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)
Sharna Reid, Lindsay Kromm and Antia Kwan, for the Crown
Craig Bottomley and Harleen Toor, for K.A.
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 K.A. or any other information that would identify K.A.
FORESTELL J.
REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF K.A.
Overview and Issues
1K.A. entered guilty pleas to eight 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 would be broken down as two years’ custody and supervision on the accessory count and one year of custody and supervision on each of the eight counts of the reckless discharge of a firearm, consecutive to the two-year sentence on the accessory charge but concurrent to each other.
3The parties disagree on whether K.A. 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. K.A. asks for six months’ credit for the 20 months 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, on June 29th and 30th 2024, K.A., with two other young persons, drove to various locations in the Greater Toronto area in stolen vehicles and shot at seven different businesses and one school. K.A. fired the shots at six of the eight locations. At the other two locations, he filmed the shootings. Although no one was injured in these shootings, there were individuals present in the area of many of the shootings who were put at extreme risk of harm.
5The accessory after the fact charge relates to K.A. assisting one of his co-accused, A.P., on July 6, 2024, to dispose of licence plates and set a car on fire. The car had been used in a shooting by A.P. that killed Sulakshan Selvasingam. The three young persons, A.P. R.R. and K.A., were all present in the car the day before the shooting when instructions were received by A.P. to shoot the victim.
6K.A. was present in the car with A.P. when A.P. shot Mr. Selvasingam. After the shooting, K.A. travelled in the car with A.P. and called the third co-accused, R.R., to tell him that A.P. had shot someone. The three young persons then discarded the licence plates of the car and set it on fire to destroy evidence and assist A.P. to avoid prosecution.
7The family of Mr. Selvasingam provided a Victim Impact Statement describing the profound impact on them of the senseless shooting of their loved one. The impact was felt most deeply and directly by the family of Mr. Selvasingam, but these offences have an impact on the entire community by undermining the sense of safety and security that should be enjoyed by all residents of the community.
Circumstances of K.A.
8K.A. was 14 years old at the time of the first set of shootings and 15 years old at the time that he assisted in burning the car. He is now 17 years old. He had no involvement in the justice system prior to these offences.
9K.A. came to Canada with his family from Jordan when he was 10 years old. The family has lived in the same apartment in Scarborough since they immigrated.
10K.A.’s family has provided letters of support. His mother and father both write that they have seen a change in K.A. since he has been in custody. Both speak of his remorse. His mother writes that the family is committed to supporting and monitoring him upon his release.
11Although K.A. should have completed grade nine by the summer of 2024 when these offences occurred, he had no high school credits by the time of his arrest.
12While in custody, he has obtained 21 high school credits and only needs nine more to complete high school. He has completed 12 hours of community service. He has participated in other programs at the Youth facility and has received 15 certificates of completion. K.A. has also taken a welding course.
Law and Analysis
13The 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.
14The 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.
15K.A. played a central role in the offences. He discharged the firearms on six occasions and filmed on two. He was present at the shooting of Mr. Selvasingam before assisting in destroying evidence of that crime.
16There are a number of aggravating factors in this case: the extreme risk to members of the public, the element of planning, the use of stolen cars and the number of incidents. This was a crime spree that created a significant threat to public safety.
17There are also mitigating factors: K.A. has strong family support, he has done well in custody, pursuing educational opportunities and participating in programming. Also mitigating, is K.A.’s guilty plea. He has taken responsibility for his conduct and has expressed remorse.
18It is well-settled law that although I must consider presentence custody in sentencing a young person, the treatment of the pre-sentence custody is discretionary. 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.) This includes the discretion to award no credit.
19The sentence that I impose must be the least restrictive sentence capable of achieving accountability and it must be the most likely to rehabilitate K.A., reintegrate him into society, and promote in him a sense of responsibility. The amount of credit for presentence custody is determined in this context.
20As the Court of Appeal observed in R. v. M.B., 2016 ONCA 760, at para.10, in some instances, a mechanical deduction of presentence custody could lead to a sentence that is insufficient to hold the young person accountable.
Conclusion
21The joint position that the maximum youth sentence is warranted in this case is well-founded. The number and serious nature of the charges supports the imposition of the maximum sentence in order to hold K.A. accountable.
22In determining whether credit should be given for presentence custody, I have carefully considered all of the personal circumstances of K.A. and in particular, his engagement in his education and his strong family support.
23I have considered section 38(2)(b) of the YCJA which requires that the sentence imposed must be similar to the sentences imposed in the region on similar young persons found guilty of the same offence committed in similar circumstances. I have considered that R.R. is receiving the maximum sentence with six months’ credit for presentence custody. However, R.R. played a less central role in the offences, and he has spent almost four months longer in custody.
24I have concluded that the full three-year sentence is required to hold K.A. accountable and to facilitate his reintegration into society. Because of K.A.’s central role in all of the offences, anything less than three years would be insufficient to hold him accountable for his conduct. This is the least restrictive sentence capable of holding K.A. accountable. It is also the sentence that is most likely to rehabilitate him, reintegrate him into society and promote in him a sense of responsibility.
25K.A. has shown progress in his academic endeavours and has participated in programming. His rehabilitation and reintegration into society are best achieved by the imposition of a three-year custody and supervision order with no credit for presentence custody.
26Therefore, 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 the count of accessory, for a global sentence of three years’ custody and supervision. This is a global sentence of 24 months’ custody and 12 months of community supervision.
27There 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 K.A. 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. K.A. et al., 2026 ONSC 3914
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 OF K.A.
Forestell J.
Released: July 13, 2026