R. v. Calloo, 2026 ONSC 4433

CITATION: R. v. Calloo, 2026 ONSC 4433

COURT FILE NO.: CR-24-6352

DATE: 20260729

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

MALIQUE CALLOO

Offender

G. Spartinos and C. Houle, for the Crown

A. Weisberg and S. Ganga, for the Offender

HEARD: July 8, 2026

Section 486.5 Publication Ban in effect. The names of the children of the offender and the deceased shall not be published in any way. Their names have been initialized.

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

CARROCCIA J.:

[1] Malique Calloo was charged with second degree murder in the shooting death of Daniel Squalls and after trial, a jury found him not guilty of that offence, but guilty of the offence of manslaughter.

[2] During his testimony at trial, Mr. Calloo admitted to shooting Mr. Squalls and causing his death but relied on the partial defence of provocation. Based on the totality of the circumstances, I find that the jury must have accepted or had a reasonable doubt about whether Mr. Calloo was provoked, and they found him guilty of manslaughter on that basis.

[3] The matter is before me for sentencing. These are the reasons for the sentence that I impose in this case.

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENCE

[4] The offender and the deceased knew each other before the events of November 28, 2022, but they had an acrimonious relationship. They did not like each other.

[5] According to the evidence at trial, Mr. Calloo had been involved in a relationship with Dashau Handsor-Dupuis for about three years and they had a daughter together, N.C. who was born October 31, 2016. N.C. lived primarily with her mother, but her father exercised parenting time with her on a regular basis after the relationship ended.

[6] At the time of his death, Mr. Squalls was involved in a relationship with Ms. Handsor-Dupuis. They lived together on Hanna Street in Windsor, and they had a daughter, S.S. who was born November 11, 2020.

[7] Prior to November 28, 2022, Mr. Calloo and Mr. Squalls had had their differences. Due to this situation, Mr. Calloo enlisted the assistance of his mother in exercising access to his daughter, so they would not have to see each other. They had arguments and they had been involved in physical altercations. Sometimes, Mr. Squalls was the aggressor and sometimes Mr. Calloo was. Mr. Calloo testified at trial that Mr. Squalls had once shot at him from a car when he was standing on Bloomfield Road with his friends. On another occasion, Mr. Squalls chased him in a vehicle from a photoshoot for his daughter’s birthday, all the way from Lasalle to Windsor. Mr. Calloo also acknowledged that he instigated a physical confrontation with Mr. Squalls on one occasion because he believed Mr. Squalls had made a derogatory remark about his daughter. However, a few weeks before November 28, 2022, Mr. Calloo and Mr. Squalls had agreed to put aside their differences.

[8] On the day of the death of Mr. Squalls, the court heard evidence that Mr. Calloo attended at Ms. Handsor-Dupuis’ residence looking for his daughter, because he wanted to spend time with her. No one was home. He learned that she had not attended school that day. He was told by his mother of a plan by Ms. Handsor-Dupuis to take his daughter to Texas. He did not know at the time that she had already been moved by her mother and Mr. Squalls to Michigan to live without his knowledge or consent.

[9] His girlfriend, Uzma Ashraf, received a message from Mr. Squalls on Instagram which made him believe he could return to their home to pick up Nova. However, according to Mr. Calloo, he did not trust Mr. Squalls because of their history, and he brought some friends with him as well as a gun that had been provided to him by his father for protection.

[10] Mr. Calloo returned to Ms. Handsor-Dupuis’ residence later in the day, and about five minutes later Mr. Squalls arrived. They argued because of a text message that Mr. Calloo had sent to Ms. Handsor-Dupuis earlier that day which was disrespectful. Mr. Calloo asked for his daughter, who was not present. Mr. Squalls responded by saying “I’m her daddy now”. After he returned to his car, Mr. Calloo believed that Mr. Squalls had grabbed something from it. He believed that he had armed himself. Mr. Calloo approached him and removed the gun he was carrying from his pocket. According to his evidence, Mr. Squalls had one hand under his sweater as if he was armed.

[11] Mr. Squalls asked Mr. Calloo what he was going to do because there were cameras everywhere, and he gestured towards them. He then told Mr. Calloo that his daughter had been moved to the United States, and she was never coming back. At that point, according to Mr. Calloo’s evidence, he “lost it” he was angry and seeing red. He believed that he would never see his daughter again and he fired the gun at Mr. Squalls.

[12] The shooting was captured, at least in part on surveillance video which was introduced into evidence at trial. It was acknowledged that Mr. Calloo shot at Mr. Squalls at least 15 times, emptying the magazine. Mr. Squalls was struck by at least six bullets. Once he fell to the ground, Mr. Calloo realized that Mr. Squalls did not have a gun. The shooting took place during the day in a residential neighbourhood directly across the street from ABC Daycare.

[13] After the shooting, Mr. Calloo fled in the car with his friends. He crossed the border into the United States and was eventually arrested on July 23, 2023, and consented to his extradition back to Canada to face a charge of second-degree murder. The firearm used was never recovered.

[14] At trial, the accused admitted to unlawfully causing the death of Daniel Squalls and relied on the partial defence of provocation. By virtue of the jury’s verdict, I conclude that they accepted that Mr. Calloo was acting under provocation when he killed Daniel Squalls.

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENDER

[15] A Pre-Sentence Report was prepared in this matter, and it is very positive.

[16] Malique Calloo is 30 years old; he was 26 years old at the time of the offence. He was raised, along with his two brothers, primarily by his mother. He lived in Toronto until he was 11 years old when his mother moved him and his siblings to Windsor.

[17] When he was a child, he was exposed to violence in the Toronto neighbourhood where he grew up. His soccer coach was shot and killed, and he was once attacked and struck with the butt of a gun. His mother, Nadine Bent, describes the neighbourhood where they lived as being marked by poverty, heavy police presence and persistent gun violence.

[18] His parents separated when he was 11 years old. Initially, he did not have a relationship with his father, however, they resumed their relationship when he was 13 years old and they remained close until his father passed away in May of 2022. He has a close bond with his mother and his brothers who remain supportive of him. He has a tight-knit extended family and has good relationships with his cousins.

[19] Mr. Calloo completed high school and excelled at sports. In his teenage years, he worked in a summer day camp with children with autism and as a basketball coach. He attended college studying in the personal support worker program, but left once his girlfriend at the time, Ms. Handsor-Dupuis, became pregnant. He went to work to support his child. He worked at various jobs and prior to his arrest was self-employed, operating a car detailing business with a friend.

[20] His daughter, N., is now nine years old. According to Ms. Handsor-Dupuis, their relationship was never abusive. She describes Mr. Calloo as a responsible and supportive father. He continues to maintain a relationship with his daughter even while he has been in custody through telephone contact. She appears to be the focus of his life.

[21] The court was provided with letters of support from 13 friends and family members. I have read them all, although I do not intend to review them in detail in these reasons. The letters are written by individuals who have known the offender in many different roles. Some are related to him, some have known him since childhood, some have worked with him in different capacities. Each of those letters describe a young man who is kind and caring. He is known as an individual who always thinks of others first.

[22] His mother describes her son as someone who always helped and cared for others, even as a child. He was a good student. He loves his daughter and is a devoted father to her. Ms. Bent describes him as soft-spoken, compassionate and deeply remorseful for his actions.

[23] One theme that runs through each of the letters of support is that Mr. Calloo is family focused, caring and kind, a devoted father and a good friend. He has made a positive impact on those around him. Many of his supporters expressed their shock and surprise when they learned that he was charged with murder.

[24] Mr. Calloo has no prior criminal record. He has been in custody since his arrest on July 23, 2023. He spent 31 days in jail in Michigan before he was returned to Canada and has been in custody since then. While in custody at the South West Detention Center, the offender has completed a number of programs covering various topics including anger management, “Thoughts to Action” and programs designed for African Canadian excellence by providing participants with valuable information on topics affecting black men.

[25] Despite sometimes being able to participate in programming, it is submitted that the offender has experienced particularly harsh conditions while in custody and that should be considered in mitigation of any sentence imposed.

[26] The court was provided with records from the South West Detention Center and the Central North Correctional Center (found at exhibit #5), which reflect that Mr. Calloo spent 375 days in a three-person cell which is designed to house two persons. During that time, he spent 200 days sleeping on the floor. In addition, Mr. Calloo was subjected to lockdowns for some part of the day or full days on 427 occasions. He was locked down for more than eight hours 171 times. Those lockdowns occurred for various reasons, but the majority were due to staffing shortages.

[27] During lockdown periods, inmates do not have the use of the telephone, visits may be suspended, they are not able to get time outdoors and sometimes are required to go for extended periods of time without using the shower.

[28] Mr. Calloo testified at the sentencing hearing. According to his evidence, when he first arrived at the South West Detention Center, someone on his range offered $10,000 to “beat him to a pulp”.

[29] On May 3, 2026, he was assaulted while at the South West Detention Center. He was using the telephone when an inmate punched him in the head from behind. This skirmish was broken up by an officer. A video recording of this incident was filed as an exhibit. According to Mr. Calloo, this inmate said “This is for Danny” and later, when this man was walking out, he said: “wait till you get to Joyceville. You’re not going to make it out”.

[30] These incidents together with the comment made by a member of Mr. Squalls family after the jury returned their verdict has caused him to fear for his safety. That person said as they were leaving the courtroom “your ass ain’t making it outta there”.

[31] According to Mr. Calloo, he fears that someone in the penitentiary system with very little to lose might follow through on those threats. Despite his fear, Mr. Calloo has not reported the threats to the authorities, because he thought he would be putting himself in harm's way.

[32] Mr. Calloo expressed remorse for causing the death of Daniel Squalls both in court and when he spoke to the Probation officer. He acknowledges the harm that he has caused.

THE VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS

[33] Daniel Squalls was 24 years old when he was killed. He too was a devoted father and beloved by his family and friends who keenly feel his loss everyday. He was a young man with a bright future. His daughter who is now five years old will grow up without a father.

[34] The victim impact statements filed with the court and read into the record speak to the significant impact that the death of Mr. Squalls has had on those who knew him and loved him. I was particularly impressed by the eloquent words of his mother, Tylina Squalls. She describes her son as a young man with ambition, determination and dreams for his future. The circumstances of his death make his loss all the more difficult to accept.

[35] Ms. Squalls feels that her son was “portrayed as a villain in his own murder”, but he was not that person, he was loving, selfless and devoted to his family. Her life has been changed since the day he was killed. She feels the constant pain of his loss, an emptiness that cannot be filled. Ms. Squalls asks the court to consider the truth of who her son was and the value of his life.

[36] Aaliyah Roushan Handsor was a witness at this trial. She knew Daniel Squalls and described him as a great friend and a member of her family. She had to live through the trauma of seeing him bleeding on the ground outside of her home after he was shot. It is something she struggles with. Her son was at ABC Daycare playing outside when this happened and he and his classmates were put into lockdown as a result. She could not stay in her home afterwards and felt she was in danger during the time before Mr. Calloo was arrested. Her spouse was best friends with Mr. Squalls, so this offence has negatively impacted her entire family. They continue to suffer those consequences to this day.

[37] Michelle Blythe who had known Daniel Squalls since 2014, also provided a victim impact statement. She too described him as more than a friend and more like a member of her family. He lived with her for several years. She says that he was kind, caring and fun-loving and a cherished member of their extended family. Her son, who was best friends with Daniel feels his loss profoundly.

[38] The victim impact statements help the court to understand the type of person that Daniel Squalls was. His friends and family have been profoundly impacted by his loss.

THE POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

[39] The Crown seeks a sentence of incarceration in the range of 12 to 15 years less credit for pre-sentence custody. The Crown agrees that in mitigation of sentence, the court can consider the conditions of pre-sentence custody, or what is commonly referred to as Duncan credit. However, it is their submission that the court ought not to accede to the submissions of the defence and further reduce the sentence it imposes due to the potential that Mr. Calloo may be victimized if he were required to serve a penitentiary sentence since that possibility is entirely speculative.

[40] The Crown acknowledges that Mr. Calloo is a first offender and that he has expressed remorse for his actions which must be considered in mitigation of sentence. However, they submit that there are significant aggravating circumstances that must be considered as well. They include that Mr. Calloo brought an illegal handgun to a meeting with someone he had had problems with previously. He discharged that firearm 15 times on a public street directly across from a daycare which resulted in the potential of posing immense danger to the public.

[41] The Crown asks the court to consider that gun violence impacts not just the direct victims of those offences but the community as a whole, and the court must consider the principles of general deterrence in fashioning a just sentence.

[42] The Crown also submits that the court must consider that this crime has had a significant impact on a number of people. Mr. Squalls was a young man with a young family. His loss has been devastating to many.

[43] Further, the Crown accepts that the jury concluded that Mr. Calloo was acting under provocation at the time of the killing, but it should not be forgotten that he chose to attend that meeting with Mr. Squalls while armed with a firearm. He was not acting in self-defence when he shot Mr. Squalls.

[44] Lastly, the Crown submits that the range of sentence they propose takes into account all of these circumstances. They submit that there are no significant collateral consequences that should be considered. Without minimizing the significance of Mr. Calloo’s fear for his safety, he has other alternatives to ensure his safety. Corrections Canada must keep all inmates in their custody safe and they do so. Mr. Calloo can avail himself of the protections afforded to other inmates who are similarly situated.

[45] The Crown also asks the court to impose ancillary orders including a DNA order, a lifetime weapons prohibition and an order pursuant to s. 743.21 of the Code prohibiting communication with members of Mr. Squalls family while serving his sentence.

[46] The defence suggests that a sentence of eight years in the penitentiary less credit for pre-sentence custody, and less credit for the other mitigating circumstances referred to below would be appropriate. By their calculation, this would leave a sentence to be served in the reformatory.

[47] The defence submits that imposing a sentence in this range would take into account the particular circumstances present including that Mr. Calloo is a young man with no criminal record and with very good prospects for rehabilitation. In mitigation, it should be considered that Mr. Calloo was acting under provocation when he shot Mr. Squalls.

[48] As far as the other mitigation which would reduce the sentence further, Mr. Weisberg asks the court to take into account the particularly harsh conditions of Mr. Calloo’s pre-sentence detention, as well as the collateral consequences of the sentence that could put his safety in jeopardy.

[49] There are also other considerations, often referred to as Morris factors, that require the court to consider social context factors and systemic factors involving the offender’s life experiences as a young black man that may be used to mitigate the offender’s degree of responsibility.

[50] The defence submits that the offender, by all accounts was an individual who was kind and caring, family oriented, who worked to support his child, and was well-liked in his community. He acted under extreme provocation caused by the taking of his child to the United States and the threat that he would never see her again.

[51] He is a first offender with strong family and social supports in the community. He is deeply remorseful and has very good prospects of rehabilitation. The history between Mr. Calloo and Mr. Squalls prompted him to arm himself before this meeting. He was aware of Mr. Squalls’ history of violence directed at him and at others. Prior to that time, Mr. Calloo was making every effort to deal with the issues surrounding his exercising access to his daughter in the proper way.

[52] The defence submits that the unique circumstances of this case justifies a sentence in the range suggested.

[53] Further, the defence asks the court to consider that Mr. Calloo has been threatened directly as a result of the killing of Daniel Squalls and that those threats and the physical assault he suffered must be taken into account by the court, as a collateral consequence in imposing sentence. There is an ongoing concern about the offender’s safety if he goes to the penitentiary.

THE GOVERNING LEGAL PRINCIPLES

i. General Sentencing Principles

[54] The sentencing of an offender is an individualized process that requires the court to consider and balance a number of factors in arriving at a just and appropriate sentence.

[55] The principles of sentencing are set out in s. 718 to s. 718.2 of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, and are binding on this court. According to the provisions of s. 718 of the Code, the court must consider that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that denounce and deter unlawful conduct and assist in the rehabilitation of offenders.

[56] The fundamental principle of sentencing is set out in s. 718.1 which requires a sentence to be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

[57] Section 718.2 of the Code sets out further principles that the court must consider. That section requires a sentence to be increased or reduced to account for any aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender.

[58] Although in fashioning an appropriate sentence I must take these factors into account, the weight to be given to each factor will depend upon the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the offender.

ii. Sentencing Principles for the Offence of Manslaughter

[59] The range of sentences available for the offence of manslaughter is broad; from non-custodial sentences to life imprisonment. This is so because this offence covers a wide spectrum of offenders and circumstances. However, when a firearm is used, s. 236(a) of the Criminal Code requires that a minimum mandatory sentence of imprisonment for four years be imposed.

[60] In R. v. Gibson, 2026 ONCA 463, the Court of Appeal said the following about sentencing offenders convicted of manslaughter:

49Deterrence and denunciation must be the predominant sentencing objectives where there is an unlawful killing. While the sentencing principle of rehabilitation assumes a lesser role in sentencing for manslaughter, it nonetheless remains an important consideration when sentencing a young, first-time offender: R. v. Kwakye, 2015 ONCA 108, at para. 3; Khill (ONCA), at para. 159. Likewise, the principle of restraint must still be taken into account: Khill (ONCA), at para. 159.

[61] In R. v. Araya, 2015 ONCA 854, at para. 26, the Court found that the use of a firearm by itself cannot be considered an aggravating factor when sentencing someone for manslaughter with a firearm, because that factor is taken into account by the minimum sentence, but the circumstances surrounding its use can aggravate the sentence.

[62] In R. v. Stone 1999 CanLII 688 (SCC), [1999], 2 SCR 290, at paras. 247-248 the Supreme Court affirmed that provocation is one of numerous factors that can be considered in an assessment of the appropriate sentence for an offence of manslaughter.

[63] Both the Crown and the defence referred the court to the very helpful analysis set out by Schreck J. in R. v. Smith, 2022 ONSC 3800. In that decision, at paras. 26-32, he identified the ranges of sentences imposed for manslaughter as follows:

• 6 to 8 years imprisonment in less serious cases, for example where the accused was not aware of a firearm possessed by a co-accused, or where the accused was a youthful first offender with significant rehabilitative potential;

• 8 to 12 years imprisonment in cases where some significant aggravating factors are present, such as the use of a firearm, or brutal violence against an elderly victim; and

• 12 to 15 years imprisonment in cases where the most serious aggravating factors are present such as a significant criminal record, planned violence, or active participation in brandishing or discharging firearms or in a planned home invasion involving beating of victims.

[64] This categorization of the ranges of appropriate sentence for the offence of manslaughter has been followed in a number of cases, including by Lemay J. in R. v. Japp, 2025 ONSC 6307, and more recently by Fuerst J. in R. v. Stephens, 2026 ONSC 3789.

[65] Counsel have referred the court to a number of cases in support of their respective positions. I have reviewed them all, although I will not refer to each of them. As I indicated previously, there is a broad range of sentences imposed in manslaughter cases taking into account the various aggravating and mitigating factors that a court must consider.

[66] The circumstances of this case are similar to those dealt with by Justice Nakatsuru in R. v. Sivakumar, 2023 ONSC 568. In that case, the offender brought a loaded illegal firearm to a social gathering and killed the deceased by shooting him four times. The offender was convicted of manslaughter, relying on the partial defence of provocation. In that case, the offender was sentenced to 11.5 years imprisonment less credit for pre-sentence custody.

[67] The Crown also relies on the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Barreira 2021 ONCA 455. In that case, the offender was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment less credit for pre-sentence custody after pleading guilty to manslaughter. The offender, who had a criminal record including a prior conviction for counselling murder, shot the victim who was unarmed. The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence imposed by the trial judge.

[68] The defence relies on the decision of Forestell J. in R. v. Tsakopoulos, 2025 ONSC 2635. In that case, the offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter for shooting the victim seven times. As part of the plea agreement, the Crown, acknowledged that it could not disprove that the offender acted under provocation. The offender had a prior criminal record and was a drug user. He was sentenced to ten years imprisonment before credit for pre-sentence custody.

[69] In R. v. Hassard, 2025 ONSC 4363, the offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter after shooting the victim twice and killing him. He had a lengthy criminal record and had a weapons prohibition at the time, which were aggravating circumstances. He was sentenced to 11 years imprisonment less appropriate credit.

[70] On the other end of the spectrum, in R. v. Sahal, 2016 ONSC 6864, the offender who was convicted of manslaughter after trial was sentenced to six years imprisonment less credit for pre-sentence custody. The offender shot the victim once causing his death. In sentencing the offender, Dambrot J. noted that he would have imposed a greater sentence but for the fact that the accused had no criminal record, and good prospects for rehabilitation.

iii. Duncan “credit”

[71] In addition to the pre-sentence custody credit to which the offender is entitled, that is 1.5 days credit for each day spent in pre-trial custody in accordance with s. 719(3.1) of the Code and the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Regina v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 575, the defence seeks additional credit, often referred to as Duncan credit to be deducted from any sentence to be served to reflect the particularly harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody Mr. Calloo was subjected to.

[72] In R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754, the Court of Appeal concluded that in appropriate circumstances, particularly harsh pre-sentence incarceration conditions can justify mitigation beyond the 1.5 days credit for each day referred to in s. 719(3.1) of the Code.

[73] More recently in R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344, Doherty J.A. speaking for the Court of Appeal, said at para. 52:

The “Duncan” credit is not a deduction from the otherwise appropriate sentence but is one of the factors to be taken into account in determining the appropriate sentence. Particularly punitive pretrial incarceration conditions can be a mitigating factor to be taken into account with the other mitigating and aggravating factors in arriving at the appropriate sentence from which the “Summers” credit will be deducted. Because the “Duncan” credit is one of the mitigating factors to be taken into account, it cannot justify the imposition of a sentence which is inappropriate, having regard to all of the relevant mitigating or aggravating factors.

[74] Accordingly, any Duncan credit is not to be treated as a mathematical formula to reduce an appropriate sentence but is to be factored into the determination of an appropriate sentence as a mitigating circumstance, before the sentence is reduced for time spent in pre-sentence custody.

iv. Collateral Consequences

[75] The defence relies on the principles set out in R. v. Suter, 2018 SCC 34, in asking the court to consider the collateral consequences of the sentence to be imposed as a mitigating circumstance. In that case, the offender was charged with failing to provide a breath sample and other offences after causing an accident that resulted in the death of a child. After being charged, he was abducted by vigilantes who beat him and cut off his thumb for his role in the child’s death. Moldaver J. (as he then was) speaking for the majority found that the vigilante violence experienced by the offender in that case could be considered, to a limited extent, when crafting the appropriate sentence (see para. 45).

[76] The Court held in Suter that the act of tailoring a sentence to the circumstances of the offence and the offender may require a court to consider collateral consequences which are described at para. 47 as:

…. any consequence arising from the commission of an offence, the conviction

for an offence, or the sentence imposed for an offence, that impacts the offender.

[77] The Court describes collateral consequences as neither aggravating nor mitigating factors since they do not relate to the gravity of the offence or the level of responsibility of the offender, but rather as an element relating to the personal circumstances of the offender (see para. 48).

[78] Justice Moldaver also considered in Suter that an assault on an offender by fellow inmates which is linked directly to the offence for which the offender is in custody, may be considered as a factor at sentencing because it relates to the personal circumstances of the offender (see: paragraph 51).

[79] In this case, the defence asks the court to consider the threat made against him by someone in the courtroom after the jury found Mr. Calloo guilty of manslaughter rather than second degree murder, the violence directed towards Mr. Calloo while in jail as shown in exhibit # 6, including his evidence about the connection between the threat which accompanied the jailhouse assault as a factor to be considered in mitigation of sentence.

v) Morris Factors

[80] In R. v. Morris 2021 ONCA 680 the Court of Appeal set out guidelines for the consideration of social context evidence, particularly as it relates to black offenders which may be relevant to mitigate an offender’s degree of responsibility for the offence.

[81] Chief Justice Tulloch stated at para. 97 of the decision:

There must, however, be some connection between the overt and systemic racism identified in the community and the circumstances or events that are said to explain or mitigate the criminal conduct in issue. Racism may have impacted on the offender in a way that bears on the offender’s moral culpability for the crime, or it may be relevant in some other way to a determination of the appropriate sentence. Absent some connection, mitigation of sentence based simply on the existence of overt or institutional racism in the community becomes a discount based on the offender’s colour. Everyone agrees there can be no such discount:…..

[82] In Morris the court goes on to find that it was open to the trial judge to find that evidence of anti-Black racism played a role in the offender’s strong fear for his personal safety in the community which offered a mitigating explanation for his possession of a loaded, concealed firearm, at para. 100. However, it was stressed that even so, this was a limited mitigating factor which did not detract from the seriousness of the offence he committed, at para. 101.

THE APPROPRIATE SENTENCE

[83] In making this difficult decision, I have considered the significant impact that Mr. Calloo’s actions in killing Daniel Squalls has had on so many lives. It is trite for me to say that any sentence that I impose will not alleviate the grief that Daniel Squalls’ mother, his daughter, his family and his friends are suffering due to his loss.

[84] I must weigh and consider the circumstances of the offender and the offence to impose a sentence that is both just and appropriate in the circumstances; one that is proportional given the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. In this case that is a particularly difficult task.

[85] Denunciation and deterrence are the primary sentencing objectives when there has been an unlawful killing, but they are not the only objectives. The court must consider rehabilitation and restraint as well, since Mr. Calloo is a first offender.

[86] In considering the gravity of the offence, I have considered that manslaughter is a serious offence. The taking of a human life is always serious. That is reflected in the fact that the maximum sentence for manslaughter is life imprisonment. As for the degree of responsibility of the offender, I have considered the aggravating and mitigating circumstances present in this case.

[87] The parties agree that the following facts constitute aggravating circumstances to be considered by the court:

i) the fact that after the shooting of Daniel Squalls, Mr. Calloo fled to the United States and was not arrested until July 23, 2023, and was extradited back to Canada;

ii) the shooting of Daniel Squalls happened in public, across the street from ABC Daycare which was put on lockdown as a result; and

iii) the firearm used was never recovered.

[88] The further aggravating circumstances include that:

a. the offender armed himself with an illegal firearm;

b. that this crime has had a significant impact on the family and friends of Mr. Squalls; and

c. that Mr. Calloo fired a gun 15 times in a public place.

[89] In this case, there are a number of mitigating factors for the court to consider. They include:

a. the offender has expressed his sincere remorse for causing the death of Daniel Squalls. He has insight and recognizes that his actions have negatively impacted many lives;

b. Mr. Calloo is relatively young. He was a productive member of the community prior to his incarceration and has good prospects for rehabilitation;

c. he has a strong support from his family, extended family and friends;

d. Mr. Calloo has no criminal record. He has been in custody since his arrest in circumstances that have sometimes been harsh including being locked down for lengthy periods of time;

e. the offender was acting under provocation at the time of the offence; and

f. the offender has been threatened and assaulted while in custody as a result of this offence and he fears for his safety.

[90] Provocation can be considered on sentence relating to the circumstances of the offence. While I accept that Mr. Calloo acted under provocation when he shot Mr. Squalls, due to the threat that he would never see his daughter again, and I accept that he is deeply remorseful for causing Mr. Squalls’ death, he did have lawful alternatives he could have pursued. He chose to arm himself with an illegal firearm to go and meet Mr. Squalls and pick up his daughter. That was the decision he made, and it had devastating consequences. Gun violence cannot be condoned. It strikes fear into members of our community, and in this case, had very real consequences for the children at their daycare who have the right to feel safe.

[91] I accept that as a black man, Mr. Calloo is shaped by his unique life experiences. He grew up in Toronto in an area marked by violence, and he has experienced systemic racism that has resulted in a distrust for the police. However, by virtue of his own evidence, he did not carry that firearm because as a black man he feared in general for his safety, he carried a gun that day because he did not trust Mr. Squalls. Daniel Squalls was a young black man as well. In fact, it is striking how many similarities there are between Mr. Calloo and Mr. Squalls. He too, was shaped by his life experiences, and when he was killed, he was not in possession of a firearm. For all these reasons, I find this factor to be of limited value as a mitigating circumstance.

[92] In this case, I find that Mr. Calloo has very good prospects for rehabilitation. He is a first offender; he has been a productive member of the community and has significant supports when he completes his sentence.

[93] Mr. Calloo has been in custody for 1,103 days as of today’s date. He is entitled to credit for 1.5 days for each day or 1,655 days or four years and six months, rounded up slightly for ease of calculation.

[94] I have considered, and the Crown concedes that Mr. Calloo is entitled to mitigation for the harsh conditions of his pre-sentence detention, and I have factored this into a consideration of the appropriate sentence to be imposed. The position of the Crown, that is, that the appropriate sentence is between 12 to 15 years imprisonment, does not adequately take into account the significant mitigating circumstances present in this case. I must also exercise restraint in imposing a sentence of imprisonment on a first-time offender.

[95] The defence urges the court to consider the collateral consequences of sentencing Mr. Calloo to a period of imprisonment that would result in his serving a penitentiary sentence and that, when considered together with the other mitigating circumstances, an appropriate sentence would be eight years imprisonment less pre-sentence custody.

[96] I recognize the seriousness of those concerns, and I find that those concerns are legitimate and I consider them as it relates to the personal circumstances of the offender. However, the position of the defence in my view is low, considering the aggravating circumstances, the seriousness of the offence and the high moral blameworthiness of this conduct.

[97] In my view, the appropriate sentence in this case would have been ten years imprisonment, however, after considering the additional mitigating circumstances, including Duncan “credit” for the harsh conditions endured by Mr. Calloo during his pretrial detention, and the collateral consequences referred to, I have determined that the appropriate sentence is nine years imprisonment less credit for pre-sentence custody of 1,103 days enhanced at 1.5 days for each day for 1655 days or four years and six months. As a result, Mr. Calloo will have four years and six months to serve in the penitentiary.

[98] In addition, I will impose the following ancillary orders: a DNA order, and a s. 109(2) order prohibiting Mr. Calloo from possessing firearms for life. I will also make an order pursuant to s. 743.21 of the Code, which prohibits Mr. Calloo from communicating with certain individuals while serving his sentence. I will request that the Crown provide a copy of the list of names that should be subject to that order.

_____________________________

Maria V. Carroccia

Justice

Released: July 29, 2026

CITATION: R. v. Calloo, 2026 ONSC 4433