COURT FILE NO.: YC-26-20000001-0000 YC-26-20000002-0000
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
- and -
R.R., K.A. and A.P. (Young Persons under the Youth Criminal Justice Act)
COUNSEL:
Sharna Reid, Lindsay Kromm and Antia Kwan, for the Crown
Savreet Chuckal and Brian Ross, for R.R.
HEARD: June 10 and 24, 2026
WARNING
Section 110 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, S.C. 2002, c. 1 prohibits the publication of the name of R.R. or any other information that would identify R.R.
FORESTELL J.
REASONS SENTENCE
Overview and Issues
1R.R. entered guilty pleas to 10 counts of reckless discharge of a firearm and one count of accessory after the fact to reckless discharge of a firearm.
2There is a joint submission before me to impose the maximum three-year youth sentence. The sentence is to be broken down as two years’ custody and supervision on the accessory count and one year custody and supervision on each of the charges of reckless discharge of a firearm, consecutive to the two years but concurrent to each other.
3The parties disagree on whether R.R. should receive any credit for the time that he has already spent in presentence custody. The Crown submits that he should not receive any credit. R.R. asks for six months’ credit for the 23 months and 21 days he has spent in presentence custody.
Circumstances of the Offences
4The facts are set out in detail in the Agreed Facts. In summary, with respect to the reckless discharge counts, R.R., with two other young persons, drove to various locations in the Greater Toronto area in stolen vehicles on June 29th and 30th of 2024. The other two young persons shot at eight different businesses (one of them twice) and one school, in the Greater Toronto area.
5R.R. did not fire any of the shots but encouraged his co-accused through his words and actions which included recording the others shooting at four of the targets. Although no one was injured in the shootings, there were individuals present in the area of many of the shootings who were put at extreme risk of harm.
6The accessory after the fact charge relates to R.R. assisting one of his co-accused, A.P., to dispose of licence plates and set a car on fire on July 6, 2024. The car had been used by A.P. that day when he shot Sulakshan Selvasingam. Mr. Selvasingam later died from his injuries. All three young persons, including R.R., were present in the car the day before the shooting of Mr. Selvasingam when instructions were received by A.P. to shoot the victim.
7R.R. was not present for the shooting of Mr. Selvasingam, but he knew that A.P. had shot a person when he helped to dispose of the licence plates and burn the car.
8The family of Mr. Selvasingam has provided a Victim Impact Statement that describes the profound impact upon them of the loss of their loved one in the violent and senseless shooting.
9In addition to the impact on the family of Mr. Selvasingam, the community is impacted by these reckless and dangerous acts. Gun violence undermines the sense of safety and security of all members of the community.
Circumstances of R.R.
10R.R. was 15 years old at the time of the offences. He is now 17 years old. He had no involvement in the justice system prior to these offences.
11I have the benefit of a s. 34 report that was prepared to assist in bail issues. The report sets out in considerable detail R.R.’s family background, academic history and mental health issues.
12R.R. was born in Canada. Both of his parents were born in Sri Lanka. His mother immigrated to Canada when she was three years old and his father immigrated when he was 21 years old. R.R.’s parents divorced when he was nine years old. He has maintained a close relationship with both parents and spent equal time with each of them after their divorce.
13Unfortunately, because he moved from one residence to the other, he was able to avoid close parental supervision around the time of the offense.
14R.R. had a very close relationship with a maternal uncle who was murdered in 2022. This uncle coached him in soccer. R.R. was a promising soccer player but stopped playing after his uncle was murdered.
15R.R. experienced considerable distress following the murder of his uncle. He also lost the structure of organized soccer.
16R.R. did well in school up to grade 6, when his schooling went on-line because of the COVID 19 pandemic. He found it very difficult to engage in on-line school and stopped attending. In grades 7 and 8, he continued to struggle in school and had poor attendance.
17When he entered grade 9, he began skipping classes and then refused to attend school after his uncle’s murder. He switched schools three times as his mother tried to motivate him to attend. He received only one credit in grade nine. His truancy continued in grade 10 and he did not receive any credits.
18During the almost two years he has spent in custody, R.R. has almost completed his high school credits. He will achieve his high school diploma with extra credits by the end of the summer. In addition to completing his high school credits, he has completed his volunteer hours. He has also been permitted to work in the kitchen at the youth facility.
19R.R. has been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Cannabis Use Disorder in remission in a controlled setting.
20In the months since the s. 34 report was prepared, R.R. has been meeting weekly with a clinician at the youth facility and has engaged in a broad range of programmes to help him develop the tools and skills to address the symptoms of his PTSD.
21A letter from his probation officer states that he has demonstrated a notable level of maturity. Youth facilities use a structured level system to monitor behaviour and engagement. Since March of 2025, R.R. has maintained the highest level. He participates in all available programming.
22R.R. has the continued support of both parents and extended family. His plans upon release from custody are to live at home with his parents, to work, and to pursue post-secondary education.
Law and Analysis
23The purpose of sentencing under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, S.C. 2002, c. 1 (YCJA) is to hold young persons accountable through the imposition of just sanctions that have meaningful consequences for the young person and that promote their rehabilitation and reintegration into society, thereby contributing to the long-term protection of the public.
24The factors that I must consider in determining a youth sentence are enumerated in subsection 38(3) of the YCJA. The relevant factors applicable in this case are: the degree of participation of the young person; the harm done to the victim and whether it was intentional, or reasonably foreseeable; any aggravating or mitigating circumstances; and the time spent in detention as a result of the offence.
25R.R.’s role in these offences was not central. He did not physically discharge the firearms, and he was not present at the shooting of Mr. Selvasingam. He is, at law, equally guilty of the offences, but his role was not the same as the principals. His words of encouragement and his filming of the shootings contributed to the commission of the offences, but I find his role to be less than that of his co-accused.
26There are a number of aggravating factors in this case: the risk to members of the public, the element of planning, the use of stolen cars, and the number of incidents. This was a senseless and dangerous crime spree.
27There are also mitigating factors: R.R. has strong family support; he has done extremely well in custody; he has faced mental health challenges, including PTSD and ADHD and has taken steps to address those issues since the offences. Also mitigating is R.R.’s guilty plea. He has taken responsibility for his conduct and has expressed remorse.
28Although I must consider presentence custody in sentencing a young person, the treatment of the pre-sentence custody is discretionary. This includes the discretion to award no credit. It is not a mechanical calculation. (See: R. v. S. (D.) (2008), 93 O.R. (3d) 211, [2008] O.J. No. 4231, 2008 ONCA 740, at para. 26; R. v. W. (D.), [2008] O.J. No. 1356, 2008 ONCA 268, at para. 3.)
29The amount of credit must be determined in the context of the requirement that I impose the least restrictive sentence capable of achieving accountability and the sentence that is the most likely to rehabilitate R.R., reintegrate him into society, and promote in him a sense of responsibility.
Conclusion
30The joint position for the imposition of the maximum youth sentence in this case is well-founded, based on the number and nature of the offences.
31In determining the credit to be given to R.R. for his pre-sentence custody, I have carefully considered all of the personal circumstances of R.R. and in particular, his engagement with the programming at the youth facility to address his mental health needs and his rehabilitation. R.R. has availed himself of all programming, academic and work opportunities. It can fairly be said that he has done everything that could be expected of him during his time in custody. His rehabilitation has already commenced. His progress in custody is commendable.
32In light of these circumstances, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to give R.R. six months’ credit for the almost 24 months spent in presentence custody. This sentence is the least restrictive sentence capable of holding R.R. accountable. It also recognizes the progress of R.R. towards rehabilitation and reintegration.
33Therefore, the sentence that I impose is the sentence jointly proposed, of two years’ custody and supervision on the count of accessory after the fact and one year on each of the counts of reckless discharge of a firearm, concurrent to each other, but consecutive to the count of accessory, for a global sentence of three years’ custody and supervision.
34R.R. will receive credit of six months for presentence custody, leaving a sentence of 20 months’ custody and 10 months of community supervision.
35There will be a DNA order, pursuant to s. 487.051(a) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46. Firearms were used in the offences, and I find it is appropriate to make a further order under s. 51(1) of the YCJA prohibiting R.R. from possessing any firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition, or explosive substance for five years.
Forestell J.
Released: July 13, 2026
CITATION: R. v. R.R. et al., 2026 ONSC 3913
COURT FILE NO.: YC-26-20000001-0000 YC-26-20000002-0000
DATE: 20260713
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
- and -
R.R., K.A. and A.P. (Young Persons under the Youth Criminal Justice Act)
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Forestell J.
Released: July 13, 2026