CITATION: R. v. Sohal, 2026 ONSC 4030

COURT FILE NO.: CR-25-50000055-0000 & CR-25-50000098-0000

DATE: 20260714

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

MEHKASH SOHAL

Alice Bradstreet and Michael Wilson, for the Crown

Tobias Okada-Phillips, for Mr. Sohal

HEARD: May 11 & June 23, 2026

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

R.F. GOLDSTEIN J.

Overview

1Mehkash Sohal pleaded guilty to the following offences on an indictment ending in 327:

• Count 3: Robbery of Bo HUHANG on April 11, 2024, contrary to s. 344(1) of the Criminal Code;

• Count 7: Dangerous driving contrary on April 12, 2024, contrary to s. 320.13(1) of the Criminal Code;

• Count 8: Assault with intent to resist arrest on April 12, 2024, contrary to s. 270.01 of the Criminal Code;

• Count 18: Possession of a loaded restricted firearm on April 12, 2024, contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code;

• Count 19: Possession of a prohibited device, a magazine, on April 12, 2024, contrary to s. 91(2) of the Criminal Code;

2He pleaded guilty to offences on an indictment ending in 325:

• Count 3: Fail to comply with a recognizance on April 12, 2024, contrary to s. 145(5)(a) of the Criminal Code;

• Count 4: Possession of a firearm contrary to a prohibition order on April 12, 2024, contrary to s. 117.01 of the Criminal Code.

3I imposed sentence on June 30, 2026, with reasons to follow. The following are my reasons for sentence.

Facts

4On April 6, 2024, Mr. Sohal and two other men committed a violent carjacking (I will use the terms “carjacking” and “robbery” interchangeably to describe what happened). Mark Orfus parked his car, a blue BMW X5, in a parking lot at 2086 Lawrence Avenue East in Toronto. Mr. Sohal and two fellow carjackers pulled up behind Mr. Orfus’s car. The three carjackers were driving a stolen white Acura SUV. Mr. Sohal and another carjacker got out of the Acura. They were wearing masks. Mr. Sohal was carrying a firearm. Mr. Sohal was also carrying a white satchel. The two masked carjackers confronted Mr. Orfus and demanded his car keys. Mr. Orfus refused. Mr. Sohal threatened him with a firearm and pistol-whipped him. The firearm was tan-coloured. Mr. Sohal obtained the keys. He and the other carjacker drove off in the stolen BMW while the third carjacker drove the stolen Acura.

5On April 11, 2024, Mr. Sohal participated in another violent carjacking. He and two other carjackers arrived at a Shell gas station at 4711 Yonge Street. They were driving a stolen BMW M3. They were all masked. Bo Huang was pumping gas into his Lamborghini Urus SUV. The three carjackers got out of the M3 and attacked Mr. Huang. They threw him to the ground and beat him. Mr. Sohal and another carjacker got into the Lamborghini. Mr. Sohal got into the driver’s seat. Mr. Huang tried to get into the vehicle to stop the robbery. Mr. Sohal and the other carjacker punched him and pushed him out of the Lamborghini. The Lamborghini drove over his foot, fracturing it.

6The next day, April 12, 2024, two police officers in a marked scout car saw the Lamborghini. Theyfollowed it to a parking lot at Barmac Drive and Steeles Avenue in Toronto. The Lamborghini parked. The driver got out and went into a bar. Mr. Sohal then drove up in Mr. Orfus’s stolen BMW X5. Police officers moved towards the BMW X5 to arrest the occupants. Mr. Sohal tried to reverse the vehicle up a grassy hill but could not. He maneuvered the BMW X5 to attempt an escape. Several police officers were standing near the vehicle. I quote directly from the Agreed Statement of Facts:

As officers approached the X5, Mr. Sohal reversed the vehicle up a grassy hill. Because of the wet conditions, the vehicle could not gain traction. Mr. Sohal put the vehicle forward again, and again slammed the vehicle into reverse. At the time of these maneuvers, there were multiple officers standing within a few feet of the vehicle. The X5 reversed up the grassy hill, before hitting an unmarked police vehicle. It drove forward, driving into a lamp post and was unable to gain traction. Mr. Sohal continued to rev the engine and the front passenger was grabbing at the steering wheel in order to escape. Officers smashed the driver and passenger windows in order to remove the occupants. Mr. Sohal continued to rev the engine despite police commands. Ultimately, Mr. Sohal was tasered in order to stop him from revving the engine in an attempt to escape.

7The police removed three people, including Mr. Sohal, from the vehicle. The police found a loaded, tan-coloured Glock handgun on the front driver’s seat. The police also located a satchel in the BMW with Mr. Sohal’s identification. The police also found a tan-coloured magazine in the satchel that matched the tan-coloured Glock. The police found $16,665 in cash on Mr. Sohal when he was searched incident to arrest.

8At the time of the offences, Mr. Sohal was bound by two s. 109 weapons prohibition orders. He was also on bail in relation to charges of theft of motor vehicle, robbery, and conspiracy.

Circumstances Of The Offender

9Mr. Sohal was born and raised in Toronto. He was raised by his father, an immigrant from India. His mother re-joined the family from India only 3 ½ years ago.

10Other than his criminal record, which is extensive, I know little about him. Mr. Sohal was 21 years old at the time of these carjackings. He managed to accumulate a very significant youth criminal record prior to committing his first adult offence. His youth record commenced in 2018 when Mr. Sohal was 15 years old. He accumulated 28 convictions as a youth, including 6 for robbery. He also has youth convictions for driving offences: failing to stop at the scene of an accident, driving while disqualified, and theft of a motor vehicle. Mr. Sohal has youth convictions for violence: three convictions for assault and two for assaulting a police officer. Mr. Sohal has also been convicted multiple times for failing to comply with court orders, dispositions, probation, and recognizances.

11As an adult, Mr. Sohal was convicted of robbery in 2020 for which he received probation for 2 years in light of 252 days of pre-sentence custody. In 2022 Mr. Sohal was convicted of one count of robbery, two counts of possession of a schedule I substance, and one count of failing to comply with a probation order. He received a 23 month sentence and probation on the robbery. He also received 1 day on each of the drug charges in light of 302 days of pre-sentence custody. I do not have Mr. Sohal’s warrant expiry date on those charges, but by my rough math he committed the carjackings in this case within mere months of the warrant expiry date on that robbery. My understanding is that both of the adult convictions on his record involved carjackings.

Impact on The Victim or Community

12Mr. Huang provided a victim impact statement. He described how he was active in sports before the attack and has been unable to continue participating due to his physical injuries. His leg was fractured and he has lost the ability to walk normally. He suffers from ongoing pain, sleep deprivation, nightmares, lack of concentration, and problems with stamina. He has developed a stutter. He has suffered from depression and anxiety. He suffers from anxiety and fear, especially when going to his car.

13Mr. Orfus did not provide a victim impact statement, but I have no difficulty inferring that as victim of a violent carjacking and pistol-whipping he has suffered enormous psychological damage. Having a gun stuck in your face and then struck with it can only be traumatizing.

Positions of the Crown and Defense

14The Crown’s position is that I should impose a global sentence in the range of 8-10 years less credit for pre-sentence custody. I should also impose a DNA order, a s. 109 weapons prohibition order, and non-communication orders with Mr. Huang and Mr. Orfus. The Crown points to several cases to buttress its position regarding the range of sentence for robberies and carjackings, such as R. v. Mills, [2006] O.J. No. 4308. See also:

• R. v. Biwer, 2017 BCCA 424, where the British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld a ten-year sentence for a shocking spree of carjackings.

• R. v. McInyre, 2019 ONCA 161, where the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a six-year sentence for one gunpoint carjacking.

• R. v. Vilvarajah, 2023 ONSC 4844, where Fuerst J. sentenced an offender to 7 ½ years for gunpoint carjackings on a guilty plea.

15Mr. Okada-Philips’ position is that I should impose a global sentence of six years, less credit for pre-sentence custody including the harsh conditions of custody.

Mitigating and Aggravating Factors

16There are significant aggravating factors in this case. These were planned carjackings, using masks, a firearm, and stolen vehicles. Mr. Sohal pistol-whipped Mr. Orfus. He participated in beating and then running over Mr. Huang. The violence was gratuitous. The victim-impact statement made out significant harm to Mr. Huang and infer that it was traumatizing to Mr. Orfus. The robbery of Mr. Orfus (which Mr. Sohal did not plead to but accepted as an agreed fact) is a highly aggravating factor that I take into account: R. v. DiPaola, 2025 SCC 31 at paras. 47-48.

17It was highly aggravating that Mr. Sohal also has a significant criminal record both as a young offender and as an adult, including multiple robbery convictions. His previous adult convictions for robbery also involved carjackings.

18There were only three mitigating factors. One was the plea of guilty. The significance of the plea is somewhat attenuated, given the overwhelming case against him, but it was still important. A guilty plea is an expression of remorse. It saved significant court resources. And it spared the victims from having to testify.

19The second mitigating factor is Mr. Sohal’s youth, which plays a role in considering the sentencing principles of rehabilitation, restraint, and totality.

20The third significant mitigating factor is the harsh conditions of custody. As Mr. Sohal stated in his affidavit:

In total, I have 268 days of lockdown (108 at TSDC, 156 in TEDC records, and 4 since the records were released). In total, I have 99 nights of triple bunking. I have been on lockdown for 34 per cent of my 799 days in custody. I have been triple bunked for 12 per cent of my 799 days in custody.

21In his affidavit, Mr. Sohal described the difficulties with being locked in his cell. He was often unable to access showers or the telephone. He also described the loss of fresh air as yard privileges were curtailed. He described how the frequent lockdowns and triple bunking has been stressful, especially given the limited opportunities for exercise. I took these hardships into account as a mitigating factor: R. v. Smith, 2023 ONCA 500 at para. 52; R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344; R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754

Principles of Sentencing, Sentence Imposed And Ancillary Orders

22Mr. Sohal comes before the court to be sentenced on a carjacking involving violence and firearms, after accumulating two robbery convictions – both involving carjackings – as an adult, and six as a young offender. He also comes before the court to be sentenced for dangerous driving, while having also committed driving offences (albeit as a young offender). His actions were callous, violent, and terrorizing.

23The obvious principles of sentencing at stake here are general deterrence, denunciation, and especially specific deterrence. If anyone needs a dollop of specific deterrence, it is Mr. Sohal. He is well down the path to becoming a professional criminal; I am not specifically aware of any legitimate attempts to earn a living. Mr. Sohal really should choose another line of work. This is a case where an offender needs to understand that robbery and carjacking is not a viable career path.

24The Crown accepted a plea to robbery simpliciter rather than robbery with a firearm, but in my respectful view the five-year mandatory minimum is a realistic range of sentence for the robbery offence. Mr. Mr Sohal obviously avoided the mandatory minimum but the comments of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Hilbach, 2023 SCC 3 at paras. 53-54, upholding the constitutional validity of the mandatory minimum, apply here (I excerpt key passages):

Here, the robbery offence does not cast too broad of a net as to capture conduct that carries low moral fault or little risk to public safety. The gravity of the offence and the culpability of offenders convicted of it is relatively high. To start, even when committed without a firearm, robbery is a serious offence based on the requisite actus reus of the use or threat of violence or force in stealing or attempting to steal property. Adding a firearm to the equation simply increases the gravity of the offence. Further, mere possession of the firearm is not sufficient for conviction. The offender must use the firearm in the commission of the offence. As this Court wrote in R. v. Felawka, , [1993] 4 S.C.R. 199, when a firearm is used to threaten or intimidate, it "presents the ultimate threat of death to those in its presence" (p. 211). Prohibited firearms are among the most potent tools in the commission of crime. For example, sawed-off rifles are capable of deadly force, while being easier to conceal, transport, and maneuver in close quarters, like convenience stores.

The harmful consequences of using a restricted or prohibited firearm in a robbery are readily identified. There is the risk of death or life-altering physical injury for victims and bystanders if the weapon is discharged. Even if the weapon is not fired, exposure to this threat carries the risk of profound psychological harm. It can be expected that store clerks who are victims of offences like the one perpetrated by Mr. Hilbach will suffer psychological harm.

25The Crown also identified carjacking as having a 3 ½ to 5 year range for sentencing purposes: R. v. Francois, 2025 ONCA 177 at para. 14.

26Rehabilitation is also an important sentencing principle, but I find it very difficult to say anything positive about Mr. Sohal, other than an acknowledgment that he pleaded guilty – a plea that carries only minimal weight because of the overwhelming case against him. Frankly, Mr. Sohal is, at this stage, ungovernable. He has few prospects for rehabilitation. If he does not turn himself around he will find himself in jail for longer and longer stretches. He has already spent the majority of his short time as an adult behind bars. Based on his current trajectory, it is likely that if he does not turn things around he can look forward to ever longer stretches in custody. The only reason I am not sending him to jail for a considerably longer period of time is because he is still quite young, and I must respect the principles of totality and restraint while balancing the principle of protection of the public. Mr. Sohal should understand that if he re-offends in the future, that balance will shift very decisively in favour of protection of the public and specific deterrence and away from restraint and totality.

27In other words, Mr. Sohal should take this judgment as a warning that if he decides to go back into the business of committing violent robberies and recklessly endangering the lives of others, he will almost certainly not get bail and will almost certainly face an even longer stretch in custody. In other words, I am trying not to give him a sentence that is crushing. The next judge won’t be quite as concerned aoubt a crushing sentence.

28Fortunately, Mr. Sohal is very young and still has time to reflect, thing about what he has done.

29Ordinarily I would have calculate as follows in accordance with the SCC in Bertrand-Marchand, 2023 SCC 26 in relation to the indictment ending 327:

• Count 3: Robbery of Bo HUHANG on April 11, 2024, contrary to s. 344(1) of the Criminal Code: 5 years

• Count 7: Dangerous driving contrary on April 12, 2024, contrary to s. 320.13(1) of the Criminal Code: 3 years consecutive

• Count 8: Assault with intent to resist arrest on April 12, 2024, contrary to s. 270.01 of the Criminal Code: 1 year consecutive

• Count 18: Possession of a loaded restricted firearm on April 12, 2024, contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code: 3 years consecutive

• Count 19: Possession of a prohibited device, a magazine, on April 12, 2024, contrary to s. 91(2) of the Criminal Code: 1 year concurrent

30I would further calculate in relation to the indictment ending in 325:

• Count 3: Fail to comply with a recognizance on April 12, 2024, contrary to s. 145(5)(a) of the Criminal Code: 3 months consecutive

• Count 4: Possession of a firearm contrary to a prohibition order on April 12, 2024, contrary to s. 117.01 of the Criminal Code: 1 year consecutive

31A sentence of that number, although justified, would add up to 13 years and 3 months. In my view, that number would not respect the principles of totality and restraint. The Crown recognized as much by taking a position of 8-10 years.

32In my view, when I consider all of the relevant sentencing principles as well as the aggravating and mitigating factors, an appropriate global sentence is seven years less pre-sentence custody.

33Mr. Sohal had been in custody since April 12, 2024. As of the date of sentencing that was 810 days. At the enhanced rate of 1.5:1, that is 1215 days or about 3 ½ years. With Duncan credit, I will credit Mr. Sohal with 4 ½ years (1642.5, rounded up to 1643) leaving 2 ½ years (910.5 days, rounded up to 911) left to serve. The sentence will be allocated as follows, simply in the interests of simplicity. I realize that it does not entirely accord with the method set out in Bertrand-Marchand, but in my view, it would otherwise become unwieldly and difficult for the sentence calculation authorities.

34On the indictment ending 327:

• Count 3: Robbery of Bo HUHANG on April 11, 2024, contrary to s. 344(1) of the Criminal Code: 3 years with credit for 3 years, time served.

• Count 7: Dangerous driving contrary on April 12, 2024, contrary to s. 320.13(1) of the Criminal Code: 1 ½ years with credit of 1 ½ years, time served, consecutive to count 3.

• Count 8: Assault with intent to resist arrest on April 12, 2024, contrary to s. 270.01 of the Criminal Code: 1 year, consecutive to count 7.

• Count 18: Possession of a loaded restricted firearm on April 12, 2024, contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code: 2 ½ years consecutive to count 7 and concurrent to count 8.

• Count 19: Possession of a prohibited device, a magazine, on April 12, 2024, contrary to s. 91(2) of the Criminal Code: 1 year consecutive to Count 7 and concurrent to counts 8 and 18.

35On the indictment ending 325:

• Count 3: Fail to comply with a recognizance on April 12, 2024, contrary to s. 145(5)(a) of the Criminal Code: 6 months, consecutive to count 7 on Indictment 327 and concurrent to counts 8, 18, and 19 on Indictment 327.

• Count 4: Possession of a firearm contrary to a prohibition order on April 12, 2024, contrary to s. 117.01 of the Criminal Code: 1 year, consecutive to count 7 on Indictment 327 and concurrent to counts 8, 18, and 19 on Indictment 327.

36There will also be a DNA order, a s. 109 order for life, and a non-contact order with Mark Orfus and Bo Huhang.

R.F. Goldstein J.

Released: July 14, 2026

CITATION: R. v. Sohal, 2026 ONSC 4030