ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
Between:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
– and –
KERI MCKNIGHT
Defendants
Christine Josic, for the Crown
Glen Orr, for the Defendant
HEARD: May 6, 2026
written reasons for sentence
Overview:
1In the fall of 2021, Mr. McKnight was driving around the streets of east end Toronto with deadly weapons, ammunition, and drugs: three handguns – two of them modified to shoot fully automatically, seven overcapacity detachable box cartridge magazines, an overcapacity drum magazine capable of holding 50 9mm cartridges, 377 cartridges of ammunition, 58.18 grams of cocaine and 15.6 grams of oxycodone. All items were found in a modified centre console of his SUV that contained a hidden compartment. At his intimate partner’s apartment, the police found 17.12 grams of fentanyl in his satchel in the living room. The small apartment was also home to his one-year-old daughter. On May 7, 2025, a jury convicted Mr. McKnight of six counts under the Criminal Code1 and three counts under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.2
2The Crown sought a global sentence of 18 to 23 years and recognized both the totality principle and that Mr. McKnight is entitled to receive two years and 20 days of time spent in pre-trial custody (Summers3 credit). Mr. McKnight suggested a global sentence of ten years less the Summers credit and significant credit for harsh conditions in the Toronto South Detention Centre (Duncan4 credit) such that Mr. McKnight would be left with three remaining years to serve.
3On June 15, 2026, I delivered an oral ruling, summarizing my conclusions on sentencing. These are supplementary written reasons explaining why I have sentenced Mr. McKnight to a global sentence of 12 years less a Summers credit of two years and 20 days, and a Duncan credit of seven months. This leaves him serving nine years and five months in a federal penitentiary.
Background facts:
4On October 10, 2021, the Gun and Gang Task Force of the Toronto Police arrested Mr. McKnight in a parking lot at a plaza on Lawrence Avenue East in Scarborough. At the time of his arrest, he was in the driver seat of a black Ford Escape with the license plate CMFF 945, a vehicle registered to his girlfriend, Ms. Ashley Oduya.
5During the search of the vehicle, police located a compartment built into the centre console. When it was pried open, they located three loaded guns, eight overcapacity magazines, 377 cartridges of ammunition, cocaine, and oxycodone. The jury would have accepted that Mr. McKnight had both knowledge and control of these items.
6While one police team searched the Ford Escape, another police team went to execute a search warrant at apartment 408, 1765 Lawrence Avenue East, where Mr. McKnight’s girlfriend, Ms. Ashley Oduya, their infant daughter, and Ms. Oduya’s mom lived. Inside the apartment the officers found bins that the jury would have accepted belonged to Mr. McKnight. Inside a black satchel in one of the bins was the fentanyl. The jury would have accepted that the satchel belonged to Mr. McKnight and that he had knowledge and control of its contents.
Who is Mr. McKnight?
7To assist me in better understanding Mr. McKnight, I have the benefit of a pre-sentence report (PSR) as well as an Impact of Race and Culture Assessment (IRCA) particularized to Mr. McKnight.
8Mr. McKnight is 41 years old and was born in Toronto. He is of Jamaican descent. His father was a drug dealer as was most of his family. He grew up in Regent Park, which he described as an area of regular gun violence, killing, drug trafficking, and other criminality. Mr. McKnight himself had been shot, and he had lost many friends to gun violence. His friend Dwayne, who grew up with him in Regent Park, spoke about the frequent police stops and exposure to community violence and drugs. Dwayne made it through because he had access to a broader family network. Mr. McKnight, on the other hand, only had his mother. Mr. McKnight described himself as a regular marijuana user and drinker. He stated that he believed he had a dependency on marijuana which helped him avoid getting into “a lot more trouble”. He was exposed to drinking, crack cocaine and other hard drugs through his family and stated that he was always under the influence, including likely at the time of his arrest.
9Mr. McKnight’s mother, Ms. Stewart, mainly raised him and his four Canadian siblings by herself. His father was in an out of the home and was physically abusive to his mom. Mr. McKnight spent a lot of time playing basketball, something Ms. Stewart said he was talented at. Mr. McKnight stated that basketball prevented him from getting into more trouble. Mr. McKnight’s sister, Tania, gave a similar account and stated that Ms. Stewart did her best to shield her kids from the negative influences. However, as the primary breadwinner she often had to work several jobs which took her away from the home and left the children unstable and unsupervised. Tania also stated that the home was unsafe due to the trauma caused by their father’s severe physical abuse of Ms. Stewart, sending her to the hospital, numerous times.
10Mr. McKnight’s childhood instability was heightened when he was 14 years old. That year, his parents were arrested and convicted for having marijuana in Ms. Stewart’s restaurant at Dundas Street East and River Street. Ms. Stewart reported that at the time her husband was selling marijuana, but she refused to identify whose it was. Ultimately both she and Mr. McKnight’s father were incarcerated. Mr. McKnight described that event as the day his mother lost everything, including her business and community standing. The IRCA writer urged the court to consider Ms. Stewart’s behaviour in the socio-historical context of heavily policed, low-income Black communities where cooperating with police could carry the risk of community stigma and/or retaliation.
11Mr. McKnight described a close relationship with his mother and siblings. He mentioned that he could call his sisters and talk to them – “it’s always been love.” Two of his brothers were involved in violence however; one killed a man, and another stabbed someone while incarcerated and was deported to Jamaica. Mr. McKnight’s mother was his primary care giver and when he lost her to the criminal justice system, he not only experienced further instability, but also material deprivation and significant social stigma at a critical time in his development.
12After Ms. Stewart was released, she faced ongoing reporting obligations to immigration officials which she found burdensome while trying to care for her four children. Ultimately, she moved back to Jamaica when Mr. McKnight was 17. Ms. Stewart said that changes to the family structure and negative peer influences affected Mr. McKnight’s development. The IRCA reporter indicated that many collateral sources spoke of the departure of Mr. McKnight’s mother as a turning point in his life where he turned from a child to a surrogate father for his younger sister who was left behind with him.
13This was confirmed by Mr. McKnight who said that he had a positive core group of friends and spent his time from age ten to seventeen playing basketball which kept him out of trouble. However, he stopped playing basketball when his mom relocated to Jamaica. He finished grade 12 but did not complete high school because he did not have anyone to turn to for money. He started selling weed in the neighbourhood and according to Tania, started “moving with the wrong crowd.” He sustained himself and his sister by selling drugs and on occasion was on social assistance. He had housing insecurity from when his mother left, moving from apartment to apartment, and sometimes staying with relatives or his girlfriend’s parents. The IRCA writer stated that the circumstances of his mother, her departure and the dramatic change to Mr. McKnight’s life trajectory were symptomatic of how state systems disproportionately destabilize Black family units through heightened surveillance, criminalization, and conditional belonging.
14Despite these hardships, many sources told both the PSR and IRCA writers that Mr. McKnight has done remarkably well and are amazed that “he is still here.” His high school teacher, Mr. Dixoh, detailed the chronic exposure to violence in Regent Park including many peer deaths, and said that Mr. McKnight’s resilience was notable. Mr. Dixoh described Mr. McKnight as charismatic, respectful, and well-mannered.
15Mr. McKnight has since age sixteen also tried to earn money legitimately despite his lack of support, guidance, mentorship and opportunity due to both systemic and financial barriers. He has worked as a roofer, building superintendent, actor and an auto detailer as recently as 2023 to 2024. His detailer boss described him as honest, humble and diligent. Another friend, Mr. Mucaj, described Mr. McKnight as calm, peaceful and hardworking. He noted his employment on the docks.
16Another long-time community supporter, Mr. Richards, gave a similar description of the challenges of Mr. McKnight’s life, especially after his mother left, and his potential despite his hardships. He emphasized Mr. McKnight’s determination, entrepreneurial instincts, commitment to help others, and consistent efforts to pursue legal and constructive pathways.
17Anthony Richards, Mr. McKnight’s former basketball coach, described Mr. McKnight as athletic, intelligent and a natural leader who served as team captain. He stated that prior to Ms. Stewart’s departure, he demonstrated academic strength and promise. Mr. Richards said that Mr. McKnight was deeply impacted by the instability the loss of his mother caused and by the broader systemic inequities that faced Black youth growing up in Regent Park.
18The mother of Mr. McKnight’s first child, Jamila, described him as a caring, loving, and an involved father who did his best to support their child despite relational and financial difficulties. She recalled experiences of police targeting Mr. McKnight but despite those difficulties, she expressed that he has demonstrated personal growth over time and would benefit from structured support to fully realize his goals. Jamila also stated that he was “spiritually grounded”.
19Similar accolades came from Mr. Clifford Watson, another childhood friend of Mr. McKnight. Mr. Watson described Mr. McKnight as a spiritual man with a work ethic like no other. He mentioned that during his house arrest Mr. McKnight turned to education. And indeed Mr. McKnight has received several certificates and took advantage of a long list of courses while in custody including Afro-centric programming (see exhibit seven).
Mr. McKnight has a sporadic criminal record but two firearms convictions
20Mr. McKnight’s criminal record reflects the descriptions of him from the collateral sources. It shows a person in and out of criminality, which is consistent with someone trying to avoid the pathways that he grew up but not always successful. Mr. McKnight has a sporadic criminal record dating back to 2001 and has never spent time in a federal penitentiary:
a. 2001 – possession of a Schedule II substance (suspended sentence, one year of probation)
b. 2002 – possession of a handgun and escape from lawful custody (12 months concurrent for each charge and two years of probation)
c. March 2006 – two counts of failure to comply with a recognizance ($5 fine for each charge and 20 days in custody)
d. July 2006 – possession of bear spray and trafficking marijuana (suspended sentence and two years of probation)
e. 2015 – possession of a Tac 9 machine gun, tasers, and butterfly knives and breach of a prohibition order (global sentence of three years with credit for 30 months for pre-sentence custody and s. 109 prohibition order).
Sentencing Analysis:
21The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society, contribute to respect for the law, and maintain a just and peaceful society. The goals of sentencing include denunciation and deterrence, rehabilitation, reparation for harm done to victims, and to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders. Denunciation and deterrence are particularly important factors for firearms and drug offences.
22In addition, a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender: Code, s. 718.1. In determining moral blameworthiness, I consider the circumstances of Mr. McKnight as a young Black man growing up alone in Regent Park as set out in both the PSR and the IRCA.
23Sentencing judges must consider the principle of parity, that similar offenders who commit similar offences in similar circumstances should receive similar sentences: Code, s. 718.2(b).
24Also of note is s. 718.2(b) of the Code, which provides that an offender should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions are appropriate and all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims and the community should be considered.
25I must also consider aggravating factors that the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt and mitigating factors.
26When convicted of multiple counts, I first determine the appropriate sentence for each offence individually. Second, I consider whether the sentences ought to be served consecutively or concurrently. Generally speaking, “offences that are so closely linked to each other as to constitute a single criminal adventure may, but are not required to, receive concurrent sentences, while all other offences are to receive consecutive sentences”.5 Determining whether sentences should be consecutive or concurrent is a fact-specific inquiry to be undertaken in the context of each case.6 Third, after doing this, I consider the principle of totality,7 namely I turn my mind to the cumulative impact of the sentence to ensure that it does not exceed the offender’s overall culpability.8
27As noted in Bertrand Marchand at para. 99, if the principle of totality is offended, I can adjust the total sentence by making some sentences concurrent or reducing the length of one or more sentences. The Crown’s suggested adjustments are in her chart of proposed sentence.
28The Crown provided the Telfer9 and Owusu10 cases to support her position. I considered the cases Justice Code cited in Owusu as well. Mr. McKnight relied on Morris,11 Gladue12 and a Nova Scotia Court of Appeal case, Anderson,13 to emphasize the importance of assessing Mr. McKnight’s moral blameworthiness in the context of his circumstances as set out in both the PSR and IRCA.
29I set out below the Crown’s submission on each count:
Count 1
s.92(2), Code
Possession of a prohibited device.
An overcapacity detachable drum magazine capable of holding 50 cartridges of 9mm ammunition.
One year in jail (concurrent)
Count 2
s.92(2), Code
Possession of prohibited devices.
Seven overcapacity detachable box cartridge magazines capable of holding:
34 cartridges of 9mm ammunition.
18 cartridges of 9mm ammunition.
27 cartridges of 9mm ammunition.
33 cartridges of 9mm ammunition.
33 cartridges of 9mm ammunition.
33 cartridges of 9mm ammunition.
29 cartridges of 9mm ammunition.
Two years in jail (concurrent)
Count 3
s.95(1), Code
Possession of a loaded prohibited firearm without a licence and registration certificate.
A Polymer 80, model PF940C, Glock-type handgun.
A prohibited firearm due to barrel length of 102 mm and the affixed selector switch.
Modified to shoot fully automatic.
Thes selector switch is a prohibited device.
Loaded with an overcapacity magazine.
Seized together with 45 rounds of 9mm ammunition in two overcapacity magazines.
A “Ghost Gun” – untraceable and undetectable; serial number removed from frame.
Nine years in jail (*reduced to six years after application of the totality principle)
Consecutive
Count 4
s.95(1), Code
Possession of a loaded prohibited firearm without a licence and registration certificate.
A Glock model 34GEN4 handgun.
A prohibited firearm due to the affixed selector switch. Modified to shoot fully automatic.
The switch was tested and fired fully automatic in both positions.
Thes selector switch is a prohibited device.
Loaded with a fully loaded overcapacity magazine containing 34 rounds of 9mm ammunition and one additional round in the chamber.
Nine years in jail (*reduced to six years application of the totality principle)
Consecutive
Count 5
s.95(1), Code
Possession of a loaded prohibited firearm without a licence and registration certificate.
A revolver handgun.
A Harington & Richardson model 732 handgun.
A prohibited firearm due to the barrel length of 63mm (“snub nose”)
Fully loaded with one round in the chamber.
Nine years in jail (*reduced to six years application of the totality principle)
Consecutive
Count 6
s.86(1), Code
Careless storage of ammunition.
377 cartridges of ammunition stored in the center console of Mr. McKnight’s vehicle (total of 278 9mm and 99 .32 ACP).
One year in jail (concurrent)
Count 7
s. 5(2), Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
Possession for the purpose of trafficking, fentanyl.
17.12 grams of fentanyl.
Five years in jail (*reduced to two years, 20 days jail based on the application of the totality principle)
*Concurrent to the other drug offences but consecutive to the firearms offences
Count 8
s. 5(2), Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
Possession for the purpose of trafficking, cocaine.
58.18 grams of cocaine.
Four years in jail (*reduced to two years, 20 days jail based on the application of the totality principle)
*Concurrent to the other drug offences but consecutive to the firearms offences
Count 9
s. 5(2), Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
Possession for the purpose of trafficking, oxycodone.
15.60 grams of oxycodone.
Four years in jail (*reduced to two years, 20 days in jail based on the application of the totality principle)
*Concurrent to the other drug offences but consecutive to the firearms offences
The firearms sentences should be concurrent
30Even after recognizing the totality principle, The Crown proposed that Mr. McKnight be sentenced to 18 years imprisonment for the firearms offences because she proposes that a sentence of nine years each should be served consecutively. Defence counsel did not speak to the issue of concurrency nor proposed sentences for each count. Rather Mr. Orr suggested a global sentence of ten years.
31I adopt Justice Code’s methodology in R. v. Owusu14 and group the counts for the purpose of deciding whether they should be consecutive or concurrent. Mr. McKnight should receive consecutive sentences for two categories of offences: First, the three s. 95 firearms offences (counts 3, 4 and 5) which have a range of six to nine years for repeat offenders;15 and second, the CDSA drug offences (counts 7, 8 and 9). Counts 1, 2 and 6 should be concurrent with the firearms because they relate to substantially the same transaction as the firearms counts. In contrast the drug counts engage a separate legal interest and should be concurrent with each other but consecutive to the firearms category.
32The three section 95 firearms offences (counts 3, 4 and 5) are extremely serious and warrant strong denunciation and specific deterrence for Mr. McKnight, who went from being convicted of possessing a single firearm in 2001 and 2015 to driving around with three weapons with accompanying extended magazines that could cause mass casualties. I treat counts 1, 2 and 6 relating to the overcapacity magazines and careless storage of ammunition in the centre console as aggravating on the firearms offences. I agree with the Crown that Mr. McKnight’s two previous firearms convictions, the sheer number of firearms found in the hidden compartment in his vehicle, the number of overcapacity magazines found with the firearms, the fact that the firearms were loaded and that they were found with controlled substances possessed for the purpose of trafficking, are aggravating. It is also aggravating that the firearms were modified to be automatic, and two of them had laser sights said to improve accuracy.
33That said, I note Mr. Orr’s submission that no violence occurred and that there were no immediate victims. Further, I cannot conclude, as the Crown suggested, that the firearms were readily accessible to Mr. McKnight as he drove around, thereby making him an immediate danger to the public. The police had to pry open the hidden compartment when searching the vehicle. Aside from the mention of a button on the centre console, there was no evidence at trial about how easy it would have been for Mr. McKnight to access these deadly weapons as he was driving.
34In mitigation, Mr. McKnight has strong community support and is described by all as a smart, athletic, man with business acumen, who can take the right path with guidance. While his past related convictions are aggravating, it is also mitigating and speaks to Mr. McKnight’s ability to rehabilitate that the previous firearms convictions are thirteen years apart (between 2002 and 2015). I consider his criminal record in the context of his history and the devastating departure of his mother. I understand why those who were interviewed all stated that Mr. McKnight has done remarkably well considering his difficult past. As a young man he was surrounded by drugs, guns, violence, death, and loss – and to his credit has largely stayed out of the criminal justice system. This reduces his moral culpability. I consider his lived experience as a Black man as reported in both the PSR and IRCA. And I consider as a mitigating factor that Mr. McKnight has shown attempts to earn an income legitimately and took advantage of extensive programming while under house arrest and at the Toronto South Detention Centre (see exhibit five). Mr. McKnight also filed records from the Toronto South showing extensive periods of lockdowns and triple bunking – this is mitigating on his sentence.
35To balance the aggravating and mitigating factors, the firearms charges warrant nine years each, concurrent to each other as Justice Code determined in Owusu, who was also a recidivist found with two firearms and fentanyl and with a similar difficult background as Mr. McKnight. While Mr. Owusu was arguably more dangerous because he was running through backyards with guns in hand, the sheer quantity of firearms that Mr. McKnight had accompanied by a large quantity of overcapacity magazines puts him in the highest end of the range. I do not, however, see a basis to separate each of these offences as the Crown suggests and decline to give consecutive sentences for each. They are part of the same event. I agree with the Crown’s position on counts 1 and 2 regarding the overcapacity magazines and drum. Mr. McKnight is sentenced to one year concurrent for counts 1 and two years concurrent for count 2. I agree with the Crown position on count 6 – careless storage of ammunition – and sentence Mr. McKnight to one year concurrent for that offence.
The drug charges are concurrent to each other and consecutive as a category to the firearms category
36That leaves the drug offences. Again, I find this is consecutive as a category to the firearms but not individually because the drug offences are so closely linked to each other as to constitute a single criminal adventure. The most serious of the drug offences is the possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking. It is well established that fentanyl is deadly and that deterrence and denunciation is the primary goal of sentencing. An aggravating fact is that the fentanyl was found in a satchel in the same apartment where his infant daughter lived. This however is Mr. McKnight’s first fentanyl conviction and hopefully the last. The amount of fentanyl (17.12 grams) places him as a low-level dealer.16 The appropriate sentences for the drug offences are as suggested by the Crown – five years for the fentanyl (count 7) consecutive to the firearms charges, and four years for each of the cocaine (count 8) and oxycodone (count 9) concurrent.
Totality principle reduces the global sentence from 14 years to 12 less Summers and Duncan credits
37If left alone, this sentence would send Mr. McKnight to the penitentiary for 14 years. However, like in Telfer, this sentencing decision is challenging because the sentencing objectives pull in opposite directions. Mr. McKnight has committed very serious criminal offences, but I believe there is hope for him. As aptly stated by Justice Javad in Telfer, “the totality principle should work to reduce the sentence so it’s not crushing and erase any prospects of rehabilitation.”17 Given Mr. McKnight’s circumstances and applying the totality and parity principles, I would reduce each consecutive sentence by one year to reach a global sentence of 12 years. From this I deduct two years and 20 days of credit for pre-trial custody of 500 real days at a ratio of 1:1.5, and a seven-month Duncan credit for the harsh conditions at the Toronto South. This leaves a total of nine years and five months remaining.
Conclusion:
38In sum, I impose the following sentences on Mr. McKnight:
Count 1 – one year concurrent with count 3
Count 2 – two years concurrent with count 3
Count 3 – eight years consecutive to count 7
Count 4 – nine years concurrent with count 3
Count 5 – nine years concurrent with count 3
Count 6 – one year concurrent with count 3
Count 7 – four years consecutive to count 3 with Summers and Duncan credits applied
Count 8 – four years concurrent with count 7
Count 9 – four years concurrent with count 7
39In addition, I make the following ancillary orders:
a. a s. 109 prohibition order for life;
b. a s. 487.051(2) order to provide a sample of Mr. McKnight’s DNA to include in the national databank; and
c. a s. 491(1) forfeiture of all firearms, magazines, ammunition, and Schedule I substances as noted in chart attached to the order.
P.T. Sugunasiri J.
Released: June 22, 2026
Footnotes
- R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.
- S.C. 1996, c. 19.
- R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 575.
- R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754, 133 W.C.B. (2d) 367.
- R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, [2020] 1 S.C.R. 424 at para. 155; see also Code, s. 718.3(4) (b)(i).
- R. v. Bertrand Marchand, 2023 SCC 26, 487 D.L.R. (4th) 201 at para. 95.
- Code, s. 718.2(c)
- Bertrand Marchand at para. 91 and Code, s. 718.2(c).
- R. v. Telfer (April 11, 2025), Toronto, 23/50000756-02 (Ont. Prov. Ct.).
- R. v. Owusu, 2024 ONSC 671, 2024 W.C.B. 153.
- R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, 159 O.R. (3d) 641.
- R. v. Gladue, 1999 CanLII 679 (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688.
- R. v. Anderson, 2021 NSCA 62, 405 C.C.C. (3d) 1.
- Owusu at para. 25.
- Owusu at paras. 28 and 30.
- Owusu at paras. 35 and 36.
- R. v. Telfer at para. 58.