CITATION: R. v. Brown, 2026 ONSC 3877

COURT FILE NO.: CR-25-20000655 & CR-25-20000592

DATE: 20260703

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

NEVILLE BROWN & JERVAIN GREEN

S. Semet, for the Crown

G. Dorsz, for Mr. Brown

A. Newman, for Mr. Green

S.A.Q. AKHTAR J.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW

Introduction

1Neville Brown and Jervain Green stood trial for a series of offences that arose out of a gunfight at a bar in Toronto. Mr. Brown was charged with aggravated assault, pointing a firearm, and Mr. Green was charged with attempted murder, pointing a firearm, and discharging a firearm with intent. At the conclusion of their trial the jury found them not guilty on all charges.

2However, both pleaded guilty to the possession of a loaded restricted firearm prior to the trial. They now each stand to be sentenced for that offence.

Factual Background

3In the early hours of the morning of 2 November 2023, shots were fired in the Oxford Pub and Restaurant located at 2691 Eglinton Avenue East in Toronto. Neville Brown and Jervain Green were the shooters. Both men were in possession of a firearm without a licence or authorisation. Both men shot at each other. Both men sustained serious injuries. Mr. Brown shot Mr. Green once through the side of his body. Mr. Green fired five to six shots at Mr. Brown causing him to fall to the ground.

4At around 1 a.m., Toronto police officers arrived and found Mr. Brown unconscious near the back doorway. He was transported to Sunnybrook Hospital and was admitted at 2:24 a.m. He had bullet wounds to his left arm, to his chest, to his left shoulder region, his left leg and his spine. There is no dispute that Mr. Brown suffered serious physical injuries to the cervical and upper thoracic spine. These parts of the body are critical for proper motor and sensory function. Mr. Brown underwent multiple surgeries to treat fracture fixation, chest tube management. He was prescribed antibiotics and blood clotting medication to stop bleeding and prevent infection.

5On the 2 November 2023, Mr. Green was dropped off at the Emergency ward of the Niagara Health - Saint Catherines Hospital. When he was examined, it was discovered that he had a single gunshot wound to his lower back. The bullet that had entered his body had also exited and fractured the left posterior 10th and 11 ribs. There were no spinal fractures suffered by Mr. Green although he was found to have an injury to his left lung as a result of the gunshot. Mr. Green's bullet wound was cleaned and stitched and he was also given antibiotics and pain medication.

6As noted, as a result of the incident Mr. Brown was charged with aggravated assault, pointing a firearm, and Mr. Green was charged with attempted murder, pointing a firearm, and discharging a firearm with intent. However, a jury acquitted both after they advanced the defence of self-defence against each other’s conduct.

7Prior to trial both pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm without authorisation or a licence.

8The Crown asks that Mr. Brown be sentenced to 3 years imprisonment with pre-sentence custody credit being deducted from the total. Moreover, the Crown’s position is that Mr. Green be sentenced to 5 years in custody. They ask for a weapons prohibition and DNA order to accompany the respective sentences.

9Mr. Brown submits that the appropriate sentence is a conditional sentence given his status as a quadriplegic person who will remain in a wheelchair for the rest of his life. Mr. Green asks that this court impose a prison sentence of 3 years less pre-sentence custody credit.

The Personal Circumstances of Neville Brown

10Mr. Brown is now 29 years old. He currently resides with his mother and sister in the Peel region. Mr. Brown’s parents separated when he was young and he has had no relationship or contact with his father. After the parental break-up Mr. Brown’s family moved in with his aunt and her children in Mississauga. Due to the small size of the house Mr. Brown was forced to share a bedroom with his mother. However, it is clear that Mr. Brown had a positive relationship with his mother and his aunt growing up.

11Mr. Brown has one child, now five years old, who spends his time between Mr. Brown and the child's mother. Mr. Brown had a five year relationship with his child's mother which ended in 2023.

12When asked by the author of the pre-sentence report about any anti-black racism encountered whilst growing up, Mr. Brown responded by saying that he lived in Mississauga and Brampton and they were "good areas" in which he enjoyed living. He said that he never felt unsafe or had issues in these areas.

13Mr. Brown was greatly impacted by the death of his best friend, who was killed in an act of gun violence. He said that when going to a cousin's house in the Rexdale area in Toronto, he would be stopped by police and questioned about being part of a gang. Mr. Brown explained that this neighbourhood had been a bad area, rife with drug dealing and shootings.

14Mr. Brown did not complete high school education and told the author of the pre-sentence report that he attended multiple high schools because he was either suspended or expelled for fighting. Mr. Brown indicated that he had been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and had previously been on medication until leaving high school.

15Mr. Brown did speak of one incident of his view that he had been the victim of anti-black racism. At school, he and another student were sent to the school office after arguing with each other. He said that when he was questioned by police, they only searched him and his bag and not the other student. He said that his interactions with the police during his time in school might have contributed to his decision to cease education although he added that it was not the only reason.

16After leaving high school Mr. Brown worked as a general labourer in factories and warehouses and also in residential and commercial demolition for a period of six months. This work ended because he had to serve time in prison for a previous offence.

17During his period of parole supervision after release, he was referred to a trade programme but failed to complete it because he says that he could not afford some of the fees. He eventually got into the business of buying, repairing and reselling cars.

18With respect to drug use Mr. Brown used marihuana in the past and became addicted to Percocet, an addiction that continued until his son was born.

19Mr. Brown was released on parole between 8 January 2018, and 8 February 2018 but that parole was suspended because he was charged with new offences. He appealed that suspension and parole was re-instituted on the 4 April 2018.

20As a result of the shooting incident Mr. Brown can no longer walk. He has become paralysed from his mid-chest down and will remain a quadriplegic for the rest of his life. He currently needs round the clock care to help him complete tasks such as defecation, catheter insertions, rotations, and cleaning himself.

Personal Circumstances of Mr. Green

21Mr. Green is 28 years old. Mr. Green indicated that he was part Indigenous and sought a Gladue Report to assist him in his submissions at this hearing. However Aboriginal Legal Services (ALS) found no identifiers in Mr. Green's parental history to confirm whether he had Indigenous heritage. ALS concluded there were no Indigenous identifiers present for any of the individuals that Mr. Green informed them of as being his grandparents and great-grandparents. For these reasons no Gladue report was ever prepared.

22Mr. Green's mother, Jeannette Fournier, provided a letter indicating her support for her son. She said that he was born to her at the age of 20 and she lived as a single mother making personal sacrifices to bring up Mr. Green and his siblings . She indicates that she has been devastated since he was incarcerated, awaiting his trial.

23Mr. Green’s sister, Carissa Hopley, also wrote a letter of support and indicated that, prior to his incarceration, Mr. Green worked with his brother, Anthony Hopley, in a bricklaying business. She also indicates that she believes that he has a willingness to grow and make better choices than the ones he has made in his past. Ms. Hopley writes that she would support him when released.

24Mr. Green is a father of two four-year-old daughters who were born to separate mothers. Mr. Green is no longer with either of the women. He is also no stranger to gun violence: his brother passed away after being shot.

25Whilst detained Mr. Green participated in the North Star programme, a rehabilitation initiative which provides personal development for those people who have been involved in the criminal justice system. The programme is run and delivered within the correctional setting.

26Mr. Green also participated in the Inside Out Black Employment Support Programme, administered and managed by Urban Res Solutions Social Enterprise. This is an organisation funded by the Ministry of the Solicitor General, the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services. The programme provides support leading to gainful employment, entrepreneurship, education, and skill training for justice-impaired black individuals.

The Precedents

27As with all sentencing cases, I am guided by the principles set out in s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, which lists the factors that a sentencing judge must consider before imposing punishment on an offender. Deterrence and denunciation must be balanced against the prospects of rehabilitation for both offenders. Any sentence must be proportionate to the seriousness and gravity of the offence.

28There is no doubt that the possession of firearms is a very serious offence. In R. v. Nur, 2015 SCC 15, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 773, the Supreme Court of Canada dealt with the constitutionality of Section 95 and the minimum sentences to be imposed for offences committed under that section. Whilst they found the mandatory minimum sentence for that offence to be unconstitutional, they distinguished between hypothetical situations in which an offender could be found guilty in the most extenuating circumstances, "true crime" offences, compared to what is essentially a licensing offence: at paras. 25 and 83. In Nur, a youthful first-time offender was sentenced to 40 months after a guilty plea.

29As has already been noted, the appellate authorities emphasise the need for a severe sentence to meet the gravity of the offence even when the offender is young and has a previously unblemished character: see also R. v. Mansingh, 2017 ONCA 68, at para. 24. In R. v. Smickle, 2014 ONCA 49, 306 C.C.C. (3d) 351, at para. 19, the court remarked that:

Most s. 95 offences will attract a penitentiary term even for first offenders. Offences like that committed by the respondent, while somewhat less serious than the typical s. 95 offence, will demand the imposition of sentences at or very near the maximum reformatory sentence, even for first offenders.

30Despite repeated pronouncements by the courts, gun crime continues to thrive in Toronto. The possession of firearms throws a fearsome spectre on its residents. Guns are made and used to maim, threaten and kill. Their impact goes well beyond the victims of the crimes they are used to commit. Spouses, loved ones and families suffer the distress wrought by the use of firearms. Witnesses to the use of these weapons may suffer traumatic effects that linger for their lifetime.

31Courts have sought to send a clear warning to those involved in gun crime that convictions will result in significant consequences: R. v. Danvers (2005), 2005 CanLII 30044 (ON CA), 199 C.C.C. (3d) 490 (Ont.C.A.), at para. 78; R. v. Brown, 2010 ONCA 745, at para. 14; R. v. Morris, 2011 ONSC 5206, at paras. 10, 58, affirmed, 2013 ONCA 223; R. v. Chambers, 2012 ONSC 817, at paras. 15-17, affirmed, 2013 ONCA 680; R. v. Scarlett, 2013 ONSC 562, at paras. 13-14; R. v. Peterkin, 2013 ONSC 2116, at paras. 22 and 24.

32Sadly, as this case shows, that message appears to be ignored.

What is the Appropriate Sentence for Neville Brown?

33There are a number of aggravating features in this case with respect to Mr. Brown. He carried a firearm in a city, where people are entitled to feel safe in establishments and streets. Mr. Brown was subject to a weapons prohibition order imposed as part of a sentence relating to a conviction recorded on 8 September 2017 for Trafficking in a Scheduled I substance.

34On the other hand, he pleaded guilty to the offence of possessing a prohibited or restricted firearm although that plea occurred not at the earliest opportunity but at the outset of his trial.

35Mr. Brown submits that in this case a conditional sentence would be appropriate in light of the exceptional circumstances surrounding his plight.

36He cites cases such as R. v. Desmond-Robinson, 2022 ONCA 369; R. v. Saberi, 2020 ONSC 1637; R. v. Stewart, 2022 ONSC 6997; R. v. Ramos, 2023 ONSC 1094; and R. v. Marier, 2023 ONSC 5194. Whilst the defence is correct that a conditional sentence was imposed in these cases in relation to the possession of firearms, they are of limited value because the offenders in those cases had no prior criminal record. That is not the case with Mr. Brown who has two convictions for trafficking in Schedule 1 drugs for which he received custodial sentences as well a parole violation.

37The more pertinent cases are those of R. v. Willock, 2018 ONSC 1595; and R. v. S.K., 2015 ONSC 7649. In these cases, a conditional sentence was ordered in the case of offenders who were part paralysed. In Willock, the offender suffered from a genetic disorder that left him predisposed to tumours within his spinal canal which led to him becoming quadriplegic. In S.K., the youth offender, was paralysed when he committed first degree murder on a police officer by driving on a highway with the officer hanging on to the van, with his body half in and half outside the vehicle. The youth’s paraplegic condition was a result of the van turning over on a field before coming to a stop.

38Here, the medical evidence shows a stark future for Mr. Brown. He is permanently confined to a wheelchair with round the clock supervision. Any attempts at normalcy in life is limited. In truth, he is trapped in a prison of his own making. Although the jury found him not guilty of pointing a firearm and discharging a firearm with intent, his injuries and permanent disability arise from him carrying a firearm into a bar and involving himself in an incident with another person carrying a firearm.

39As noted above, firearms are used to kill, injure and maim. Mr. Brown now knows this to be a truism that will haunt him for the rest of his life.

40For these reasons, as was the case in Willock, and S.K., I find that a conditional sentence would be appropriate.

41The terms of the conditional sentence are as follows:

• The length of the conditional sentence would be two years less one day;
• Mr. Brown will subject to house arrest conditions for the period with exceptions to attend medical appointments and religious events; and
• Mr. Brown will be subject to a 2 year probation order following the conditional sentence.

42Mr. Brown will not be able to possess a firearm for the rest of his life pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code and will provide a sample of his DNA pursuant to s. 487.04(a) of the Criminal Code.

What is the Appropriate Sentence for Mr. Green?

43There are a number of aggravating features with respect to Mr. Green: he was carrying an over-capacity magazine in a public place filled with clientele; he carried the gun as part of his illegal activities concerning drug trafficking; He testified at trial that he was carrying the gun because he needed it for protection when carrying out his activities as a drug trafficker; the gun was carried around in public places throughout the day before being taken to a public place. After the event the firearm was discarded in a public place while still loaded and able to be fired.

44Mr. Green’s record includes failing to comply with a recognisance for which he was ordered to pay a fine of $50.

45In mitigation, Mr. Green like Mr. Brown, pleaded guilty to the possession of the firearm at the commencement of the trial. Although not entitled to the very significant discount that he would have received had he pleaded at an early stage in the proceedings, he is entitled to some credit for that plea.

46As previously described, Mr. Green participated in the North Star Programme and other programmes which provide for rehabilitation. He has support from members of his family who are willing to assist him once released from detention.

47Mr. Green submits that three years is the appropriate sentence in this case asking the court to take into account mitigating factors including the harsh conditions that he endured whilst in custody. Mr. Green has provided an affidavit that said that he was subject to lockdown 187 times and triple bunked for 303 days since his period of detention started on the 2nd of November 2023. He also appeared to have suffered anti-black racism in the Niagara detention centre, where he observed a number of racist comments written on the window in the washroom and on a wall in the range.

48Mr. Green asks this court to rely on precedents in this case which he says are similar to his own. For example, in R. v. Habib, 2024 ONCA 830, 99 C.R. (7th) 110, and R. v. Noel, 2026 ONSC 1152, the court imposed a sentence of 3 years imprisonment. In Mansingh, the court upheld a sentence of 43 months and in R. v. Webster, 2024 ONSC 989, the court imposed a conditional sentence of 2 years less one day.

49I find these cases of little assistance in this case. Habib, and Noel were cases that dealt with youthful first time offenders. More significantly, none of the offenders in these cases were in possession of a firearm to assist them in carrying out an illegal commercial enterprise. Mr. Green testified that he sold drugs and took his firearm with him to protect himself when conducting his illegal activities.

50The courts have held that carrying a gun for use when trafficking drugs is an aggravating factor: Mansingh, at paras. 21-22; R. v. Omoragbon, 2020 ONCA 336, at para. 16 and 23.

51In Webster, the judge made an explicit finding that there was insufficient evidence to sentence the offender’s possession of the firearm based on potential involvement in the drug trade: at para. 41.

52Moreover, Mr. Green’s justification that he needed the firearm for protection purposes does not act as a mitigating factor: R. v. Baldwin, 2021 ONSC 7025, at para. 33; R. v. Johnson, 2022 ONSC 2688, at para. 41; R. v. Reid, 2013 ONSC 2342, at paras. 38-41.

53The scourge of gun crime in our city continues to rise. The possession of these firearms led to a gunfight between Mr. Brown and Mr. Green in a city where people expect and are entitled to live in peace and feel safe. I agree with the Crown that this case exemplifies the evils of illegal firearms possession. If neither offender had been carrying a gun that night any argument or dispute would likely have remained a verbal confrontation or one that did not lead to the tragic consequences in this case.

54Balancing the aggravating and mitigating factors and taking into account the conditions experienced by Mr. Green whilst in custody, I find that the appropriate sentence to be one of four years imprisonment less the time spent in custody calculated at 1.5:1 as per R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 575.

55I am advised that Mr. Green has spent 970 days in pre-sentence custody which, calculated at the rate of 1.5:1 equals 1455 days - or effectively 4 years. He has therefore served the length of his sentence.

56I also make the following ancillary orders.

57Mr. Green is prohibited from possessing any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code for life pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code and must provide a sample of his DNA as per s. 487.04(a) of the Criminal Code.

S.A.Q. Akhtar J.