ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
- and –
HASSAN FARHAT
Mark Rieger and Jean-Pierre D’Angelo, for the Crown
Peter Zaduk, for Mr. Farhat
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. Hassan Farhat was one of them. He was involved in the altercation, but he was not the shooter.
[2] On March 26, 2026, Mr. Farhat 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. Farhat from communicating with any of Mr. Junger's community, and others, while he is serving his sentence.
[4] Counsel for Mr. Farhat seeks a sentence of 4 years' imprisonment. When presentence credit is applied, Mr. Farhat 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. Farhat to 48 months' (four years') imprisonment. He will be given 24 months of credit and required to serve a further two years' imprisonment. He will be subject to terms of probation for three 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 confrontation occurred and what happened during it, giving rise to Mr. Farhat's conviction for manslaughter. I have attached it as Appendix "A" to these reasons but will provide an overview here:
a. Ms. 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. When he attended at her home to retrieve his personal belongings, they had an argument and Mr. Junger assaulted her.
c. FS wanted the return of his stolen property. He approached Ms. Labreche to assist in retrieving it.
d. On February 5, 2024, Ms. Labreche, Mr. Hakizimana, 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.
e. On the way to Toronto, they stopped at a Canadian Tire store. Mr. Farhat and another went into the store. The other person bought several items, including zip ties.
f. They arrived at the Airbnb at approximately 6:00 p.m. and awaited the arrival of Mr. Junger.
g. The intention of the four men was to confront Mr. Junger about the theft of FS's items and try to recover them.
h. The four men and Ms. Labreche remained in the Airbnb. The four men were in possession of a handgun, which at one point Ms. Labreche said was pointed at her. Mr. Farhat was aware that one of the men was in possession of a firearm but never touched it. He did not see it pointed at Ms. Labreche.
i. Mr. Junger arrived at the Airbnb just after 1:00 a.m. on February 6, 2024. He was driving a rented Tesla and in the company of two others. Upon his arrival, they were confronted by the four men.
j. Some of the men engaged in the physical confrontation, including Mr. Farhat.
k. An independent witness observed a man on the floor of the porch, wrestling with Mr. Junger. The description provided of that man is consistent with Mr. Farhat.
l. Another man was pointing a firearm towards the two men on the porch floor. The firearm was discharged and 911 was called.
m. All but Ms. Labreche and Mr. Junger fled the home.
n. Mr. Farhat was shot during the confrontation. He attended at St. Michael's Hospital. He was treated for a gunshot wound to the thigh.
o. 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.
p. A forensic investigation revealed the following:
i. Three spent shell casings were recovered on the porch. Two were fired from one gun. A third was fired from a second gun. All casings were 9 mm calibre.
ii. The bullets recovered from Mr. Farhat and Mr. Junger came from the·same gun. The bullet fired from the other gun was not recovered.
iii. The bullet fired from the other gun may have been fired from the firearm stolen from FS's condo.
iv. 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.
v. Neither of the guns used in this matter were recovered.
q. A search of the Tesla driven by Mr. Junger located several of the items stolen from FS, including the diamond pendant and the laser sight that would have been compatible with the firearm stolen from FS.
r. It is agreed that Mr. Farhat did not fire the shot that killed Mr. Junger.
s. As stated above, Mr. Farhat 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. 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.
t. Mr. Farhat participated in the physical confrontation with Mr. Junger on the porch that led to Mr. Junger's death and therefore is a party to his killing.
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 nai've - 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 describes that 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. Junger'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. Farhat 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. Farhat
Background
[9] Mr. Farhat's background may be summarized as follows:
a. Mr. Farhat is currently 21 years of age. He was just 19 years old at the time of the offence.
b. He is the eldest child of hardworking immigrants from Lebanon. His father is a taxi/limousine driver. His mother is a hospital administrator. He has sisters who are pro-socially employed.
c. He has always lived with his family.
d. Mr. Farhaf does not have a criminal record. Nobody in his family has had any criminal involvement.
e. Mr. Farhat's family continues to support him. Many have attended his court appearances and were present in the courtroom for these proceedings.
f. Mr. Farhat has graduated from high school. He was planning to attend CEGEP when arrested for these offences.
g. Mr. Farhat has been steadily employed. He has worked at Dollarama, Tim Horton's, another restaurant and a convenience store. Mr. Farhat contributed to his family expenses from his earnings.
Community Support
[10] Several letters were filed by family members of Mr. Farhat. I have read them in their entirety. They may be summarized as follows:
Hanan Chreif is Mr. Farhat's mother. She describes her son as a "gentle, generous, patient and caring person". He is close to his family and present for those he loves. He is "respectful, calm, and compassionate". They have never known him to be "violent or malicious". What she has seen in her son is a "good heart and great compassion". She is deeply saddened and shocked by his conduct. It does not reflect the person they know.
Bussen Farhat is Mr. Farhat's younger brother. He describes his brother as being there for him during difficult moments. He describes Mr. Farhat as "protective and calm" and as a person who listens and encourages others. He writes that he is not trying to "idealize" his brother, or to ignore the seriousness of the offence. However, he was genuinely shocked and surprised when he learned of his brother's participation. It is, and was, out of character.
Lara Farhat is an older sister. She writes that this incident does not reflect who she knows as her brother. They grew up through both "beautiful moments and difficult ones". Mr. Farhat fills their home with "joy, warmth and comfort". She writes that Mr. Farhat brings light into the house, that he cares for those around him, and that he is generous with his time and support. She describes him as "genuine, sociable, respectful and kind". Since his arrest, everything in the home has "felt darker, quieter and incomplete". The family will continue to support him.
Sara Farhat is also an older sister. She describes her brother as a "source of stability, support, and positivity" in their household. Mr. Farhat is someone who values family and demonstrates kindness. He is "caring, compassionate, generous, and deeply devoted to family".
[11] Several friends provided letters in support of Mr. Farhat. I have read them all but will summarize them as follows:
Marwa Akkouche states that she has known Mr. Farhat for 12 years. She describes him as "caring, respectful an:d dependable". He is hardworking and motivated. She sees a man who is trying to improve himself for a "stable future". He is a positive presence in her life.
Lyna Alem has known Mr. Farhat for 10 years. She describes him as being supportive of his peers. He offers a helping hand expecting nothing in return. His kindness is genuine. He is grounded by strong family values. He is stable and mature.
Rim El Ezzi is a close friend. She writes that Mr. Farhat is kind and caring. He brings comfort and positivity to others. She considers him to be a person of strong character, who possesses good values and has deep respect for others.
Aseel Hage is a close family friend. When he was suffering some mental health challenges and feeling emotionally overwhelmed, Mr. Farhat noticed. Mr. Farhat checked to ensure everything was "okay" while others remained oblivious. This showed a remarkable level of maturity.
Jana Kash has watched Mr. Farhat grow and evolve. He is described as kind, who respects others and puts people at ease.
Asceil Nahoui describes that Mr. Farhat is a "kind person" with "good energy around him". Children feel "happy" in his presence. He is thoughtful of others. She believes he "deserves the opportunity to pursue a positive and stable future".
Fatiina El-Najjar, too, describes Mr. Farhat as a "respectful, caring and deeply kind person". He is described as someone who shows "a lot of generosity" towards the people he loves. He exudes an image of "calm, maturity and responsibility".
Myriam Sabbagh describes Mr. Farhat as a person whom she trusts. He is someone who can be counted on for "advice and support". She has known him during both "joyful and difficult moments". He is kind in either situation, willing to help others. She describes that he "has a beautiful way of making others feel heard, valued and supported".
Sandra Takech describes that Mr. Farhat is the type of person who helps and supports the people around him. He assists his parents with small tasks without being asked. He is both mature and generous.
Remorse
[12] Mr. Farhat addressed the Court, with Mr. Junger's parents present, at the conclusion of the proceeding. He asked to enter the witness box so that he could face them directly during his address. He had not prepared a statement in advance of doing so.
[13] Amongst other things, Mr. Farhat said that he was speaking from the heart. His words will not lighten the sadness Mr. Junger's parents are experiencing. Even though Mr. Junger may not have made the best decisions, he is a human being, and he deserved to have wonderful moments with his family to create memories. No one wants to see a mother cry over her deceased son. He said that he wanted to express his sincere condolences. He is not proud of what occurred. He is very sorry.
Presentence Conditions
[14] Mr. Farhat was imprisoned upon his arrest and thereafter released. On bail, he was subject to restrictive conditions. His time in custody and restrictive terms of bail may be summarized as follows:
a. Mr. Farhat was arrested on February 6, 2024. He remained in custody until January 10, 2025 (340 days). There is no suggestion of misconduct during that time.
b. While incarcerated at the Toronto South Detention Centre, Mr. Farhat was subject to 86 lockdowns and 8 days of triple bunking.
c. Mr. Farhat was released on bail on January 10, 2025. The terms of Mr. Farhat's bail were strict, including a term that he remain in his home. The exceptions included medical emergencies, or "when you are in the presence of your surety approved of in writing by your surety, dated and signed".
d. Mr. Farhat was required to report weekly. He also wore an ankle monitor during that time.
e. There is no allegation that Mr. Farhat has breached the terms of his bail which he was subject to for 518 days (or just over 17 months).
Governing Sentencing Principles
[15] In determining the fit sentence for Mr. Farhat, I am governed by the sentencing principles set out in ss. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code.
[16] The fundamental 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 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.
[17] The sentence that I impose must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.1
[18] 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
[19] The aggravating factors are as follows:
a. Mr. Farhat 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. Farhat had the opportunity to walk away but chose to remain involved.
c. Mr. Farhat 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. Farhat 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. Farhat that the firearm would be used in the confrontation that led to Mr. Junger's killing.
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. Mr. Farhat participated in the confrontation on the porch. He was directly involved in the death of Mr. Junger.
i. 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.
j. 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 loss of a future spent with him that has now
1 Criminal Code, s. 718.1
been denied them. They are left with scars that will never heal and lives that are forever diminished.
[20] The mitigating factors are as follows:
Background
a. Mr. Farhat was youthful, just 19 years of age, at the time of the offence. He is only 21 years of age now.
b. Mr. Farhat has no criminal record.
c. He has completed his high school education and was about to embark on CEGEP when arrested for this offence.
d. He has been gainfully employed in the past.
e. He has the support of his family and community. All are pro-social.
f. Based on the materials filed, this offence appears to be out of character.
The Offence
a. Mr. Farhat 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. Farhat neither possessed nor used the firearm during the altercation. His role in the offence was· secondary, to some degree, to the role ofFS.
c. While a reasonable person would have foreseen the risk that the firearm would be used in these circumstances, there is no evidence that Mr. Farhat subjectively foresaw that risk. As such, Mr. Farhat's level of culpability is lower.2
d. 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.
e. Mr. Farhat was shot during the incident.
f. Mr. Farhat 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 saving court resources.
2 R. v. Kwakye, 2015 ONCA 108, [2015] O.J. No. 707, at para. 5
Rehabilitation
a. It appears that based on the materials filed, Mr. Farhat has rehabilitative potential.
b. There is nothing to suggest that Mr. Farhat presents an unmanageable risk in the community.
c. Mr. Farhat has expressed remorse and demonstrated insight into his conduct. He has taken responsibility for his actions and acknowledged the devastating impact of his conduct on Mr. Junger's family.
Other Factors
a. Mr. Farhat has been detained at the Toronto South Detention Centre where he has been subject to lockdowns and triple bunking. Unduly harsh conditions in pre sentence custody are a relevant factor to be considered in sentencing.3 Harsh conditions of presentence custody are properly considered as mitigating when determining the appropriate sentence.4
b. Mr. Farhat has been subject to strict conditions of bail when released from custody. Restrictive terms on a person's liberty are properly considered as mitigating when determining the appropriate sentence.5
Range of Sentence and Applicable Principles
[21] The maximum sentence for manslaughter is life imprisonment.6 There is no minimum sentence.
[22] 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.7 The diverse range of circumstances that can give rise to a manslaughter conviction also gives rise to a wide variation in the sentence imposed.
[23] 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.8 A fit sentence is one that is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the moral blameworthiness of the offender.
3 R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754.
4 R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344.
5 R. v. Downes, (2006), 2006 CanLII 3957 (ON CA), 79 O.R. (3d) 321, at para. 37 (C.A.)
6 Criminal Code, s. 236(b).
7 R. v. Carriere (2002), 2002 CanLII 41803 (ON CA), 164 CCC (3d) 569, at para. 10.
8 R. V. Lacasse, 2015 sec 64, at para. 57.
[24] 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.
[25] Justice Schreck analyzed several manslaughter sentencing cases in R. v. Smith and concluded that there were three broad ranges of sentences from six to fifteen years.9 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;
*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.).10
[26] Crown counsel submits that Mr. Farhat's conduct falls into the first category identified by Justices Schreck and Code: six to eight years' imprisonment.
[27] Counsel for Mr. Farhat asks that I rely, amongst other things, on the case of R v. Turner.11 Mr. Turner was involved in an incident which resulted in a person being fatally shot outside their 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 gun prior to the shooting death of the victim. Counsel for Mr. Turner asked that Mr. Turner be sentenced to time served (52 months).
[28] The trial judge was unable to conclude that Mr. Turner knew of the existence of the gun prior to the shooting (unlike Mr. Farhat). Mr. Turner was sentenced based on the following inference drawn from the evidence: Mr. Turner knew that the shooter meant to harm the deceased
10 R. v. Wight, 2022 ONSC 5137 at para. 43
and that serious harm was a foreseeable risk; and Mr. Turner attended with the shooter to aid or abet in that unlawful act and 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.
[29] 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. Farhat).12
[30] 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."13 The circumstances of any case, including this one, can be readily distinguished from any other case. Sentencing is not a precise science. It is instead a profoundly individualized process driven by the unique facts of every offence and the unique characteristics of every offender.
[31] The cases provided by counsel support the range proposed.14 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. Farhat, rehabilitation must be considered.15
[32] In reaching my conclusion about a fit sentence, I am cognizant of the principles set out in R. v. Priest,16 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".
[33] 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".17
Determination of a Fit Sentence
[34] Sentencing is one of the most difficult things a trial judge does. It is especially difficult in a case like this. It involves taking into consideration the loss of Mr. Junger's life and the unbearable suffering of those he has left behind.
[35] No sentence that I impose will undo the devastation caused by Mr. Junger's death. Further, the sentence I impose cannot and does not reflect the value of Mr. Junger's life or the degree of suffering his loss has caused. A life lost cannot be measured by the length of a prison sentence.
12Turner, paras. 14-15
13 R. v. M (C.A.), 1996 CanLII 230 (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500, at para. 92.
14 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.
15 R. v. Kwakye, 2015 ONCA 108, [2015] O.J. No. 707
16 (1996), 1996 CanLII 1381 (ON CA), 110 C.C.C. (3d) 289 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 296.
17 2003 CanLII 4187 (Ont.C.A.), at para. 3
I
[36] After considering all the circumstances, I have concluded that the appropriate sentence is 48 months in prison (or four years). This sentence reflects the serious crime Mr. Farhat committed and his high degree of moral blameworthiness. It also addresses the applicable sentencing principles, including denunciation and deterrence, the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and collateral consequences.
[37] Mr. Farhat has spent a total of 340 days in pre-sentence custody, from February 6, 2024, to January 10, 2025. He is entitled to 510 days (or 17 months) credit in accordance with R. v. Summers.18 He has also been subject to strict bail conditions for over 17 months (without incident) and subject to harsh conditions while incarcerated. Mr. Farhat will be given a total credit of 24 months. This will require Mr. Farhat to spend a further 2 years in custody.
[38] I have been persuaded that Mr. Farhat would benefit from three years of probation. A sentence to serve of two years will permit me to order probation. Rehabilitation is particularly important due to Mr. Farhat's young age and prospects of being a prosocial member of our society.19
[39] 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".20 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"21. By improving themselves, society is better protected.
The Fit Sentence
[40] Mr. Farhat is sentenced to the following for the offence of manslaughter: 48 months' imprisonment, less 24 months for a further 24 months (two years) to serve.
[41] Mr. Farhat will be placed on probation for three years.
[42] Mr. Farhat 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. Farhat be prohibited from possessing any prohibited or restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, device, or ammunition for life.
[43] 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. Farhat provide a sample of his bodily substances for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis.
18 2014 SCC 26
19 R. v. B.W.P., 2006 SCC 27 and R. v. Bissonnette, 2022 SCC 23
20 2015 SCC 64, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 1089, at para. 4
21 R. v. Bissonnette, 2022 sCC 23, at para. 51
[44] I also order, pursuant to s. 743.21 of the Criminal Code, that Mr. Farhat 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
APPENDIX “A”
ASF – As read into the record at the time of the plea.
For FARHAT
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 Issaih 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 and 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, to retrieve his personal belongings. He and Ms. Labreche had an argument which led to him assaulting her. He then retrieved his belongings and left.
The Incident
A short while later, four men including Mr. Farhat 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 Hassan Farhat, 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. Mr. Farhat and another of the party went into the store, and the other person 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 remained inside the Lansdowne home, mainly in the main open living room area. The four men were in possession of a handgun, which at one point Ms. Labreche claimed was pointed at her. Mr. Farhat was aware that one of the men was in possession of a handgun. He never touched the gun. He did not see a gun 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, including Mr. Farhat, 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 whose description was consistent with Mr. Farhat wrestling with Mr. Junger while one of the other 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 of 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 testified 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. Mr. Farhat does not agree that Ms. Labreche was coerced into coming to Toronto.
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.
Subsequent to this incident Mr. Kajjou was found guilty of firearms possession in an unrelated matter.
It is agreed that Mr. Farhat did not fire the shot that killed Mr. Junger.
Mr. Farhat knew that 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 that 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
Mr. Farhat participated in the physical confrontation with Mr. Junger on the porch that led to his death, and is thus a party to his killing.
CITATION: R. v. Farhat, 2026 ONSC 3396
COURT FILE NO.: CR-26-10000193-0000
DATE: 20260611
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
- and -
HASSAN FARHAT
reasons for SENTENCE
Kelly J.
Released: June 11, 2026