Court File and Parties
CITATION: R v. Mukunzi, 2026 ONSC 3854
COURT FILE NO.: CR-25-00000032-0000
DATE: 2026 06 23
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
v.
JANCY MUKUNZI
R E A S O N S F O R S E N T E N C E
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE C. CONLAN
on June 23, 2026, at ORANGEVILLE, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
S. Bradley Counsel for the Crown
E. Willschick Counsel for Jancy Mukunzi
THURSDAY, July 10, 2025
Reasons for Sentence
Okay, counsel put a lot of work into this case. So I would like to give some brief oral reasons for the sentence, and those oral reasons are as follows. Mr. Mukunzi is before the court to be sentenced on three criminal offences that he has pleaded guilty to. The nature and facts of those three criminal offences are as follows. Count number one, that Mr. Mukunzi, on or about January 1, 2024, at Caledon, Ontario, did have in his possession a stolen Dodge Charger motor vehicle of a value exceeding $5,000, contrary to section 355(a) of the Criminal Code. And further, count eight, that Mr. Mukunzi, on or about January 1, 2024, at Caledon, Ontario, did operate a motor vehicle while being pursued by a peace officer and failed to stop the motor vehicle as soon as was reasonable in the circumstances, contrary to section 320.17 of the Criminal Code. And further, count 11, that Mr. Mukunzi on or about January 1, 2024, at Caledon, Ontario, did possess a loaded restricted firearm, namely a Smith and Wesson M&P Shield, while Mr. Mukunzi was not the holder of an authorization or licence under which he may possess that item, contrary to section 95(1) one of the Criminal Code. On the date in question, at approximately 10:44 p.m., police were conducting general patrol in the town of Caledon. Police observed a white Dodge Charger stopped at a red light. The police utilized their onboard automatic license plate reader to discover that the white Dodge Charger had been reported stolen. As the Dodge Charger began to drive away after the traffic light turned green, the police moved in behind the vehicle to initiate a traffic stop. When the police activated the emergency lights and siren to initiate the traffic stop, the driver of the stolen white Dodge Charger accelerated the vehicle and disregarded the officers’ attempt to stop it. The vehicle continued approximately 300 metres eastbound and then tried to negotiate a right turn, and at that moment, the driver of the vehicle lost control, striking the centre median and coming to a rest on the median. The driver of that vehicle was the offender before the court, Mr. Mukunzi. When the police attempted to make contact with him after the collision, Mr. Mukunzi exited the vehicle from the driver's seat and began running southbound. There was another person, a male, who was a passenger in the vehicle. Police approached the suspect vehicle and observed a Glock handgun sitting in plain view on the front passenger seat. Police confirmed that the vehicle was in fact stolen and entered the vehicle to secure and prove safe the firearm, which was found to have an overcapacity magazine fully loaded with 17 rounds as well as a round in the chamber. Both males, including Mr. Mukunzi, were arrested a short time and distance away by Peel Regional Police and Ontario Provincial Police officers. On January 2, 2024, Peel Police contacted the Caledon OPP to advise that additional evidence had been located in the vicinity where the accused, Mr. Mukunzi, was arrested. The day prior, police advised that a civilian had observed a black jacket in the area and when they lifted it up, they observed a black handgun. Officers attended the area and seized a black jacket containing a blank motor vehicle master key and a black Smith and Wesson handgun with a live nine millimetre round in the chamber. That is the firearm that Mr. Mukunzi was unlawfully in possession of. The Crown recommends a sentence of four years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody in accordance with the maximum permitted under R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 575. The Crown also requests secondary DNA orders on all three convictions, a lifetime firearms and weapons prohibition order under section 109 of the Criminal Code with regard to the section 95(1) conviction and a forfeiture order. None of the ancillary orders are being contested by the defence. Defence counsel recommends a sentence of time served for Mr. Mukunzi. Defence counsel has calculated the pre-sentence custody at 749 real days, which is the equivalent of 1124 days under the maximum gross up permitted as per the Criminal Code in the Summers decision. If this court accepts the position of the defence, that would be close to three years in custody effectively for Mr. Mukunzi. It should be noted as well that Mr. Mukunzi did spend some period of time on a relatively strict house arrest bail on these offences. In terms of the personal circumstances of Mr. Mukunzi, he is currently 25 years of age. He was born in Kenya and lived for some period of his life in Congo. He is a permanent resident of Canada. He is not a Canadian citizen. He has two young children, both under the age of 10 years. Mr. Mukunzi is a black male who this court accepts had a very difficult upbringing in Kenya and the Congo. The latter country, having been a war-torn area for most, if not all, of the time that Mr. Mukunzi lived there. In terms of the general principles of sentence that are paramount in this case, it is my view that the most important principles of sentencing are denunciation and deterrence, both general deterrence and individual or specific deterrence. Of secondary importance, although still relevant in this case, given Mr. Mukunzi's relatively tender adult age is the principle of rehabilitation. I should note as well that Mr. Mukunzi does have a criminal history spanning from 2019 until 2021, a total of six convictions during that period of time consisting of breaching a recognizance, failing to comply with a release order, mischief to property. That is the nature of all of the prior convictions. They all fall within one of those categories and Mr. Mukunzi has never received a serious sentence. The sentences that he received for those entries on his record range from a conditional discharge through to a suspended sentence and probation. This matter was thoroughly pre tried on at least one prior occasion, and while I do not take the position at all that the Crown's position is unmeritorious or is outside the usual range for these types of offences, particularly the section 95(1) conviction, I have decided to accept the position put forward by the defence in this case. I think that it meets the ends of justice. I think that it is a proportionate response to the specific circumstances of these offences committed by this particular offender. And for those reasons, the sentence imposed by the court is as follows. I will begin with the most serious of the three convictions. That is count number 11, the section 95 (1) offence. The sentence imposed on that matter is as follows. One day in jail deemed already served on top of the following pre-sentence custody, 749 days credited as 1124 days. The victim fine surcharge is waived on that conviction. On that matter, there is a secondary DNA order issued under section 109 of the Criminal Code and a firearms and weapons prohibition order issued for a duration of life. There is also a forfeiture order issued on that conviction and I have signed the order as per the draft submitted by the Crown. On count number one, it is the same custodial sentence to run concurrent with the sentence imposed on count number 11. The victim fine surcharge is waived on count number one and there is a secondary DNA order issued on that conviction. On count number eight, it is the same custodial sentence that is imposed to run concurrent with the sentences imposed on counts 11 and one. Also on count number eight, the victim fine surcharge is waived, and the court issues a secondary DNA order. Counsel, before I ask Mr. Mukunzi if he understands the sentence, is there anything that I was not clear on or anything else that you would like to say?
E. WILLSCHICK: No, thank you, Your Honour.
S. BRADLEY: No, thank you, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Mr. Mukunzi, I have granted you essentially a sentence of time served. I have not imposed any further jail against you. You understand that?
JANCY MUKUNZI: Thank you, sir, I do understand.
THE COURT: I waived the victim fine surcharge on each of the three convictions. Nothing further needs to be said about that. I imposed a DNA order. You must cooperate with the authorities in giving a sample of your DNA, which more than likely will be done by way of a blood sample. If you do not cooperate in giving that sample, you could be charged with a further criminal offence of breaching that court order and you could be sentenced to a period of time in jail if found guilty. Do you understand?
JANCY MUKUNZI: I do understand, sir.
THE COURT: The firearms and weapons prohibition order under section 109 of the Criminal Code is for life. You must obey that order. If you do not, you could be charged with a further criminal offence of breach of that order, and if found guilty, you could be sentenced to a period of time in jail. Do you understand?
JANCY MUKUNZI: Yes, I do, sir.
THE COURT: I also issued a forfeiture order as requested by the Crown. There are certain items that you are not getting back. You understand that?
JANCY MUKUNZI: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Do you have any questions that you want to ask me about any aspect of the sentence?
JANCY MUKUNZI: No, sir.
THE COURT: Okay. The other counts on the indictment, Mr. Bradley, I assume are being with withdrawn?
S. BRADLEY: That's correct. To be marked withdrawn, please, as it relates to this accused, obviously. Not the other accused.
THE COURT: Yes, against Mr. Mukunzi, the other counts on the indictment are marked withdrawn at the request of the Crown. And Mr. Bradley, Mr. Willschick, is there anything else?
S. BRADLEY: No, thank you.
E. WILLSCHICK: No, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Okay. I thank you both, Mr. Bradley and Mr. Willschick, for your work on this matter. And that's all for today.
S. BRADLEY: Thank you, Your Honour.
E. WILLSCHICK: Everyone have a good day.
THE COURT: Thank you.
E. WILLSCHICK: Permission to be excused, Your Honour?
THE COURT: Yes, please. Take care.
. . .WHEREAS THIS MATTER WAS COMPLETED
FORM 3
ELECTRONIC CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPT (SUBSECTION 5(2))
Evidence Act
I, Eric Magri, certify that this document is a true and accurate transcript of the recording of R v. Mukunzi in the Superior Court of Justice held at 491 Steeles Avenue East, Milton, Ontario taken from Recording Number 0611_101_20260623_082530__10_CONLANC.dcr, which has been certified in Form 1.
July 3, 2026
Date (Electronic signature of authorized person)
3595206113
(Authorized court transcriptionist's identification number - if applicable)
Ontario, Canada
(Province of signing)
LEGEND
[sic] - Indicates preceding word has been reproduced verbatim and is not a transcription error.
(ph) - Indicates preceding word has been spelled phonetically.
Transcript Ordered: June 24, 2026
Transcript Completed: July 3, 2026
Transcript Approved for Release: July 2, 2026
Ordering Party Notified: July 3, 2026
A certificate in Form 3 is admissible in evidence and is proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the transcript is a transcript of the certified recording of evidence and proceedings in the proceeding that is identified in the certificate.