ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
- and -
EARLAN CLOVIS
Paul Zambonini and Ailsa Miller, for the Crown
Hussein Aly, for Mr. Clovis
HEARD: July 9, 2025, and May 14, 2026
FORESTELL J.
reasons for sentencE
Overview
1Earlan Clovis entered a guilty plea before me on July 9, 2025, to the offence of manslaughter in relation to the shooting death of 28-year-old Tola Paul on April 15, 2023. The case was adjourned for the preparation of an enhanced presentence report. Sentencing submissions were made on May 14, 2026, and I reserved my decision until today.
Positions of the Parties
2The Crown seeks a sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment before credit for pre-sentence custody.
3Mr. Clovis submits that a five-year sentence would have been appropriate before credit for presentence custody. Mr. Clovis has been in custody for 1,131 days and the credit for that period of custody is 1,697 days or four years, seven months and 22 days. Mr. Clovis submits that in view of the conditions of his presentence detention, the sentence imposed should be reduced to bring Mr. Clovis to a time-served position.
4In determining the appropriate sentence, I must consider the circumstances of the offence, including the impact on the family of Mr. Paul. I must also consider the background and circumstances of Mr. Clovis, including the conditions of his presentence detention.
Circumstances of the Offence
5On the day of the shooting, Mr. Clovis attended an apartment where a barbecue and party was occurring. He had been at the same location the day before when he was involved in an argument with a friend of the victim, Mr. Paul. The argument involved a physical confrontation. Before going to the apartment, Mr. Clovis armed himself with a firearm. He knew there could be conflict at the party. Mr. Clovis knew that Mr. Paul was violent and easily angered and that Mr. Paul would be upset about the conflict the previous day.
6When Mr. Clovis attended the apartment, Mr. Paul approached him in an aggressive fashion and asked why Mr. Clovis had struck his friend the day before. The two men argued. Mr. Clovis backed up and showed Mr. Paul that he had a gun in his waistband. Mr. Paul responded by rushing at Mr. Clovis and drawing a firearm. Mr. Clovis ended up on the floor with Mr. Paul above him. Mr. Clovis drew his gun and fired one shot at Mr. Paul. He then ran out of the apartment. Mr. Paul died from a single gunshot wound.
7It is agreed that Mr. Clovis shot Mr. Paul in self-defence. His guilty plea to the offence of manslaughter is based on his actions in intentionally bringing a gun to the party, knowing that a conflict could occur and antagonizing Mr. Paul, knowing that Mr. Paul was likely to respond violently. It was objectively foreseeable that the ensuing conflict would cause bodily harm.
Victim Impact
8Victim impact statements were filed in this case by the mother and sister of Tola Paul. The statements describe the grief and suffering of his family. His mother has now lost four sons to gun violence. His loss has impacted his mother, sisters, wife and children. As his sister wrote, “[He] was loved deeply.” The emotional pain will remain with his family always.
9I have considered the impact of the offence as disclosed by the Victim Impact Statements in determining the appropriate sentence while recognizing that no sentence can relieve the pain experienced by Mr. Paul’s loved ones.
Circumstances of Mr. Clovis
10Mr. Clovis is a 24-year-old first offender. He was 22 years old at the time of the offence. He has one son who is now 4 years old. He was born in St. Lucia and migrated to Canada at age three with parents. Until his arrest and incarceration on this charge, he lived at home with his parents. His partner and child also lived in the family home until Mr. Clovis’s arrest. Mr. Clovis’s parents both worked long hours to support their family.
11Mr. Clovis did not complete high school. He changed schools frequently and eventually left school in grade 11. He reported that he began to use substances and hang out with ‘the wrong crowd’ around that time.
12After leaving school, Mr. Clovis tried to obtain employment but had little success. His only period of steady employment was at the Canadian National Exhibition when he was 17 years old.
13As set out in the enhanced Pre-sentence Report (“PSR”), Mr. Clovis is a Black man who grew up in an area of the city that is widely recognized as a Neighbourhood Improvement Area with limited access to adequate resources and elevated exposure to violence and crime. Mr. Clovis experienced systemic anti-Black racism within the education system, in employment and in interactions with law enforcement. Mr. Clovis’s experiences of prolonged exposure to violence, systemic inequities and instability have impacted on his mental health.
14As noted in the PSR, Mr. Clovis has a supportive family. He is motivated to pursue education and training to obtain stable employment. He wishes to be present for his son.
15Mr. Clovis has been incarcerated at the Toronto South Detention Centre (“TSDC”) since his arrest over three years ago. He has been locked down for just under a third of his time in custody. He has spent 100 nights triple bunked in a cell meant for two inmates. Some of the lockdowns lasted for days and occurred while he was triple bunked.
16The conditions at the TSDC during Mr. Clovis’s incarceration have been extremely harsh. As many judges have said, being locked in a small cell for extended periods of time without access to phones or showers is inhumane. The courts have repeatedly condemned the lockdowns, triple-bunking and lack of access to fresh air in the detention centers. These conditions have persisted and worsened over recent years with no discernible action by the government to address the problems. (See for example: R. v. Persad, 2020 ONSC 188; R. v. Oksem, 2019 ONSC 6283, at para. 28; R. v. Fermah, 2019 ONSC 3597, at para. 68; R. v. Jama, 2018 ONSC 1252, at para. 20; R. v. Inniss, 2017 ONSC 2779, at para. 38; R. v. Hussain-Marca, 2017 ONSC 4033, at paras. 43-52; R. v. Iraheta, 2025 ONSC 188)
17Lockdowns deprive prisoners of access to family and other sources of support. Lockdowns force prisoners to urinate and defecate in front of their cellmates and in the same area where they eat. The lack of access to basic hygiene makes the lockdowns even more difficult for the prisoners who are confined together in cramped and unclean conditions. In addition, lockdowns prevent prisoners from engaging in even minimal exercise. All of these elements raise tensions in a detention facility.
18The conditions of detention experienced by Mr. Clovis have been unduly harsh and punitive. They have impacted on his physical and mental health.
Sentencing Principles and Analysis
19The fundamental principle of sentencing set out in s. 718.1 of the Code is that the sentence should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.
20The offence of manslaughter is always serious because it involves the loss of a life. The four-year mandatory minimum sentence reflects the increased gravity of the offence when a firearm is involved in the commission of the offence of manslaughter.
21Aggravating factors in this case are the impact on the family of the victim and the fact that the conduct of Mr. Clovis put many people at risk of harm.
22There are mitigating factors. Mr. Clovis entered a guilty plea and accepted responsibility for his conduct. He did so even though there were triable issues in the case. His guilty plea is indicative of true remorse. He has a supportive family. He has concrete and realistic goals for his rehabilitation. He is a youthful first offender. His offending conduct is contextualized by his experience of anti-Black racism and his experience of growing up in a neighbourhood that was under-resourced and overpoliced. He has also experienced exceptionally harsh conditions of presentence custody.
23The 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”.
24Deterrence and denunciation are generally the predominant sentencing objectives in sentencing for manslaughter. However, rehabilitation is an important consideration when sentencing a youthful first offender.
25The Court of Appeal has held that where a penitentiary sentence must be imposed on a youthful first offender, the sentence should be as short as possible and that sentences at the lower end of the range of what constitutes an appropriate sentence may be appropriate for youthful offenders with good prospects for rehabilitation. See: R. v. Vandale, [1974] O.J. No. 1047 (C.A.). R. v. Green, [1982] O.J. No. 2504; R. v. Hayman, [1999] O.J. No. 1308; R. v. Priest, [1996] O.J. No. 3369. I find that Mr. Clovis has good prospects for rehabilitation. He has a supportive family and is motivated to seek further education and stable employment.
26Courts are also obliged to consider other cases and to impose similar sentences for similar offences and offenders. See: R. v. Devaney, [2006] O.J. No. 3996 (C.A.). The circumstances of offenders and offences vary widely. This is particularly true in sentencing for manslaughter. Nevertheless, several of the cases provided by counsel are instructive in determining the appropriate sentence in this case.
27Sentences in the range of 12 to 15 years have been imposed in cases of manslaughter where firearms are used in the commission of other offences. In R. v. Saboon and Morrison, 2026 ONCA 113, the accused was an armed participant in a planned home invasion robbery of a victim with cerebral palsy. During the robbery and confinement of the victim, the co-accused shot and killed him. The Court of Appeal imposed a sentence of 12 years after overturning the first-degree murder conviction and substituting a conviction for manslaughter.
28In R. v. Warner, 2019 ONCA 1014, the accused asked a co-accused to accompany him to a house party to protect him from another individual. Both Mr. Warner and his accomplice were armed. The co-accused shot and killed a person at the party while Mr. Warner also brandished his gun and shot and wounded another person. Mr. Warner was a youthful offender but had a criminal record. The victims were unarmed and targeted. The trial judge imposed an 18-year sentence for the manslaughter. This was reduced on appeal to 15 years.
29In R. v. Jones-Solomon, 2015 ONCA 654, the accused participated in a planned home invasion in which the victim was beaten and then shot. The accused participated in the assault and an accomplice shot the victim. In that case, the Court of Appeal identified a range of 8 to 12 years but upheld the 13-year sentence imposed by the trial judge.
30Cases identifying a higher range of sentence for manslaughter with a firearm generally involve planned criminal acts while armed, and aggravating factors such as a vulnerable victim or criminal record. Unlike the case before me, there is generally no element of self-defence.
31Where there is an element of self-defence, sentences tend to fall in the lower range of six to eight years’ imprisonment.
32In the case of R. v. Young, 2022 ONSC 1143, I imposed a sentence of five years on a youthful first offender who shot the victim during a struggle. Harsh conditions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic played a role in reducing the sentence from the otherwise appropriate sentence of five years and seven months.
33In R. v. Khill, 2023 ONSC 3374, the offender shot the victim who was trying to steal the truck of the offender. He was sentenced to eight years. However, the trial judge later clarified for the Court of Appeal that he had intended to impose a sentence of six years, and that is the sentence that was imposed on appeal.
34In R. v. Pintar, [1994] O.J. No. 1435, an older first offender was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment for shooting and killing two men who came to his home and threatened him and his daughter.
35Sentencing is, of course, an individualized process. No offence or offender is exactly like the case before me. The circumstances of this offence are very unusual. Mr. Clovis’s act of shooting Mr. Paul was an act committed in lawful self-defence. It was his conduct in arming himself that was unlawful. His provocation of the conflict was a significant contributing cause in the death of Mr. Paul.
36Mr. Clovis is a youthful offender. He has good prospects for rehabilitation. His guilty plea is highly mitigating. All of these factors place him at the lower end of the range of six to eight years for similar cases.
37I recognize that harsh conditions of presentence custody cannot be used to reduce a sentence below what is a fit sentence. Mr. Clovis has experienced extremely harsh conditions throughout his pre-sentence custody. These conditions properly serve to mitigate the sentence. See: R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344, [2021] O.J. No. 2757 (C.A.). That mitigation need not be quantified. However, I will quantify the mitigation in this case. I find that the appalling conditions of presentence custody have had a serious impact on Mr. Clovis. Those conditions have impacted his physical and mental health. They have isolated him from his family support. If not for the conditions of presentence custody, I would have imposed a sentence of six years’ imprisonment. I have concluded that the otherwise appropriate sentence of six years’ imprisonment should be reduced to five years because of the conditions of presentence custody.
Conclusion
38Therefore, the sentence I impose on Mr. Clovis is five years’ imprisonment, or 1,826 days, before statutory credit for presentence custody. Mr Clovis has spent 1,131 actual days in presentence custody. With credit at 1.5:1 of 1,697 days, this leaves 129 days left to serve (or just over four months).
39There will be a s. 109 order prohibiting Mr. Clovis from possession of any prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device and prohibited ammunition for life.
40Manslaughter 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. As such, s. 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code makes such an order mandatory. Therefore, I order that Mr. Clovis provide such samples of his bodily substances as are reasonably necessary for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis.
Forestell J.
Released: May 29, 2026
CITATION: R. v. Clovis, 2026 ONSC 3099
COURT FILE NO: CR-24-50000600-0000
DATE: 20260529
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
- and -
EARLAN CLOVIS
reasons for sentencE
Forestell J.
Released: May 29, 2026