ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
- and –
DAN HAKIZIMANA
Mark Rieger, for the Crown
Elise Pinsonnault, for Mr. Hakizimana
HEARD: March 26, 2026 and June 2, 2026
KELLY J.
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Overview
[1] On Tuesday, February 6, 2024, Mr. Issaih Junger became involved in an altercation with several others. He was shot twice during it and unfortunately, succumbed to his injuries. Three parties were charged with the murder of Mr. Junger. Mr. Dan Hakizimana was one of them. He was not the shooter.
[2] On March 26, 2026, Mr. Hakizimana pleaded guilty to manslaughter. He now appears before me for sentencing.
[3] Crown counsel seeks a period of imprisonment of 6 to 8 years. They also seek a weapons prohibition order pursuant to s. 109(2) of the Criminal Code, a DNA order pursuant to s. 487.051, and an order prohibiting Mr. Hakizimana from communicating with any of Mr. Junger's community, and others, while he is serving his sentence.
1 R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46;
[4] Counsel for Mr. Hakizimana seeks a sentence of 4 years' imprisonment. When presentence credit is applied, Mr. Hakizimana will be left with 2 years' imprisonment to serve. This would allow for the imposition of a probation order. The ancillary orders are not contested.
[5] For the reasons set out below, I sentence Mr. Hakizimana to 66 months' (5.5 years) imprisonment. He will be given 42 months of credit and required to serve a further 2 years imprisonment. He will be subject to terms of probation for 3 years. The ancillary orders requested are imposed.
The Facts
[6] A detailed Agreed Statement of Facts ("ASF") provided the factual basis as to why the altercation occurred and what happened during it which gave rise to Mr. Hakizimana's conviction for manslaughter. I have attached it as Appendix "A" to these reasons but will provide an overview here:
a. s. Anouk Labreche is the former girlfriend of Mr. Junger. Approximately two weeks before the death of Mr. Junger, he compelled Ms. Labreche to steal items from FS, including a diamond pendant with the name "Fito" (FS's nickname); a firearm; a laser sight; and a Rolex watch. Ms. Labreche did so and gave the items to Mr. Junger.
b. On February 4, 2024, Mr. Junger broke up with Ms. Labreche. FS wanted the return of his stolen property. He approached Ms. Labreche to assist in retrieving his property.
c. On February 5, 2024, Ms. Labreche, Mr. Hakfaimana, Mr. Farhat, FS, and a fourth person (who remains at large), travelled to Toronto. They were aware that Mr. Junger had rented an Airbnb on Lansdowne Avenue. They arrived at the Airbnb at approximately 6:00 p.m. and awaited the arrival of Mr. Junger.
d. The intention of the four men was to confront Mr. Junger about the theft of FS's items and try to recover them.
e. The four men and Ms. Labreche remained in the Airbnb. The men were in possession of at least one firearm which, at one point, was pointed at Ms. Labreche. Mr. Hakizimana was aware that one of the men was in possession of a firearm but did not touch it and did not see it pointed at Ms. Labreche.
f. Mr. Junger arrived at the Airbnb just after 1:00 a.m., on February 6, 2024. He was driving a rented Tesla. He was in the company of two others. Upon his arrival, he and his companions were confronted.
g. Some of the men engaged in the physical confrontation. An independent witness observed a man on the floor of the porch, wrestling with Mr. Junger. Another man was pointing a firearm towards the two men on the porch floor. The firearm was discharged and 911 was called.
h. It is agreed that Mr. Hakizimana was not outside the Airbnb when Mr. Junger was shot.
i. Mr. Farhat was shot in the leg during the confrontation.
j. J. All but Ms. Labreche and Mr. Junger fled the home after the shots were fired.
k. When EMS arrived, it was determined that Mr. Junger had been shot twice: once in the back and once in the leg. He also had multiple abrasions on his head. He died a short time later. The cause of death was a gunshot that entered his back and then penetrated his spine, liver, diaphragm and aorta.
l. A forensic investigation at the scene revealed the following:
i. The bullets recovered from Mr. Farhat and Mr. Junger came from the same gun. The bullet fired from the other gun was not recovered.
ii. The bullet fired from the second gun may have been fired from the gun stolen from FS's condo.
iii. Mr. Junger had also been shot in the leg. That shot was a through-and through and the bullet did not remain in Mr. Junger's body.
iv. Neither of the guns used during this incident have been recovered.
m. A search of the Tesla driven by Mr. Junger located several of the items stolen from FS, including the diamond "Fito" pendant and the laser sight that would have been compatible with the firearm stolen from FS.
n. It is agreed that Mr. Hakizimana did not fire the shot that killed Mr. Junger. Mr. Hakizimana does not know who fired the shot that killed him.
o. As stated above, Mr. Hakizimana knew that at least one of the men present with him was armed with a firearm. Further, he was aware of and agreed to participate in the plan to recover the items stolen from FS. He knew there was a chance violence could be used to try to recover the stolen items from Mr. Junger. Lastly, he was aware of the possibility of a violent confrontation with Mr. Junger.
Impact on the Victim
[7] Several Victim Impact Statements were filed. All, but one, were read into the record. They may be summarized as follows:
Anne Marie Junger is Mr. Junger's mother. She described the difficulties that Mr. Junger dealt with in his short life. He was the son of a homeless mother who survived Rwandan genocide. He had to be "withdrawn from the cocaine that was running through his veins from the moment he entered the world". A few days after his birth, Mr. Junger was placed in foster care. He was adopted and "received the gift of life, yes, but entwined with the gift
of abandonment". She became one of his "parents at heart". She describes her son as a "life force". He had "charisma", "a radiant smile, and legendary laugh". He excelled both academically and athletically. While he had his challenges in his teens, she and her husband "never stopped believing in him". The decisions made by the offenders that night led to "consequences" that "destroyed" their lives and hopes. "They ravaged the hearts of all who loved him. They emptied Issaih of his life and his light, plunging us into a never-ending night, without any chance to say goodbye and 'I love you' one last time". She describes that her joy for life has left her. She is devastated by a "grief without limits". Each "morning becomes a struggle to face another day without horizon". Her trust in the world and human beings has been shattered.
Philippe Junger is Mr. Junger's father. He describes the death of his son as a "nightmare". As he so eloquently describes, his son's death was in the wrong order, "A child is meant to survive a parent". He describes that he feels like he is "walking through a dense fog" since his son's death. It has been emotionally draining and constant. It does not lift with time and is following him "every morning, into every room, every conversation, every attempt at normal life". Although the loss of his son dulls everything, "it also makes my sadness and loss sharper". He sleeps but wakes up "depleted". His concentration is "fractured". While he forgets things that are important to his family, he cannot escape the memories of the images of the death of his son. His grief is "not only emotional; it is physical, cognitive and relentless". He has yet to return to work, full time. Some days his sorrow is "quiet". On other days, it "crashes" over him without warning. He can be functioning at one moment and then be suddenly overwhelmed. Anger can arrive without warning and be hard to manage. He feels heartbreak and rage in the same breath. He is calm one moment and then shattered the next. Over the past two years, his "grief has not ended; it has simply changed shape". He is not the same person he was before his son died. He does not know if he will ever recognize himself again. As he stated, "Issaih mattered. His life had value. He was not a statistic or a case number. He was a human being, my son, and his death has left a permanent wound in my life and in the lives of those who loved him".
William Junger is Mr. Junger's brother. There have been several repercussions on his life, including distancing regarding some family. He dropped out of university and lost full time work.
Grandlou is Mr. Junger's grandmother. She describes that her grandson had a sensitivity that was rare for his age. He kept her young and his absence feels "utterly unacceptable". She cherished their moments of "closeness". She describes that the death of her grandson has been "immense". "Life, dreams, and vacations have vanished. Daily life is riddled with pain. A photograph, an object, a word, an encounter, a television or radio program- all of it summons a wave of grief, anger and paralysis". She no longer sees others in the same way. "They can wound you with a silence, with an opinion". She feels that her "values were powerless - even naYve - to protect" her grandson.
Marie-Paule Desrochers is also a grandmother. She describes that since her grandson's death; she is constantly haunted by his tender messages. She states that "since his death, our hearts have been branded like livestock at a slaughterhouse". They try to
rebuild and ease the pain. She observes that Mr. Junger's parents' grief "will never be soothed". They are no longer the same people. The family is "fragile".
Jean-Pierre Pelletier is a family friend. They are grieving the loss of Mr. Junger. His death has forever changed his relationship with his family. He is experiencing both sorrow and outrage.
Raphaelle Pelletier is a cousin, by choice. She describes that Mr. Junger had the best intentions. She lost a teammate. The wounds of his death are "so fresh". When she is reminded of Mr. Junger, his death hits her like a truck and that will not ever change.
Isabelle Labarre is an aunt. She describes that Mr. Junger walking into her home was "like the sun coming in: warm, intense, curious, bringing people together". Their family has been shaken like an "earthquake" with the death of Mr. Junger.
Anne-Frederic Pelletier is a cousin. She describes that Mr. Junger had a "genuine smile" and an "infectious laugh". He was an active participant in their family games. His death has "put an end to our game". She experiences fear wherever she goes. A part of her went with Mr. Junger on his death. That is something she will not get back. "Today, when we play boardgames, one chair is empty, and a candle flickers" in Mr. lunger's memory.
Anouk Labreche advises that this incident changed her life. She lives in constant fear for her safety and those of her loved ones. She was uprooted and began living on her own at age 18. She suffers frequent nightmares and has become isolated. She cooperated with the police and as a result, she fears repercussions from that involvement.
[8] No sentence I impose on Mr. Hakizimana can ever compensate Mr. Junger's community for their terrible loss. I have considered the impact of this crime on them in reaching my decision.
Circumstances of Mr. Hakizimana
Background
[9] Mr. Hakizimana's background was set out in a presentence report filed and during the submissions made by his counsel. It may be summarized as follows:
a. Mr. Hakizimana was born on February 11, 2004. He is currently 22 years of age. He was just 20 years of age when the offence was committed.
b. He is one of four siblings. His father is deceased. His mother is a personal support worker in Ottawa. His parents came to Canada from East Africa in 1997. After he was born in Canada, Mr. Hakizimana lived in various locations, returning to live in Burundi, East Africa, for a few years. In Canada, the family lived in Ottawa; Saint John, New Brunswick; and Quebec.
c. Mr. Hakizimana's mother often worked two or three jobs to support the family. His father had a stroke, and they supported him. His father eventually moved back to
Africa, where he died. He has a sister and a brother who have experienced psychosis.
d. There were disruptions in the family due to arguments and difficulties. The relationship between Mr. Hakizimana's parents was poor, and they separated on more than one occasion.
e. Mr. Hakizimana described his mother as "loving" and "strong". He described his father as "violent, emotionally disconnected" and "always drunk". He grew up without his father's support. While he loves his family, Mr. Hakizimana says there is a lot of "bad history" that causes pain.
f. Mr. Hakizimana advises that he was abused by both his father and his brothers.
g. School was important to the family. He was encouraged to attend. However, when his father passed, his group of friends changed. He started smoking marijuana and his grades declined. He ultimately graduated but admitted that he was "preoccupied with crime".
h. Since his incarceration, Mr. Patel has applied to (and is on the waiting list), with Amadeusz. He wishes to pursue a general arts and sciences certificate. He would like to study psychology and become a therapist. He is also interested in cyber security.
i. Mr. Hakizimana has been sporadically employed in construction. He has never contributed financially to the.home and admits that he has previously engaged in crime for financial gain. He will likely pursue employment in the trades. He does not want to "end up like this, fast money distracted" him.
j. Mr. Hakizimana was an avid user of marijuana, constantly smoking. It began at age 13. He has experimented with other substances as well but denies addiction issues.
k. Mr. Hakizimana has changed his group of friends. His current friends are those he has known for several years. He advised that he wished he had spent more time with them growing up as they are positive influences. He described his old friends as placing loyalty on the wrong things.
l. He does not currently have a partner. He has no dependents.
m. He denies any mental health concerns. That said, since his incarceration, he has sought medical attention for depression and eating issues. He said that he has labelled himself a murderer and he is ashamed. He meets, monthly, with a psychiatrist. He is on a list to meet with a psychologist.
Criminal Antecedents
[10] Mr. Hakizimana has a criminal record with retainable youth entries and an adult conviction as follows:
September 16, 2022: Unauthorized possession of a firearm in a motor vehicle; possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition; possession of a weapon; and careless use of a firearm, weapon, prohibited device or ammunition. He was sentenced to 9 months and 3 months supervision in the community (taking into consideration 120 days of pre-sentence custody). He received a mandatory weapons prohibition.
March 4, 2025: Accessory after the fact to assault with a weapon. He was sentenced to 27 days' imprisonment in addition to 3 days of presentence custody.
Presentence Custody
[11] Mr. Hakizimana was arrested on April 3, 2024, and has remained in custody ever since. As of June 11, 2026, he will have been in custody for 800 days, or just over 26 months, 9 days. Enhanced at 1.5 days for each day spent in custody, he will have 1,200 days, or 40 months of time served pursuant to R. v. Summers.2
[12] The records from the Toronto East Detention Centre, during Mr. Hakizimana's detention, provide as follows:
a. Mr. Hakizimana was subject to 164 lockdowns due, mainly to staff shortages and some security issues.
b. Mr. Hakizimana was triple bunked on 211 occasions.
[13] Mr. Hakizimana had four misconducts with findings of guilt:
March 2025: Mr. Hakizimana was involved in a physical altercation with multiple inmates (no injuries to the participants observed). He lost canteen privileges for one week.
May 2025: Mr. Hakizimana was smoking in his cell. He was reprimanded.
May 2025: There was a smell of burning toilet paper in a cell that Mr. Hakizimana shared with another. He lost canteen privileges for one week.
May 2025: Mr. Hakizimana entered a cell that was not his and then lied about his name. He appeared to be in a fight with the other person in the cell. Mr. Hakizimana received a reprimand.
Rehabilitative Prospects
[14] As for his future, in addition to the ambitions of Mr. Hakizimana set out above, the author of the presentence report stated:
Looking forward the subject expressed an interest in changing his environment, associates and spending more time with his friends
that do not have criminal records. He shared he wants to create stability for himself and when asked what this looks like he replied, 'making money legally, doing my part in society, I don't want to fall behind and not succeed, have a family of my own and be able to take care of them'. He concluded should he be released in the future, he will be returning to reside with his mother and wanting to focus on going to school or seeking a position of employment.
[15] The author of the presentence report concluded that Mr. Hakizimana "does appear to have some capacity to move forward and learn from these events" to become "a productive member of society". To do so, he must address the concerns identified.
Remorse
[16] Mr. Hakizimana commented on the issue of firearms. The following is a summary contained in the presentence report:
As regards the issue of firearms the subject admitted he used to believe they provided him with a sense of power explaining, 'I felt like a tough guy but now looking at what the firearm did, I didn't realize the impact, I didn't think that firearms before this could take someone's life and I didn't think of what it did to everyone's life before, someone died, someone's in jail, a family is facing loss'. The subject concluded, 'some people may be okay with this, but I can't even sleep, I went on meds in here because I was scared, I'm afraid I will never get out because of the charges'.
[17] Mr. Hakizimana advised the author of the presentence report that he wishes he had not been involved in Mr. Junger's death. He was "trying to be someone" he was not. He says that he is not "built for this". He needs to "face justice". He feels guilty that someone died. He also advised the author of the presentence report of the following:
I regret that day with every fiber of my being, if I could take it back I would in a heart beat, I can't even put into words how sorry I am, I think about my mom and how devastated she would be, I'm devastated in my actions, I'm sorry and I understand nothing I do or say can make the situation better, by turning myself in at least the family can know there's some justice, it's really sad to think about, I can't do anything for the family I would but he passed and I can't take that back and I have to live with that for the rest of my life, he was younger than me, he didn't get to live and that's sad.
[18] Mr. Hakizimana addressed the Court at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing with Mr. Junger's parents present in the courtroom. Amongst other things, he apologized to the family of Mr. Junger for the pain and suffering they experienced. He said that he thinks of his own mother and cannot imagine how she would feel in a similar situation. He is reminded, every day, of the gravity of what occurred and the sadness of what happened. No words can
erase what occurred or improve the situation. He takes responsibility for his actions and the consequences that will follow. He knows that he cannot expect their forgiveness; however, he wants the Junger family to know that he is sincerely sorry for their suffering. He deeply regrets his actions.
Governing Sentencing Principles
[19] In determining the fit sentence for Mr. Hakizimana, I am governed by the sentencing principles set out in ss. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code.
[20] The fundamental purpose of sentencing, as set out ins. 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 sentences with objectives that include denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, the separation of offenders from society, when necessary, the promotion of responsibility in the offender, and the acknowledgement of the harm that criminal activity does to victims and to our community.
[21] The sentence that I impose must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.3
[22] Further, the sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any aggravating or mitigating circumstances related to the offence or the offender. It should also be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances.
Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances
[23] The aggravating factors are as follows:
a. Mr. Hakizimana agreed to participate in the plan to recover items that were stolen from FS.
b. This incident was well-planned. The parties traveled from Montreal to Toronto and waited hours for Mr. Junger to arrive. Mr. Hakizimana had the opportunity to walk away but chose to remain involved.
c. Mr. Hakizimana knew that someone in their party was in possession of a firearm.
d. Firearms are a scourge on our society. They are manufactured for the purpose of killing or seriously injuring people. Being with someone in possession of a firearm was a significant threat to the safety of our community, and particularly Mr. Junger.
e. Mr. Hakizimana knew that there was a chance that violence might be used in their attempt to recover the stolen items from Mr. Junger.
f. It was objectively foreseeable to Mr. Hakizimana that the firearm would be used in the confrontation that led to Mr. Junger's killing.
3 Criminal Code, s. 718.1
g. The shooting took place on the front porch of a house in a residential neighbourhood. This, too, put members of our community at risk.
h. Like the others but for Ms. Labreche and Mr. Junger, he fled the scene after the shooting. He failed to provide any assistance to Mr. Junger.
i. The impact of Mr. Junger's death has been devastating. It is impossible to capture the sorrow and profound sense of loss portrayed by the family of Mr. Junger and his community. They continue to struggle with profound grief and the immense hole that has been left in their lives by Mr. Junger's death. Mr. Junger's loved ones mourn not only his loss but also, the future they had looked forward to spending with him that has now been denied them. They are left with scars that will never heal and lives that are forever diminished.
j. Mr. Hakizimana has a criminal record with an entry for a firearms offence.
[24] The mitigating factors are as follows:
Background
a. Mr. Hakizimana was youthful, just 20 years of age, at the time of the offence. He is now 22 years of age.
b. Mr. Hakizimana experienced disadvantages in his life. He was raised in an unstable environment, moving homes often. The family lived in poverty.
c. Mr. Hakizimana was exposed to violence and trauma during his upbringing. He witnessed domestic violence, parental conflict, substance abuse and police intervention.
d. His father was frequently absent from home. He struggled with alcoholism and failed to provide the family with support - either financially or emotionally. He died when Mr. Hakizimana was 15 years of age.
e. Mr. Hakizimana's father abused his mother, sometimes in his presence.
f. Mr. Hakizimana was also abused by both his father and brothers.
g. His mother remains supportive of him.
The Offence
a. Mr. Hakizimana was not the instigator of the offence which involved retrieving stolen items for FS. He is a party to a common unlawful plan to retrieve the stolen items.
b. Mr. Hakizimana neither possessed nor used the firearm during the altercation. His role in the offence was secondary, to some degree, to the role of FS.
c. Mr. Hakizimana was not present on the porch when the gunshots were fired.
d. While a reasonable person would have foreseen the risk that the firearm would be used in these circumstances, there is no evidence that Mr. Hakizimana subjectively foresaw that risk. As such, Mr. Hakizimana's level of culpability is lower.4
e. There were two firearms used in the incident. A scope found during the search of the Tesla located a "laser sight" that would likely have been compatible with the firearm stolen from FS. This leads to a possible inference that a firearm was possessed by Mr. Junger and/or one of his associates.
f. Mr. Hakizimana has pleaded guilty and accepted responsibility for his role in Mr. Junger's death. It provided certainty of result, spared the family from enduring a trial, and saved court resources.
Rehabilitation
a. It appears that based on the materials filed, Mr. Hakizimana has rehabilitative potential.
b. He obtained his high school diploma. There is no history of behavioural problems while in school.
c. He is genuinely interested in pursuing further education. While incarcerated, he has placed his name on a waiting list for a general arts and science certificate program.
d. Mr. Hakizimana has expressed an interest in vocational training. He has also pursued opportunities in cyber security. He is interested in helping others with counseling.
e. There is nothing to suggest that Mr. Hakizimana presents an unmanageable risk in the community.
f. Mr. Hakizimana is engaged in, and he welcomes counseling.
g. Mr. Hakizimana has expressed remorse and demonstrated insight into his conduct. He did so both when interviewed by the author of the presentence report and again, when he addressed the Court during the sentencing proceeding. He has taken responsibility for his actions and acknowledged the devastating impact of his conduct on Mr. Junger's family.
Other Factors
a. I am required to, and have taken juridical notice of, and considered the factors set out in the decision of R. v. Morris5 in mitigation of Mr. Hakizimana's sentence. I
4 R. v. Kwakye, 2015 ONCA 108, [2015] O.J. No. 707, at para. 5
accept that systemic anti-Black racism exists, and that Mr. Hakizimana, a black male, has been affected by it in some ways throughout his life.
b. Mr. Hakizimana has been detained at the Toronto East Detention Centre where he has been subject lockdowns and triple bunking. Unduly harsh conditions in pre sentence custody are a relevant factor to be considered in sentencing.6 Harsh conditions of presentence custody are properly considered as mitigating when determining the appropriate sentence. 7
Range of Sentence and Applicable Principles
[25] The maximum sentence for manslaughter is life imprisonment.8 There is no minimum sentence.
[26] Identifying the appropriate range of sentence in manslaughter cases is very difficult because manslaughter offences can range from a near accidental killing at one end of the spectrum to a near murder at the other end.9 The diverse range of circumstances that can give rise to a conviction of manslaughter can also give rise to a wide variation in the sentence imposed.
[27] The parity principle requires that similar offenders who commit similar offences in similar circumstances be given similar sentences. Past cases create sentencing ranges to help guide sentencing judges. Sentencing ranges are helpful guides. However, they are not "straitjackets", depriving judges of their ability to impose sentences that reflect both the circumstances of the offence and of the offender.10 A fit sentence is one that is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the moral blameworthiness of the offender.
[28] Counsel have referred me to several decisions in support of their positions on sentence. I have reviewed them but will not refer to all of them in detail.
[29] Justice Schreck analyzed several manslaughter sentencing cases in R. v. Smith and concluded that there were three broad ranges of sentences from six to 15 years.11 Code J. summarized the three broad ranges of sentences as follows, in R. v. Wight, at para. 43:
*a lower range of six to eight years in less serious cases where, for example, the accused was not aware of a firearm possessed by a co-accused or where the accused was a youthful first offender with significant rehabilitative potential, citing cases like R. v. Turner, 2019 ONSC 5435, R. v. Sahal, 2016 ONSC 6864, and R. v. Kwakye, 2015 ONCA 108;
6 R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754.
7 R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344.
8 Criminal Code, s. 236(b).
9 R. v. Carriere (2002), 2002 CanLII 41803 (ON CA), 164 CCC (3d) 569, at para. 10.
10 R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, at para. 57.
*a mid-range of eight to 12 years in cases where some significant aggravating factors are present, such as the use of a firearm or brutal violence against a vulnerable elderly victim, citing cases like R. v. Tahir, 2016 ONCA 136, R. v. Devaney (2006), 213 C.C.C. (3d) (Ont. C.A.), R. v. Atherley, 2009 264 (Ont. C.A.); and R. v. Clarke (2013), 2003 CanLII 28199 (ON CA), 172 O.A.C. 133 (C.A.); and
*a higher range of 12 to 15 years in cases where the most serious aggravating factors are present such as a significant criminal record, planned violence, active participation in brandishing or discharging firearms or in a planned home invasion involving beating of the victims, citing cases like R. v. Jones-Solomon (2015), 2015 ONCA 654, 329 C.C.C. (3d) 191ONCA 195, R. v. Thompson, 2008 ONCA 693, and R. v. Warner, 2019 ONCA 1014. Also see: R. v. Hanan (2022), 2022 ONCA 229, 161 O.R. (3d) 161 (C.A.).12
[30] Crown counsel submits that Mr. Hakizimana's conduct falls into the first category identified by Justices Schreck and Code: six to eight years' imprisonment.
[31] Counsel for Mr. Hakizimana asks that I rely on, amongst other things, the case of R. v. Turner.13 Mr. Turner was involved in an incident where a person was shot to death outside of his home. A jury convicted him of manslaughter. Crown counsel asked that a sentence of six to eight years be imposed because Mr. Turner knew of the existence of the firearm prior to the shooting death of the victim. Counsel for Mr. Turner asked that Mr. Turner be sentenced to time served (52 months).
[32] The trial judge was unable to conclude that Mr. Turner knew of the existence of the firearm prior to the shooting (unlike Mr. Hakizimana). Mr. Turner was sentenced based on the following inference drawn from the evidence: Mr. Turner knew that the shooter meant to harm the deceased and that serious harm was a foreseeable risk. Mr. Turner attended with the shooter to aid or abet in that unlawful act; at a minimum to encourage or aid in the performance of that unlawful act. He was 41 years old and had a lengthy criminal record. Mr. Turner was sentenced to four years' imprisonment.
[33] A co-accused in the Turner case (Mr. Dominique Chretien) received a sentence of five years' imprisonment. He participated in the crime and was convicted of manslaughter. He had "foreknowledge of a gun" (like Mr. Hakizimana).14
[34] As I reviewed the cases, I was reminded of Chief Justice Lamer's caution that, " ... the search for a single appropriate sentence for a similar offender and a similar crime will frequently be a fruitless exercise of academic abstraction."15 The circumstances of any case, including this one, can be readily distinguished from any other case, Sentencing is not precise science. It is
12 R. v. Wight, 2022 ONSC 5137, at para. 43
14Turner, at paras. 14-15
15 R. v. M (C.A.), 1996 CanLII 230 (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500, at para. 92.
instead a profoundly individualized process driven by the unique facts of every offence and the unique characteristics of every offender.
[35] The cases provided by counsel support the range proposed.16 Further, what is clear from the jurisprudence is that in cases of manslaughter, denunciation and deterrence must be given prominence as sentencing objectives. However, in this case, and because of the age of Mr. Hakizimana, rehabilitation must be considered.17
[36] In reaching my conclusion about the fit sentence, I am cognizant of the principles set out in R. v. Priest18 where the Court of Appeal held that a first sentence of imprisonment should be as short as possible and "tailored to the individual circumstances of the accused rather than solely for the purpose of general deterrence."
[37] I am also cognizant of the Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. Borde where Rosenberg J.A. held that "a first penitentiary sentence should be as short as possible".19
Determination of a Fit Sentence
[38] Sentencing is one of the most difficult things a trial judge does. It is especially difficult in a case like this. It involves the loss of Mr. lunger's life and the unbearable suffering of those he has left behind.
[39] No sentence that I impose will undo the devastation caused by Mr. lunger's death. Further, the sentence I impose cannot and does not reflect the value of Mr. lunger's life or the degree of suffering his loss has caused. A life lost cannot be measured by the length of a prison sentence.
[40] After considering all the circumstances, I have concluded that the appropriate sentence is 66 months in prison (or 5.5 years). This sentence reflects the serious crime Mr. Hakizimana has committed and his high degree of moral blameworthiness. It also addresses the applicable sentencing principles including denunciation, deterrence, the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and collateral consequences.
[41] Mr. Hakizimana has spent a total of 800 days in pre-sentence custody, from April 3, 2024, to June 11, 2026. He is entitled to 1,200 days' (or 40 months') credit, in accordance with R. v. Summers. When I consider the other factors such as the harsh terms of his pre-sentence incarceration and other factors, Mr. Hakizimana will be given a total credit of 42 months. This will require Mr. Hakizimana to spend a further 2 years in custody.
[42] I have been persuaded that Mr. Hakizimana would benefit from three years of probation. A sentence to serve of two years will permit me to order probation. Rehabilitation is particularly
16 R. v. Araya, 2015 ONCA 854; R. v. Ali, 2018 ONSC 5536; R. v. Tsega, 2021 ONSC 3651; R. v. Smith, 2022
ONSC 3800; R. v. Wilson, 2024 ONSC 1357; R. v. Adam, 2024 ONSC 2180; R. v. Kitenge, 2025 ONSC 4066.
17 R. v. Kwakye, 2015 ONCA 108, [2015] O.J. No. 707
18 (1996), 1996 CanLII 1381 (ON CA), 110 C.C.C. (3d) 289 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 296.
19 2003 CanLII 4187 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 3
important due to Mr. Hakizimana's young age and prospects of being a prosocial member of our society.20
[43] As stated by our Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Lacasse, "One of the main objectives of Canadian criminal law is the rehabilitation of offenders. Rehabilitation is one of the fundamental core values that distinguish Canadian society from the societies of many other nations in the world, and it helps the courts impose sentences that are just and appropriate".21 The "objective of rehabilitation is designed to reform offenders with a view to their reintegration into society so that they can become law-abiding citizens"22. By improving themselves, society is better protected.
The Fit Sentence
[44] Mr. Hakizimana is sentenced to the following for the offence of manslaughter: 66 months' imprisonment, less 42 months for a further 24 months (two years) to serve.
[45] Mr. Hakizimana will be placed on probation for three years.
[46] Mr. Hakizimana has been convicted of an indictable offence involving the use of violence that is punishable by life imprisonment. As such, a prohibition order under s. 109(1)(a) of the Criminal Code is mandatory. Pursuant to s.109(2), I direct that Mr.-Hakizimana be prohibited from possessing any prohibited or restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, device, or ammunition for life.
[47] Manslaughter is a primary designated offence within the meaning of s. 487.04(a) of the Criminal Code. A DNA order is therefore mandatory. I direct that Mr. Hakizimana provide a sample of his bodily fluids for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis.
[48] I also order, pursuant to s. 743.21 of the Criminal Code, that Mr. Hakizimana not communicate, directly or indirectly, during his prison sentence with any member of Mr. Junger's community and others.
___________________________________
Kelly J.
Released: June 11, 2026
20 R. v. B.W.P. 2006 SCC 27 and R. v. Bissonnette 2022 SCC 23
21 2015 SCC 64, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 1089, at para. 4
22 R. V. Bissonnette 2022 SCC 23, at para. 51
APPENDIX “A”
ASF – As read into the record at the time of the plea.
Overview
In the early hours of Tuesday, February 6, 2024, Toronto Police were called to an address on Lansdowne Avenue, in Toronto, after gunshots were reported. A 911 caller reported that a man was lying on a porch, whom the caller believed to have been shot.
Emergency personnel attended and found a man lying on the porch stairs of a house on Lansdowne near Whytock Avenue. The man was later identified as lssaih Junger. Mr. Junger had been shot twice, once in the back and once in the leg. He also had multiple abrasions on his head. The house had been rented by Mr. Junger through Air BNB.
Mr. Junger died a short time later in hospital. The cause of death was determined to be a gunshot that entered his back and then penetrated his spine, liver, diaphragm, and aorta.
Three people have been charged in Mr. Junger's death: Dan Hakizimana, Hassan Farhat, and a youth, FS. A fourth person, identified by the nickname "Karma" and believed to be Fadel Naim, remains at large.
Background
When police arrived on the scene of the shooting they found a female witness, Anouk Labreche. Ms. Labreche spoke with police on scene and then later at 11 Division, where she provided several statements and participated in a photo lineup.
Ms. Labreche had recently broken up with Mr. Junger after the two had dated for a few months. About two weeks before his death, Mr. Junger compelled Ms. Labreche to steal items from FS's condominium in downtown Montreal: a diamond pendant of the name "Fito" (FS's nickname), a Handgun, with a detachable scope, and a Rolex watch. Ms. Labreche gave the items to Mr. Junger.
On February 4, 2024, Mr. Junger broke up with Ms. Labreche. He attended her home in Verdun, Quebec, and retrieved his personal belongings.
The Incident
A short while later, four men including Mr. Hakizimana arrived at Ms. Labreche's home. They took Ms. Labreche to FS's condominium in downtown Montreal and spent the night there. Surveillance video from the condominium was obtained by police. It shows Ms. Labreche, and four men, including Dan Hakizimana, when they arrived at and when they left the condo.
The next morning, February 5, the five set off for Toronto. The men knew from Ms. Labreche that Mr. Junger had rented the Lansdowne Avenue house through Airbnb, and they knew he would be coming to Toronto.
The intention of the four men was to confront Mr. Junger about the theft of FS's items, and to try to recover the stolen items.
The four men and Ms. Labreche left Montreal in a Honda Civic and went to the Airbnb on Lansdowne. They stopped at a Canadian Tire store in Toronto en route. Two of them, not Mr. Hakizimana, went into the store and bought several items including zip ties.
The Honda Civic arrived at the Lansdowne Ave. address around 6 PM on February 5, 2024. The rented unit was the top two floors of a triplex. They were able to access the unit because Ms. Labreche had the check-in instructions from the Airbnb reservation.
During the time Ms. Labreche was with the four men, she was in communication with her friend Jasmine Menou, her father, and two other friends. Ms. Menou told -Ms. Labreche she was worried about her wellbeing, and she believed Ms. Labreche had been kidnapped. Ms. Menou recorded a FaceTime video call (with no audio), and two audio calls between her and Ms. Labreche during the time Ms. Labreche was with the four men in Toronto.
At one point in an audio call, a male voice says, in French, "why are we doing this?", to which another male voice responds, "because she took all my things." A male voice can later be heard in French saying, "I want to have my things back." During the call, a male voice says to Ms. Menou that they would return Ms. Labreche to her if they were paid $60,000. Another male then said that person said something he shouldn't have.
The FaceTime video call was recorded when Ms. Labreche was in Toronto at the Airbnb. It shows the same four men whom Ms. Labreche had been with in the Montreal condominium, and Ms. Labreche identified all four men. One of them appears very angry in the video call.
Mr. Junger and Ms. Labreche spoke on the phone briefly on the eve of February 5, 2024. This call was on speakerphone. She did not tell Mr. Junger she was in Toronto.
For the next six hours, the four men and Ms. Labreche were at the Lansdowne house, mainly in the main open living room area. The four men were in possession of at least one handgun, which at one point was pointed at Ms. Labreche. Dan Hakizimana was aware that one of the men was in possession of a handgun. He never touched the gun. He never saw it pointed at Ms. Labreche.
Some of the men also took small kitchen knives from the Airbnb and hid them in the oven, another one was found on the staircase.
Mr. Junger arrived at the house on Lansdowne after 1 AM. He was accompanied by two companions, Ryan Kajjou and a third person whose identity remains unknown. Mr. Junger drove to the address in a rented Tesla. Fingerprints belonging to Mr. Junger, Mr. Kajjou, and a man named Obrian Grant were found in the Tesla. A bank card in the name of Mr. Grant was found in a backpack located outside of the house. Mr. Grant was a friend of Mr. Junger.
As Mr. Junger and his two companions arrived at the house, they were confronted inside the entrance stairwell.
Some of the men engaged in a physical confrontation.
When the confrontation started Mr. Kajjou and the other person were present. Mr. Kajou told police that he fled when he heard a shot.
An independent witness, Irving Aguirre, had rented out the main floor of the house, and his front window faced directly onto the porch. At the sound of commotion, he looked out the window and witnessed a man wrestling on the floor with Mr. Junger, while another of those men was pointing a gun towards the two on the porch floor.
Mr. Aguirre then looked away and retreated further into his unit, where he heard a loud sound. Multiple 911 callers reported hearing multiple gunshots around this time.
All the individuals at the home immediately fled the area except for Mr. Junger and Ms. Labreche. Ms. Labreche and Mr. Junger were found minutes later by responding police officers and paramedics. Ms. Labreche had a zip-tie around one wrist. Ms Labreche's friend Jasmine Menou claimed that Ms. Labreche told her she put the zip tie on herself and was never coerced by the men; Ms. Labreche denied this when asked about it.
An eyewitness saw one of the men on the porch kick Mr. Junger in the head as the men left.
Mr. Farhat attended St. Michael's Hospital where he was treated for a gunshot wound to the thigh.
A forensic investigation revealed the following:
a. Three spent shell casings were recovered on the porch, two fired from one gun, and a third fired from a second gun. All casings were 9mm caliber.
b. The bullets recovered from Mr. Farhat and Mr. Junger came from the same gun. The bullet fired from the other gun was not recovered.
c. The bullet fired from the other gun may have been fired from the handgun stolen from FS's condo.
d. Mr. Junger had also been shot in the leg. That shot was a through-and through and the bullet did not remain in Mr. Junger's body.
e. Neither of the firearms used in this matter were recovered.
A search of the Tesla driven by Mr. Junger located several items including the diamond "Fito" pendant and a laser sight for a firearm. The laser sight would likely have been compatible with the firearm stolen from FS.
After this incident Mr. Kajjou was found guilty of firearms possession in an unrelated matter.
It is agreed that Mr. Hakizimana did not fire the shot that killed Mr. Junger.
Mr. Hakizimana was not outside when Mr. Junger was shot; he does not know who fired the shot that killed Mr. Junger.
Mr. Hakizimana knew that at least one of the men present with him was armed with a handgun. He was aware of, and agreed to participate in, a plan to recover the items stolen. He knew there was a chance violence could be used to try to recover the stolen items from Mr. Junger. He was aware of the possibility of a violent confrontation with Mr. Junger.
Dan Hakizimana
CITATION: R. v. Hakizimana, 2026 ONSC 3327
COURT FILE NO.: CR-26-10000213-0000
DATE: 20260611
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
- and -
DAN HAKIZIMANA
reasons for SENTENCE
Kelly J.
Released: June 11, 2026