R. v. Johnson-Shirley, 2026 ONSC 3915

CITATION: R. v. Johnson-Shirley, 2026 ONSC 3915

COURT FILE NO.: CR-25-00056-00BR

DATE: 2026 07 02

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

ONEAL LERIQUE JOHNSON-SHIRLEY

R. Ghaly, for the Crown

M. Godinho, for the Accused

HEARD: July 2, 2026

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

Conlan J.

I. The Facts

1Mr. Oneal Lerique Johnson-Shirley (“Johnson-Shirley”) is before the Court to be sentenced after pleading guilty to and being found guilty and convicted of two criminal offences that he committed at the Town of Caledon on February 29, 2024: (i) possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and (ii) unlawful possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, a Glock 22 40-caliber handgun, contrary to section 95(1) of the Criminal Code.

2Police attempted to stop a motor vehicle that was travelling at a very high rate of speed southbound on Highway 10 at the Town of Caledon. The motor vehicle sped away from the police. The motor vehicle was eventually located by the police in a field, and it was severely damaged after being involved in some kind of a collision. As the police officer approached the motor vehicle, he saw two men, one of whom was Johnson-Shirley, trying to escape. When the police officer commanded the men to stop, Johnson-Shirley immediately complied. The other man did not comply.

3Johnson-Shirley was not the driver of the motor vehicle that fled from the police. He was, nevertheless, for some reason, arrested for flight from police, and he then immediately asserted his right to counsel after being provided with his rights upon the arrest. Notwithstanding that assertion, for some reason, the police officer ignored that and questioned Johnson-Shirley. The police officer also searched the motor vehicle and found 501 grams of cocaine inside a grocery bag that was on the rear seat of the motor vehicle. Another police officer later found a Glock handgun and 17 rounds of ammunition in the field, about 20 to 40 meters away from the motor vehicle that Johnson-Shirley had been an occupant of.

4At the time of his arrest, Johnson-Shirley was the subject of a firearms and weapons prohibition order.

5Johnson-Shirley, by his guilty pleas, has taken full responsibility for possession of both the cocaine and the firearm.

II. The Circumstances of the Offender

6Johnson-Shirley’s time spent in presentence custody has been, frankly, a disgrace. The uncontroverted evidence before this Court more than amply meets the test for overly harsh conditions such that the offender should be given significant Duncan/Marshall credit.

7855 real days spent in presentence custody. 582 days of lockdown, according to Johnson-Shirley’s records. 277 days of lockdown, according to the institution’s records. Either way, the offender has been locked down, usually fully, more than one-third of the time that he has been at Maplehurst Correctional Complex (“MCC”), where he has been housed the entire time since he was arrested. 587 days of triple bunking in the cell – nearly three-quarters of the time that the offender has been at MCC.

8The affidavit evidence of Johnson-Shirley, entirely unchallenged before this Court, which evidence I accept, is that the offender’s experience at MCC has been plagued by:

-very unsanitary conditions throughout the facility, including inside the cell;

-extremely limited changes of clothing and laundry services for bedding;

-very limited opportunities to shower or bathe;

-limited toiletry supplies;

-absolutely no dental care, despite more than thirty requests for the same because of Johnson-Shirley’s tooth and gum disease;

-inadequate supply of toilet paper, meaning that regular paper used for writing must be regularly resorted to by the offender to wipe himself;

-limited cutlery, sometimes none, provided for meals, including meals that require cutlery to be used;

-nearly no outdoor time at all;

-multiple full strip searches to being naked, at least 100 of them having occurred since the beginning of the offender’s time spent at MCC;

-an outbreak of Streptococcal disease throughout the institution;

-unusually cold temperatures at times;

-in May 2024, the offender being placed in segregation, a dry cell, with no mattress and no functioning toilet and no water, for a day, in the absence of any misconduct being issued or any explanation being provided or any information at all being given as to why that was done;

-extremely limited access to a telephone for any purpose;

-extremely limited availability to participate in “access defence” calls with legal counsel; and

-no access at all to any social or therapeutic programming of any sort.

9This Court has the benefit of a very thorough “Morris-style” report – an Impact of Race Culture Assessment report dated April 30, 2026, authored by Duane Wiafe, RSW and MSW.

10From that report, we know that Johnson-Shirley is still a young adult, just 22 years old today. As a Black male of Jamaican heritage, he has experienced significant anti-Black racism during his lifetime and has experienced a great deal of financial strain, inconsistent parental presence (particularly by his father), limited structural support, housing instability, and post-traumatic stress.

11There are positive letters that have been filed with the Court, written by the offender’s mother and his sister.

12Johnson-Shirley has one prior conviction on his record – a conviction as a youth from July 2022, for possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking. At that time, out of Thunder Bay, Ontario, Johnson-Shirley was sentenced under the Youth Criminal Justice Act to a six-month deferred custody and supervision order and a firearms and weapons prohibition order.

III. The Positions of the Crown and the Defence

13All of the ancillary orders sought by the Crown are on consent. The only point of divergence is on the length of the penitentiary sentence to be imposed.

14The Crown requests a global sentence of 8 years in custody less credit for presentence custody.

15The defence requests a global sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment less credit for presentence custody.

IV. Analysis

The Principles of Sentencing

16The fundamental purpose of sentencing, which is a highly individualized process, is that the sentence imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender – section 718.1 of the Criminal Code.

17Sentencing is not a scientific exercise. It is, rather, a delicate and difficult balancing exercise. It involves, by definition, a great deal of discretion on the part of the judge who is presiding over the case. Even fairly-well entrenched sentencing ranges can be departed from in the right case. A sentence that is below or above what is perceived as the “normal”, or a sentence that falls outside of what is accepted as the general range, is not necessarily an unfit sentence. The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized each of these things, many times, including in its decision in R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64.

18Put another way, in order to respect the individualization of sentences that are imposed, although there are guidelines, and ranges, and although a judge’s discretion is not completely unfettered, there are no hard and fast rules that apply no matter what. R. v. Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6, at paragraph 44.

19In this case, it is undisputed that the paramount sentencing objectives are (i) denunciation and (ii) deterrence (both general and specific). Guns and drugs are a toxic combination that represents a scar on our society and a real and palpable threat to all of us.

20The dealing of cocaine cannot be tolerated in our communities. It ends up in the hands of youngsters and vulnerable persons and leads to addiction, disease, and in some cases death.

21Even most responsible firearms owners and users agree that handguns have no place on our streets. There is no lawful purpose for them; they are used to threaten and intimidate others and to encourage gang and organized crime activities.

22After denunciation and deterrence, however, rehabilitation remains important in this case. These are the offender’s first adult convictions. He is just 22 years of age.

The Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

23The most significant aggravating factors in this case are:

(i) the toxic and potentially deadly combination of an illegal handgun with ammunition and a large quantity of cocaine;

(ii) the sizeable quantity of cocaine itself, about 500 grams;

(iii) the fact that the offender has a related entry on his criminal record; and

(iv) the fact that the offender was the subject of a firearms and weapons ban at the time that he committed the offences.

24Apart from his relatively youthful age, the most significant mitigating factors in this case are:

(i) the guilty pleas, especially in the face of at least one highly triable Charter issue and a very triable argument about knowledge and possession of both the gun and the drugs; and

(ii) the deplorable conditions in presentence custody over a lengthy period of time.

25The value of the guilty pleas cannot be overstated in this case. It is quite possible that the Crown would not have been able to prove knowledge and control as against this offender. It is quite possible that violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter would have been found, leaving a viable argument for exclusion of all of the incriminating evidence under section 24(2).

The Jurisprudence Filed

26I have considered all of the cases filed, including the following authorities being relied upon by the defence, which cases are all relatively similar to ours and serve to support a penitentiary sentence in the range of 3 years and 10 months, at the low end, and 5 years, at the high end, both less credit for presentence custody:

-R. v. Swalm, 2024 ONSC 4613;

-R. v. Aguiar, 2024 ONSC 3372;

-R. v. Findley, 2023 ONSC 1273;

-R. v. Gurham, 2024 ONSC 5562; and

-R. v. Alvarado, 2026 ONSC 495.

What is a Fit Sentence for Johnson-Shirley?

27These are very serious offences that have been committed by Johnson-Shirley. They represent a growing scourge, a plague, in our neighbourhoods. They must be condemned and denounced and deterred.

28The cocaine offence is punishable by life imprisonment. The section 95 Criminal Code offence is punishable by 14 years in prison.

29Frankly, we can reasonably foresee the day when the section 95 Criminal Code offence will attract an even harsher maximum penalty, life imprisonment. The sheer devastation that handguns have caused on our streets would not appear to justify a maximum penalty for that offence that is lower than for the cocaine offence, only from the perspective of this Court.

30In any event, these facts and this offender do not present themselves as taking us anywhere near the maximums.

31The victim fine surcharges are waived. There is a Secondary DNA order issued. There is a section 109 Criminal Code order issued for life for all items. There is a section 491 Criminal Code forfeiture order issued and, further, a separate forfeiture order was signed today for additional items seized by the police.

32Johnson-Shirley is sentenced to the following:

-on the cocaine conviction, 5 years in custody less 855 days of presentence custody credited as 1283 days (each day grossed-up to 1.5 days, as per the maximum Summers credit permitted under the provisions of the Criminal Code) = 1 year and 5 months in custody from today (I have rounded the net jail sentence down to the nearest month); and

-on the firearm conviction, 18 months in custody, concurrent, less the presentence custody.

33In my opinion, the totality principle must be respected, and I think that an effective sentence of greater than 5 years would be too long for this offender on these facts.

34I should note that, in arriving at the 5-year figure, I have taken into account all of the aggravating and mitigating factors at play, including the significant mitigating factor of the overly harsh conditions spent in presentence custody. But for the latter, the global sentence would have likely been in excess of 6 years, probably in the range of 6.5 years, in the penitentiary, less the Summers credit.

35I would like to thank Mr. Godinho and Ms. Ghaly very much for their able assistance with this matter.

Conlan J.

Released: July 2, 2026

CITATION: R. v. Johnson-Shirley, 2026 ONSC 3915