating factor, such as the offender being bound by a firearm prohibition order at the time of the offence (Sinclair; Doucette), or a murder that had elements of planning absent in this case (Hayles-Wilson, Roberts).
(iv) The Appropriate Period of Parole Ineligibility
46In my view, of the cases that were cited, the one with the greatest similarity to this case is Suthakaran. That case also involved an accused who unlawfully possessed an illegal firearm, but who did not do so in anticipation of a specific altercation, and also involved an unreasonable overreaction to a perceived threat that in no way justified the use of deadly force. More significantly, it also involved a relatively youthful first offender for whom the offence was out of character and who has prospects for rehabilitation. In that case, parole ineligibility was set at 12 years, which is consistent with what has been imposed in other second degree murder cases involving firearms where the offender has no prior record and good prospects for rehabilitation: R. v. Abdella-Smith, 2023 ONSC 3735, at paras. 45-46; R. v. Zekarias, 2014 ONCA 910, 317 C.C.C. (3d) 415, at para. 48; R. v. Maciel, 2007 ONCA 496, 226 O.A.C. 1, at paras. 15-18; R. v. Chizanga, 2020 ONSC 4647, at paras. 90-91; Lewis, at para. 22; Kozuch, at para. 104.
47While there are also distinguishing features between Suthakaran and this case, in my view a parole ineligibility period of the same length as in that case appropriately balances the various sentencing objectives by recognizing the significant aggravating factor arising from the use of an illegal firearm in a public place with Mr. Kazumba’s status as a first offender with prospects for rehabilitation.
C. Unauthorized Possession of a Loaded Restricted Firearm
48Neither counsel made any submissions with respect to the appropriate sentence for unauthorized possession of a loaded restricted firearm. This is not surprising, given that any sentence that is imposed will necessarily be served concurrently with Mr. Kazumba’s life sentence and will have no effect on the total sentence. In all the circumstances, given that the firearm was used repeatedly in a public place, the appropriate sentence is five years.
III. DISPOSITION
49For the foregoing reasons, the following sentences are imposed:
Count 1: Imprisonment for life, without parole eligibility until he has served 12 years.
Count 2: Imprisonment for five years, to be served concurrently.
50Pursuant to s. 109(1) of the Criminal Code, Mr. Kazumba is prohibited from possessing the items described in s. 109(3) for life.
51Pursuant to s. 487.051(2) of the Criminal Code, Mr. Kazumba is ordered to provide a sample of his DNA for inclusion in the national databank.
52Pursuant to s. 743.21(1) of the Criminal Code, during the custodial period of his sentence, Mr. Kazumba is prohibited from communicating, directly or indirectly, with Mariah Brooks, Esther Butcher, Tanica Henry, Anthea Henry, Felisha Henry-Lee, Sheila Henry and Thulani Moncrieffe-Belmar, except that he may communicate with Mr. Moncrieffe-Belmar through counsel for the sole purpose of preparing any appeal against conviction or sentence by either or both of them.
Justice P.A. Schreck
Released: April 28, 2026
Footnotes
- An abbreviated version of these reasons was delivered orally in court on April 28, 2026. In the event of any inconsistency between those oral reasons and these written reasons, the written reasons should be taken as correct.
- Mr. Moncrieffe-Belmar was tried on the same indictment as Mr. Kazumba on charges of reckless discharge of a firearm, for which he was found not guilty, and unauthorized possession of a loaded restricted firearm, for which he was found guilty. He is yet to be sentenced.
- Two jurors were discharged for health reasons after the deliberations began.
- Counsel did obtain the records after these reasons were prepared. Unsurprisingly, they show a significant number of lockdowns and periods of time during which Mr. Kazumba was triple-bunked, so they do not affect the result.