His Majesty the King v. Isaiah Goodman, 2026 ONSC 59

CITATION: R. v. Goodman, 2026 ONSC 59

NEWMARKET COURT FILE NO.: CR-22-91110163-00

DATE: 20260106

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

ISAIAH GOODMAN

Defendant

Thompson Hamilton, for the Crown

Jordana Goldlist, for the Defendant

HEARD: December 16, 2025

REASONS FOR DECISION

CAMERON J.:

Overview:

1On January 17, 2025 I found Isaiah Goodman guilty of second-degree murder in the shooting death of Anthony Acquaviva. Anthony was shot and killed by Mr. Goodman on February 1, 2022 in Markham, Ontario. His trial proceeded before me without a jury with the consent of all parties including the Attorney General for Ontario.

2In finding Mr. Goodman guilty of second-degree murder, I rejected his claim of self-defence and found that when he shot Mr. Acquaviva, he had the requisite intent to kill him.

The Facts Relating to the Offence:

3Anthony Acquaviva was 17 years old at the time of his death. He was shot and killed on February 1, 2022 in the area of Purple Finch Road and Littleleaf Crescent in Markham, Ontario which was around the corner from his family home. His death resulted from one perforating gunshot wound to his torso.

4Anthony was driven to the scene of the shooting by his sister Sabrina Acquaviva in the family’s car. Mr. Goodman arrived at the scene as a passenger in a vehicle driven by a person named Jermain Andrews. Also in the car was Joshua Farmer who was seated in the front passenger seat and a young person, J.B.G., who was seated in the rear of the car with Mr. Goodman.

5Shortly after the shooting, Mr. Andrews was arrested at the scene. Ms. Acquaviva intentionally drove into Mr. Farmer who was critically injured in the collision. He was later arrested at the hospital. He survived. J.B.G., the young person, was arrested in the vicinity of the shooting. Mr. Goodman was not arrested until February 10, 2022.

6In finding Mr. Goodman guilty of second-degree murder, I accepted Sabrina Acquaviva’s account of what transpired immediately before the shooting. Ms. Acquaviva overheard her brother and Mr. Goodman saying something about numbers, possibly 60 and 90. She then saw Mr. Goodman, who was standing right next to her, almost within arm’s length, reach over to Anthony and pat down his front pocket. As he did this, she saw a gun in Mr. Goodman’s pocket. She then turned her attention to her brother who was backing up with his hands up and palms out at his shoulder level. Her brother did not have anything in his hands. She did not see him holding a knife. It is then that Mr. Goodman began firing the gun.

7Most of the pertinent events leading up to, during and after the shooting were captured on various video cameras from the neighbourhood. A video compilation was prepared from these recordings.

8It is clear from the evidence of Ms. Acquaviva and the video that from the time Mr. Goodman produced his gun, Anthony was on the defensive. The video showed Anthony retreating after the third shot, when Mr. Goodman shot at him for a fourth time from behind. Prior to the fifth shot, Anthony was on the ground when Mr. Goodman who was running away, turned around, walked back towards Anthony and fired again.

9In total, Mr. Goodman shot at Anthony five times, four times from a close distance including when Anthony had his back to him and a fifth time when he noticed Anthony was still alive.

The Victim Impact Statements:

10I know that it is impossible to put into words the impact of Anthony’s death on those who knew him and those who loved him. I was incredibly moved by the statements of Anthony’s loved ones. His senseless and tragic murder leaves a permanent hole in the hearts and lives of his parents, siblings, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, and friends that can never be filled. Their homes feel empty, their hearts are broken, every day and every missed birthday, milestone, and holiday brings renewed sadness. The shock of his sudden and violent death is still raw. The grief at times overwhelming.

11It is abundantly clear that Anthony was a funny, kind, caring and hard-working young man whose potential was limitless. Most obvious to me throughout this trial, is just how much he was loved.

12The outcome of this trial, and this sentencing hearing will do nothing to bring him back, to erase the pain of his loss, or otherwise right this incredible wrong. For that, I am truly sorry. I hope that in time, his beloved family can find some peace in knowing how much he loved them and how happy his way too short life was. Although his life was cut short, Anthony unquestionably left a legacy marked by the lessons of his kindness to others.

The Facts Relating to the Offender:

13Mr. Goodman is now 24 years old. At the time of these events, he was 20. An Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report was prepared in anticipation of this sentencing hearing by Leah Kay of the Sentencing and Parole Project. This is a non-profit organization that prepares Enhanced Pre-Sentence Reports for Black people marginalized by poverty and racial inequality. Mr. Goodman, is of St. Vincentian and Barbadian descent.

14Mr. Goodman grew up in Toronto and experienced significant instability, poverty and exposure to systemic anti-Black racism. He moved approximately 20 times between the ages of 8 and 21, living in low-income neighborhoods with high crime rates. His childhood was marked by frequent moves, housing instability, and parental conflict. Mr. Goodman’s parents separated before his birth. His mother struggled with financial insecurity and single motherhood, while his father battled alcoholism. Mr. Goodman’s relationship with both parents was strained, and he spent time in foster care and kinship agreements due to behavioral issues and family challenges.

15Mr. Goodman was diagnosed with Conduct Disorder at age 13 but did not receive adequate mental health support. His exposure to criminal activity in his neighborhoods and social circles is believed to have influenced his behavior. Mr. Goodman attended 13 schools during his childhood and six high schools, experiencing academic struggles due to frequent moves and behavioral issues

16In 2019, Mr. Goodman was shot six times, which led to symptoms of PTSD, including hypervigilance and paranoia. He began carrying a firearm for protection.

17Mr. Goodman has a youth and criminal record. As a youth he was found guilty of breaching conditions of a recognizance 7 times; robbery 3 times; theft of property under $5000 and possession of stolen property under $5000.

18As an adult he was convicted of theft under $5000 for which he was sentenced to 12 months probation having served 9 days in pre-trial custody. The murder of Anthony occurred hours after Mr. Goodman plead guilty and was placed on probation – agreeing to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of 12 months.

19Since his arrest for the murder of Anthony Acquaviva, Mr. Goodman has been incarcerated. While at the Central East Correctional Centre, Mr. Goodman has spent 832 days in lockdown. During this time he was unable to leave his cell, shower, use the phone or have access to fresh air. 499 of those days were spent triple bunked. Since his incarceration, Mr. Goodman has completed 5 high school credits, and enrolled in a parenting class.

The Principles of Sentencing for Second Degree Murder:

20 Section 745(c) of the Criminal Code provides that on conviction for second degree murder, the offender must be sentenced to life imprisonment, with no eligibility for parole for a fixed period ranging from a minimum of 10 to a maximum of 25 years. Section 745.4 specifically empowers the sentencing judge to increase the parole ineligibility period from the minimum of 10 years to the period that the judge deems fit, up to the maximum of 25 years.

21In exercising their discretion under s. 745.4, the sentencing judge must have regard to the character of the offender, the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding its commission, and the recommendation of the jury, if any.

22As a general rule, the period of parole ineligibility shall be for 10 years, but this can be ousted by the sentencing judge's determination that, according to the criteria set out in s. 745.4, the offender should wait a longer period before having their suitability for release assessed. The determination of the parole ineligibility period is "a very fact-sensitive process": R. v. Shropshire, 1995 47 (SCC), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 227, at para. 18. The sliding scale of parole ineligibility reflects the fact that "within second degree murder there is both a range of seriousness and varying degrees of moral culpability": Shropshire, at para. 31.

23An increased parole ineligibility period does not require unusual circumstances: Shropshire, at paras. 26 to 27.

24In R. v. McKnight (1999), 1999 3717 (ON CA), 135 C.C.C (3d) 41 (Ont. C.A.), the Court of Appeal held that in assessing the s. 745.4 criteria and deciding whether to increase the period of parole ineligibility, all of the objectives of sentencing are relevant. Those objectives, as set out in s. 718, are denunciation of unlawful conduct and the harm done, deterrence both general and specific, the separation of offenders from society where necessary, rehabilitation, reparation for harm done to the victim or to the community, and promotion of a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community. The court observed in McKnight, however, that the statutory 10 year minimum ineligibility period limits the weight that can be accorded to the offender's prospects of rehabilitation.

25Regardless of the period of parole ineligibility imposed, the sentence remains one of life imprisonment. The sentencing judge does not decide when the offender should be paroled, but merely the period that must be served before parole can even be considered: R. v. Trudeau (1987), 24 O.A.C. 376.

The Position of the Parties:

26The Crown submits that an appropriate period of parole ineligibility in this case is 18 years. The Crown also seeks the following ancillary orders: a section 109 order for life, a DNA order, and a no contact order under section 743.21 with respect to any member of the Acquaviva, Severiano, or Scerbo family; the young person J.B.G.; Jermaine Andrews; Joshua Farmer and Deana Hynes

27The Defence submits that an appropriate period of parole ineligibility is 14-16 years. The Defence does not take issue with the ancillary orders sought by the Crown.

The Relevant Case Law:

28In R. v. Lemieux, 2025 ONSC 3185, a 25-year-old with a criminal record was convicted of second-degree murder for shooting a victim in a residential neighborhood. The trial judge imposed a life sentence with 16 years of parole ineligibility, considering the seriousness of the offence, the use of a firearm, the presence of children, and the accused's difficult upbringing, youth, and potential for rehabilitation.

29In R. v. Hayles-Wilson, 2018 ONSC 4337, the accused was convicted of second-degree murder for a public shooting outside a community center during a basketball tournament. The trial judge imposed a life sentence with 15 years of parole ineligibility, balancing the mitigating factors including the offender’s youth, lack of criminal record and family support with the aggravating factors including the degree of planning, the fact that this was a public shooting, and the offender’s gang association. The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as the most important sentencing principles for gun-related crimes.

30The parties agree that the ranges of parole ineligibility outlined by Justice Code in Hayles-Wilson, for murders committed with firearms in some degree of public places with others present or nearby are instructive in determining an appropriate period of parole ineligibility in this case. The parties agree that a parole ineligibility period at the lower end of the range (12 years) is not appropriate in this case.

31In R. v. Grant, (2016), 2016 ONCA 639, 342 C.C.C. (3d) 514 the Ontario Court of Appeal imposed a period of parole ineligibility of 14 years. The offender in Grant, fired thirteen shots from one car into another moving vehicle killing one person and injuring three others. There were elements of provocation on the part of the victims. The offender was found to have excellent prospects for rehabilitation.

32In R. v. Doucette, (2015), 2015 ONCA 583, 328 C.C.C. (3d) 211 (Ont. C.A.), the offender, who regularly carried a loaded firearm, shot the victim after waiting outside a bar for him to emerge. An innocent bystander was also hit. The Court of Appeal upheld a 15 year period of parole ineligibility.

33In R. v. Danvers, 2005 CarswellOnt 3808, the offender shot and killed a security guard at a night club after being told to leave the club. The Court of Appeal found the murder to be “motiveless, impulsive and senseless.” The offender was 19 years old and had a serious criminal record. The Court of Appeal held that a 15 year period of parole ineligibility was appropriate.

34In R. v. Monney, 2016 ONCA 639, after a history of animosity between young men in rival neighbourhoods, both accused fired at and shot the victim outside his apartment building. Both offenders were gang members. There were elements of planning and both offenders had criminal records. Parole ineligibility of 15 years was set for both.

35In R. v. John, 2011 ONSC 3393, the offender shot and killed the victim during an attempted robbery on a busy street during an annual celebration. The offender was 19 years old with a significant youth and criminal record. At the time of the offence he was breaching his bail conditions and in violation of a weapons prohibition. Once again, the court imposed a period of parole ineligibility of 15 years.

36In R. v. Stewart, 2008 70846 (ON SC), [2008] O.J. No. 5449, the offender and victim were both drug dealers and gang members. The offender shot and killed the victim in a crowded downtown Toronto area after the annual Caribana parade. The offender was 23 years old and routinely carried a loaded firearm. He had a criminal record. The trial judge imposed a period of parole ineligibility of 16 years.

37Justice Code in Hayles-Wilson also outlined a number of cases where parole ineligibility was set at 18-22 years, describing these cases as ones where semi-automatic weapons were used, multiple people were shot and wounded, the offenders had lengthy records for violence and little to no possibility of rehabilitation. R. v. Weese, 2016 ONCA 449; R. v. Chambers, 2018 ONSC 2070; R. v. Belic (2008), 76 W.C.B. (2d) 508 (Ont. S.C.J.); and R. v. Sarrazin, 2000 CarswellOnt 5078 (Ont. S.C.J.).

The Mitigating and Aggravating Factors:

38There are mitigating factors in this case. I have considered the fact that Mr. Goodman is a young black man who had a difficult and unstable upbringing and who was subjected to systemic anti-black racism.

39In R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, a 26-year-old Black male convicted of possession of a loaded firearm was initially sentenced to 1 day imprisonment and 18 months' probation, considering systemic anti-Black racism. The Ontario Court of Appeal increased the sentence to two years less one day imprisonment followed by probation, emphasizing the seriousness of the offense and the need for denunciation and deterrence despite the offender’s background. The Court acknowledged that systemic racism is a factor to be considered along with all other circumstances in fashioning a fit sentence.

40Mr. Goodman has been diagnosed with PTSD following an incident where he was shot and seriously injured.

41Undoubtedly, the instability of his upbringing, the systemic anti-black racism and the traumatic event of being shot contributed to the path that led him to a life of drug dealing and criminality. I have considered these as mitigating factors in this case. I have also considered the inhumane conditions at the Central East Correctional Centre Mr. Goodman endured for much of his time in pre-trial custody as a mitigating factor.

42When asked if he had anything he wanted to say in advance of sentencing, Mr. Goodman expressed remorse for what he had done, speaking directly to Anthony’s family.

43There are also many aggravating factors in this case. The impact on Anthony’s family, as I have already acknowledged is staggering. Their grief and loss are immense. In particular, Anthony’s sister Sabrina witnessed her brother being shot and bravely sought to stop his attackers while trying to get help to save her brother’s life. The fact that Mr. Goodman fired a gun five times in near proximity to Ms. Acquaviva as well as in a residential neighbourhood at 6:00 p.m. with many people out and about and the potential for others to be hurt or killed is highly aggravating.

44Mr. Goodman was carrying a handgun. He always carried a handgun. He says this was for protection. Having experienced the trauma of being shot himself, Mr. Goodman, of all people, should have known better. He did not make the wise decision to leave the violent criminal subculture but instead chose to immerse himself in it. Despite his background and the factors I have already mentioned that undoubtedly contributed to leading him down this path, on that February night he still had a choice. Shortly before the murder, he proudly showed off this firearm to his companions by taking a selfie-type video on his cell phone.

45He showed up to meet with Anthony carrying a deadly weapon. It did not take much for him to use that weapon as it was intended to be used. Even though Anthony displayed no aggression towards him, it seems that the bravado of carrying a firearm led Mr. Goodman to shoot him. Not just to shoot him, but to make sure he killed him.

46Through the efforts of Mr. Goodman to transfer it, this deadly weapon remains outstanding.

47Unlike some of the cases I have cited, there was no provocation on the part of Anthony Acquaviva. At all times he was on the defensive, putting his hands up and backing away when the shooting started.

48As stated, Mr. Goodman has a youth and criminal record. He was found guilty of breaching conditions of a recognizance 7 times; robbery 3 times; theft of property under $5000 and possession of stolen property under $5000.

49Mr. Goodman was on court orders not to possess weapons. Obviously, those court orders were meaningless to him as he admittedly willingly violated them at almost all times. I can imagine the frustration to the members of the public and of course to Anthony’s family that these court orders were only worth the paper they were written on. Meaningless. Particularly aggravating is that the very day Anthony was murdered, Mr. Goodman stood before a court and was sentenced to probation. Perhaps with a track record for breaching court orders like Mr. Goodman had at the time, it should have been obvious that the terms of that probation, including keeping the peace and being of good behaviour, would have meant nothing to him. Indeed they did not. I find it highly aggravating that Mr. Goodman was breaching court orders when he murdered Anthony. I also find that his demonstrated wanton disregard for promises to the court speaks poorly towards his prospects for rehabilitation.

Conclusion:

50Having considered the aggravating and mitigating facts as outlined above, in particular the senseless and unprovoked nature of the crime in a public place in the face of court orders, one of which was imposed that day, balanced against Mr. Goodman’s difficult upbringing, and harsh time spent in pre-trial custody, I find that an appropriate period of time before Mr. Goodman can apply for parole is 17 years.

51I am departing from the 14-16 year “mid-range” suggested in Hayles-Wilson despite Mr. Goodman’s youth and the mitigating factors discussed above, given Mr. Goodman’s demonstrated failure to abide by court orders, the other aggravating factors present in this case and my finding that Mr. Goodman’s prospects for rehabilitation are low. Denunciation and deterrence must be the paramount sentencing factors in this case.

52I hope that Mr. Goodman takes whatever programming is available to him to gain insight into the senseless and violent nature of his actions. He is a young man, who has the opportunity to turn his life around should he make a concerted and persistent effort to do so.

53Mr. Goodman will you please stand.

54I sentence you as follows:

55For the second degree murder of Anthony Acquaviva I sentence you to life in prison with no possibility of parole for 17 years.

56I am also imposing the following ancillary orders:

57There will be an order that you provide a sample of your DNA.

58There will be a section 109 order for life.

59Pursuant to section 743.21 I order you to have no contact directly or indirectly with any member of the Acquaviva, Severiano, or Scerbo family; J.B.G.; Jermaine Andrews; Joshua Farmer and Deana Hynes.

Justice J. Cameron

Released: January 6, 2026