R. v. Lima, 2026 ONSC 4444

CITATION: R. v. Lima, 2026 ONSC 4444

COURT FILE NO.: CR-20-00012032-0000

DATE: 20260731

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

GUILHERME LIMA

Defendant

Sean Doyle and Moheb Tewfik, for the Crown

Kristen Dulysh, for the Defendant

HEARD: July 17 and 30, 2026

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

DI LUCA J.

Overview

1Guilherme Lima was originally charged with the first-degree murder of Amir Hossein “Danni” Homayouni, who was brutally killed on November 13, 2020.

2His first trial on the charge resulted in a mistrial. The Crown presented its case which included a recorded police statement wherein Mr. Lima accepted responsibility for killing Mr. Homayouni. Mr. Lima testified and denied committing the offence and maintained that he had been directed under duress to confess to the offence by those involved in its commission.

3The jury who heard all the evidence at the initial trial and deliberated for two days was unable to reach a unanimous verdict on either the offence of first-degree murder or on the lesser and included offences of second-degree murder or manslaughter.

4Mr. Lima’s second trial was scheduled to commence on July 20, 2026.

5As is the case with many criminal trials, the outcome of the second trial was an open question. There were triable issues both in relation to identification and in relation to Mr. Lima’s state of mind at the time of the offence. Each side faced a significant litigation risk in proceeding with a second trial.

6On July 15, 2026, the parties requested a further judicial pre-trial with a view to canvassing a potential resolution of the matter. On that date, the parties appeared before the court, and a resolution oriented judicial pre-trial was conducted. The parties advised that they had arrived at a joint submission on sentence in relation to a guilty plea for the offence of manslaughter.

7On July 17, 2026, Mr. Lima appeared before the court in person. A detailed plea comprehension inquiry was conducted. Mr. Lima entered a guilty plea to the lesser and included offence of manslaughter. Agreed facts were presented and Mr. Lima personally and directly confirmed the accuracy of those facts. Mr. Lima was found guilty of manslaughter and the matter was adjourned to today’s date for presentation of the victim impact statement and submissions.

8Based on the submissions and evidence before the court, I am satisfied that the joint submission of sentence of 14 years is appropriate in this case. Put another way, based on the agreed facts, the victim impact evidence and submissions of counsel, I am satisfied that imposing a sentence of 14 years would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

9As an aside, I want to acknowledge that this jointly submitted resolution was the product of significant efforts taken by very experienced counsel who were guided by appropriate ethical and practical considerations. While the decision to resolve this matter obviously involved a degree of compromise on both sides, I am satisfied that when all the relevant factors are considered, a just and appropriate result was arrived at. This result provides certainty, particularly for the victim’s family, but also for the community and for Mr. Lima and his family. It avoids the litigation risk of a second trial, at which the outcome was not guaranteed. It results in the imposition of a very significant penitentiary sentence that reflects the seriousness of the offence and the offender’s high degree of responsibility.

10I now provide these brief reasons explaining why I am prepared to accept the joint submission and impose the sentence that both counsel are requesting.

Fact of the Offence

11On November 13, 2020, Mr. Homayouni, who was then 35 years old, was outside the front door of his residence. At approximately 6:17pm, Mr. Lima was dropped off in an Acura sedan. He walked on the sidewalk towards Mr. Homayouni’s residence. At the time, Mr. Lima was armed with a Ruger P89 semi automatic 9mm handgun with a defaced serial number. He also had a flip knife.

12Mr. Lima approached Mr. Homayouni and asked for a cigarette. Mr. Homayouni replied that he did not have any. Mr. Lima then opened fire on Mr. Homayouni, shooting five rounds in rapid succession, all of which struck Mr. Homayouni in some fashion.

13Mr. Homayouni tried to escape by running towards a neighbour’s house. He fell onto the porch of the neighbour’s house and Mr. Lima continued his attack on him, stabbing him multiple times with the knife. Mr. Lima then ran down the driveway away from Mr. Homayouni, though as he reached the sidewalk, he looked back and saw Mr. Homayouni getting up and limping towards the neighbour’s front porch.

14Mr. Lima again approached Mr. Homayouni and continued stabbing him. Mr. Homayouni managed to get up and get into the foyer of the neighbour’s house. Mr. Lima followed him into the house and continued the attack.

15Mr. Lima then ran back out to the street and entered the Acura sedan through the rear passenger door. The Acura then sped off.

16The entire attack lasted approximately 88 seconds. Most of it is captured on a very graphic security camera video which was filed as an exhibit on these proceedings.

17Mr. Homayouni was taken to hospital but unfortunately died as a result of his injuries. A post-mortem examination determined that his cause of death was “Hemorrhagic shock due to or as a consequence of multiple gunshot and sharp force injuries.” The details of the many injuries suffered by Mr. Homayouni are set out in the post-mortem report which was filed as an exhibit to the agreed statement of fact. The most significant injury inflicted was the gunshot wound to the right posterior pelvic region which coursed through the pelvic cavity and lacerated the left femoral vein.

18On January 12, 2022, Mr. Lima walked into 11 Division of the Toronto Police Service and advised that he wished to confess to murder. After providing an initial statement, Mr. Lima was arrested for murder. He was cautioned and spoke to counsel and then provided a further statement confessing to the killing of Mr. Homayouni.

19At the time of the confession, York Regional Police had no suspects in the killing of Mr. Homayouni.

20There is no evidence suggesting that Mr. Homayouni and Mr. Lima were known to each other.

21Prior to the killing of Mr. Homayouni, Mr. Lima suffered from mental illness for many years. He had been diagnosed with depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder and bipolar disorder. He had also been misusing drugs on a daily basis, including fentanyl, cocaine, ketamine, methamphetamine, and MDMA. He had experienced symptoms of psychosis including delusions.

22Following his arrest, Mr. Lima was diagnosed with unspecified schizophrenia. Despite his mental health issues and drug use, Mr. Lima admits that he appreciated the nature of his actions at the time of the unlawful killing of Mr. Homayouni. That said, he denies that he had the intent required for murder.

Victim Impact Statement

23At the sentencing hearing, a victim impact statement was presented by Mary Homayouni, the victim’s mother. Her victim impact statement was accompanied by a number of beautiful photos depicting the victim at various milestone family events.

24It is said that no mother should suffer the loss of a child. This is all the more true when the child’s life is taken in a brutal and senseless fashion. Ms. Homayouni’s victim impact statement offers a deep and profound view of a mother’s grief. Her loss and the loss by her family stemming from the victim’s violent death is incalculable. The impact of his death will be felt endlessly and profoundly for many years.

25Having read the victim statement more than once, I can readily see that Mr. Homayouni was a special and wonderful person. He was the backbone of an immigrant family that came to Canada looking for a better life, achieved success only to have it turn from them due to this offence.

26Mr. Homayouni’s death has deeply impacted everyone, including his brothers and father. I have no doubt that he touched the hearts of everyone he met. He so obviously radiated positive qualities and attributes.

27As Ms. Homayouni so eloquently and thoughtfully states, “Danni was an extraordinary soul. He was amazingly kind, generous, vibrant and filled with an infectious love for life. He possessed a rare, unwavering belief in the goodness of people. He was an incredibly hard worker, full of dreams, a world traveler, a lover of all cultures and a forever learner who approached the world with open arms and an open heart. He was loved and admired by every single person whose path he crossed, whether it was a friend, a neighbour, a client or a family member. Everyone loved him because of these qualities.”

28I accept every word describing the pain this family has suffered and endured as a result of the killing of Mr. Homayouni. I hope the end of this proceeding will somehow help them pick up the pieces and move on in life. May your memories of your son and brother be a source of strength for you in your journey.

Mr. Lima’s Background

29Mr. Lima is currently 23 years of age. He was 19 years old at the time of the offence. He has no prior criminal record.

30Mr. Lima was born in Brazil and came to Canada with his family when he was a child. He had various struggles growing up and his mother moved him from school to school hoping that his struggles would resolve.

31Mr. Lima has a significant mental health history that predates the commission of this offence. He has been diagnosed with depression, anxiety, PTSD and potential bipolar disorder. More recently, he has been diagnosed with a potential emerging schizophrenic disorder. Documents confirming his mental health issues have been filed as exhibits.

32As is often the case with individuals suffering mental health issues, Mr. Lima also abused drugs. From an early age he was involved with alcohol and this spiralled into use of cocaine, fentanyl, methamphetamine and other hard drugs.

33Mr. Lima also has a history of suicidal ideation and attempts which started at an early age following the traumatic death of one of his close friends.

34Following the onset of the COVID pandemic, Mr. Lima’s mental health deteriorated and his drug abuse escalated.

35Notwithstanding his many challenges, Mr. Lima has managed to have various forms of employment over the years. He also continues to enjoy the support of his immediate family, several of whom were in court today.

36When asked whether he wished to address the court prior to imposition of sentence, Mr. Lima spoke directly to the family of the victim and apologized. He acknowledged that his words could do little to repair the situation and he acknowledged the moving nature of the victim impact statement.

Pre-Trial Custody Credit

37Mr. Lima has been in pre-trial custody since the date of his arrest. As of today’s date, that amounts to 1,659 days of straight time. At a ratio of 1.5:1, presentence custody is the equivalent of 2,488 days or approximately 6 years and 298 days.

The Joint Submission on Sentence

38The parties jointly submit that a sentence of 14 years in prison is fit and appropriate in the particular circumstances of this case.

39In addition, the parties agree upon the following ancillary orders: a weapons prohibition for life, a DNA order and a non-communication order with respect to the victim’s family.

Principles of Sentencing

40The objectives of sentencing long recognized at common law have been codified in section 718 of the Criminal Code. They are: the protection of society and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society through the denunciation of unlawful conduct; deterrence, both general and specific; the separation of the offender from society where necessary; rehabilitation; reparation for harm done to the victims or the community; and promotion of a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgement of the harm done.

41Section 718.1 provides that the fundamental principle of sentencing is that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender, see R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46 at para. 10, and R. v. M.(L.) 2008 SCC 31.

42Section 718.2 provides that a sentence should be increased or decreased to account for any aggravating and mitigating circumstances. It also requires that a sentence be similar to those imposed on similar offenders in similar circumstances, that an offender not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate, and that all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances must be considered. The principle of restraint is particularly important with a youthful first-time offender. This principle continues to apply even in cases where the offence committed is violent, see R. v. Priest (1996) 110 C.C.C. (3d) 96 (Ont. C.A.), R. v. Khill, 2025 ONCA 146 and R. v. Habib, 2024 ONCA 830.

43Where a sentence is presented as a joint submission, a judge must not depart from the joint submission unless the proposed sentence would bring the administration into disrepute or would otherwise be contrary to the public interest, see R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43 and R. v. Nahanee, 2022 SCC 37. This is a very high and stringent test. Departure is only justified where a reasonable and informed person would view the proposed sentence as a breakdown in the functioning of the justice system, see R. v. Harasiuk, 2023 ONCA 594 at para. 24.

The Range of Sentence for Manslaughter

44The offence of manslaughter has a very broad range of sentences as it can be committed in a wide range of circumstances from “near accident” to “near murder”, see R. v. Gibson, 2026 ONCA 463 at para. 48 and R. v. Carrière, (2002), 2002 CanLII 41803 (ON CA), 164 C.C.C. (3d) 569 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 10. Depending on how the offence is committed, sentences ranging from suspended sentences to reformatory jail and prison sentences all the way up to life imprisonment are available. Deterrence and denunciation must be the predominant sentencing objectives, though the principles of rehabilitation and restraint still play a role, see Gibson at para. 49, and R. v. Kwakye, 2015 ONCA 108 at para. 3.

45In support of the joint sentence proposed, Crown counsel has filed a very helpful casebook that canvasses sentences for manslaughter offences committed in broadly similar circumstances to those in this case. While many of these cases are distinguishable on the specific facts, they serve nonetheless as useful guideposts setting out a range of appropriate sentences.

46These cases suggest that in instances where there are significant aggravating factors including a high degree of violence and the use or discharge of a firearm, a sentence between 12 to 15 years in the penitentiary is often warranted, see R. v. Jones-Solomon, 2015 ONCA 654, R. v. Barreira, 2021 ONCA 455, R. v. Warner, 2019 ONCA 1014, R. v. Hanan, 2022 ONCA 229, R. v. Smith, 2022 ONSC 3800, R. v. Earley, 2026 ONSC 245, R. v. Stafford, 2025 ONSC 916, and R. v. Japp, 2025 ONSC 6307. On some occasions, where the facts are particularly aggravating, life sentences have been imposed, see R. v. McCabe, 1994 B.C.A.C. 136.

Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances

47I turn next to assessing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances in this case.

48I find the following circumstances to be aggravating:

a. The killing of Mr. Homayouni was extremely violent and prolonged. He was shot and stabbed repeatedly. He tried to escape and Mr. Lima persisted in his attack. The brutality of this attack is captured in the security camera video which notably has sound. I need not describe the details of the killing. They are in a word, chilling.

b. While not a home invasion in the strict sense, Mr. Homayouni was attacked just outside his home. During the attack he attempted to find refuge inside his neighbour’s home.

c. The killing involved the use of two weapons including a restricted or prohibited firearm with a defaced serial number and a knife.

d. While categorical descriptors of the offence of manslaughter are inapt, this case can readily be described as falling toward the “near murder” end of the range of conduct captured by the offence of manslaughter.

e. The motivation behind the offence is simply unknown. The offence, as between Mr. Lima and the victim, appears entirely random. To state the obvious, random acts of serious violence are particularly chilling.

49I find the following facts to be mitigating:

a. Mr. Lima was very young at the time of the offence. He was only 19 years of age.

b. He is a first offender who had no criminal record.

c. Mr. Lima took the unusual step of walking into a police station approximately 15 months after the offence and confessing to the killing. At the time he did this, the police had no suspects. Mr. Lima was not even on the police radar. While at the first trial he sought to recant this confession, it nonetheless suggests an early acceptance of responsibility.

d. Mr. Lima has significant mental health issues and related drug addiction issues. These issues were active at the time of the commission of the offence.

e. Mr. Lima pleaded guilty and formally accepted responsibility for this offence. The guilty plea brings closure and certainty to this difficult case.

f. The conditions of pre-sentence custody were harsh and would have presented additional difficulties with a person presenting with mental health issues.

Sentence To Be Imposed

50In my view, when I balance the applicable sentencing principles including denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and restraint and consider the legal test for accepting a joint submission, I am satisfied that the appropriate sentence in this case is the sentence that has been jointly proposed by counsel, namely 14 years in prison.

51In my view, this is a fit and proportionate sentence which fairly captures the very high degree of moral blameworthiness of the offender and the seriousness of the offence. This sentence sends a strong message of denunciation and deterrence but also gives effect to the principle of restraint and Mr. Lima’s mitigating personal circumstances, including his guilty plea.

52The 14-year sentence will be reduced by 2,488 days to account for time served on a 1.5:1 basis.

53This leaves a sentence of 2,622 days from today’s date which equates to approximately 7 years, 2 months and 7 days.

54I also make the following ancillary orders:

a. A weapons prohibition for life;

b. A DNA order;

c. A non-communication order with the victim’s family members.

55In view of Mr. Lima’s personal circumstances as detailed above, I decline to impose the VFS.

J. Di Luca J.

Released: July 31, 2026

CITATION: R. v. Lima, 2026 ONSC 4444

CR-20-00012032-0000