ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
David D’Iorio, for the Crown
- and -
ELIJAH KERRIDGE-LALL
Alonzo Abbey, for Mr. Kerridge-Lall
HEARD: September 23, and November 25, 2025, January 19, and 20, 2026
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Stribopoulos J:
Introduction
1On September 23, 2025, Mr. Kerridge-Lall pleaded guilty to robbery and to unlawfully possessing a loaded prohibited firearm. A sentencing hearing was scheduled, and a pre-sentence report was ordered.
2It was anticipated that sentencing would proceed by way of a joint submission, with the only potentially contested issue being the extent of the credit Mr. Kerridge-Lall should receive for the time he spent in pre-sentence custody at the Maplehurst Correctional Complex.
3On November 25, 2025—the date initially scheduled for sentencing—defence counsel advised that, since the guilty pleas, he had learned of an incident said to have occurred in the Brampton courthouse cells in late May 2025, during Mr. Kerridge-Lall’s preliminary inquiry.
4Mr. Kerridge-Lall claims that, on the morning of May 28, 2025, a special constable responsible for prisoners at the courthouse used excessive force against him. He seeks a reduction in the sentence that would otherwise be imposed as a result: see R. v. Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 206, at paras. 3, 47, and 55. The Crown contests the factual basis for that claim. As a result, the sentencing hearing required the court to adjudicate Mr. Kerridge-Lall’s excessive-force allegation.
5During the hearing, video recordings from multiple cameras in the courthouse cells, capturing the relevant events of May 28, 2025, were played and replayed and admitted into evidence. The court also heard evidence from several witnesses, including Mr. Kerridge-Lall, his mother, and three special constables who interacted with him that morning. Finally, with the parties’ consent, an audio recording of an interview conducted by Peel Regional Police Internal Affairs with the special constable alleged to have used excessive force was admitted as an exhibit.
6These reasons proceed in four parts. First, they set out the circumstances of the offences. Second, they summarize Mr. Kerridge-Lall’s personal circumstances. Third, they assess the excessive-force allegation. Finally, they address the appropriate sentence, having regard to all the circumstances.
I. The Circumstances of the Offences
7In pleading guilty, Mr. Kerridge-Lall admitted that on January 6, 2024, he participated in a gunpoint robbery at a residence in Brampton. The incident was captured on video surveillance. During the robbery, at least one of the assailants brandished a firearm at the victim, and the victim’s vehicle, a 2016 Dodge Charger, was stolen.
8The stolen vehicle was equipped with a tracker, and police received information the following day that it was located at another address in Brampton. While police were in the area conducting surveillance, they encountered a group of individuals who fled when approached, including Mr. Kerridge-Lall.
9Mr. Kerridge-Lall was arrested after a foot pursuit. At the time of his arrest, he was wearing a backpack that, when searched, was found to contain a loaded Romarm Mini Draco semi-automatic 7.62×39 mm pistol, a prohibited firearm. The firearm had an obliterated serial number and a detachable box magazine containing 30 rounds of ammunition. The magazine was a prohibited device. Mr. Kerridge-Lall was not legally authorized to possess any of these items.
10The Crown advised that the victim of the robbery declined to provide a victim impact statement.
II. The Circumstances of the Offender
11The court obtained considerable insight into Mr. Kerridge-Lall’s circumstances from a court-ordered Pre-Sentence Report (“PSR”), as well as an Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report (“EPSR”) that defence counsel later obtained and filed.
12Mr. Kerridge-Lall is now 23 years old. He was 21 when he committed the offences for which he is being sentenced. At the time of his offences, he had neither a youth nor an adult record, although he has since received a conditional discharge for breaching the terms of a release order.
13Mr. Kerridge-Lall is Black. He was born in Toronto. His parents met in high school and were together for approximately one year after his birth. He has an older maternal half-brother and ten paternal half-siblings, three of whom died tragically in a motor vehicle accident in 2022.
14Mr. Kerridge-Lall was raised primarily by his mother, with both grandmothers also playing a role in his upbringing. During his early years, his father was largely absent from his life, he was frequently in custody and made little effort to see him when he was not. Mr. Kerridge-Lall’s principal male role model during his formative years was his paternal grandfather, with whom he had a close relationship. However, his grandfather died when Mr. Kerridge-Lall was 13.
15Although Mr. Kerridge-Lall’s mother raised him in a loving and supportive environment, she struggled to make ends meet, in part because his father did not contribute financially to his upbringing. Until age 16, Mr. Kerridge-Lall lived with his mother in Brampton, in a neighbourhood unfortunately affected by high levels of crime, including drug trafficking and gun violence.
16When Mr. Kerridge-Lall was 16, he and his mother moved to Whitby, where they lived in a more middle-class neighbourhood where crime was far less prevalent.
17However, after the move, Mr. Kerridge-Lall was able to drive and began spending more time with his father and paternal cousins in Toronto. They lived in subsidized housing communities where criminal activity was also prevalent, and Mr. Kerridge-Lall spent considerable time in those neighbourhoods with his cousins.
18In the Brampton neighbourhood where he grew up, and in the Toronto neighbourhoods where he spent time with his cousins, Mr. Kerridge-Lall reports frequent exposure to firearms and violence, including witnessing a shooting when he was just 13. He also reports losing family members and several friends to gun violence. He says these experiences normalized firearms for him and led him to believe he needed one for self-protection.
19Mr. Kerridge-Lall reports that drug use was common among his peers. He began using cannabis at age 13, and by age 16, he was experimenting with other substances, including Percocet, MDMA, and “lean” (a mixture of prescription-strength cough medicine and soft drinks).
20Mr. Kerridge-Lall struggled in elementary school, and his progress was affected by behavioural issues. He was ultimately diagnosed with ADHD and prescribed medication, but he discontinued it due to its side effects. He had an individual education plan from middle school onward.
21Mr. Kerridge-Lall attended high schools in Brampton, Mississauga, and Whitby. He reports that a negative experience with a white teacher in grade 9 contributed to a lasting distrust of teachers. He said the teacher yelled at him and told him, “You are not going to do shit,” which he perceived as racially motivated.
22In high school, Mr. Kerridge-Lall took courses in the applied stream, despite his mother encouraging him to pursue academic courses. He was frequently suspended for fighting, which likely contributed to his attending as many as six different high schools. Nevertheless, and to his significant credit, Mr. Kerridge-Lall graduated from high school. He also received academic and sports awards, as well as a most improved student award.
23In his later high school years, Mr. Kerridge-Lall held several jobs. After graduating, he briefly enrolled in a trades program at Durham College. He also obtained employment as a porter at a Toronto hospital, and his mother reports that he was doing well during that period.
24Mr. Kerridge-Lall’s life took a sudden turn for the worse following the tragic death of three of his younger siblings in a car accident on August 20, 2022. He reports that this loss affected him profoundly. In its aftermath, he began using Percocet daily, in a misguided and harmful attempt to cope with his grief. In the period leading up to the offences, it appears that he was directionless and hopeless.
25Mr. Kerridge-Lall reported repeated negative encounters with police, including being carded and being stopped and searched without justification. He said these incidents became more frequent during his teenage years, with officers claiming he “matched the description” based only on being Black. He also expressed frustration that police repeatedly searched his vehicle on the pretext that they smelled cannabis, despite his report that he never smoked cannabis in his car and that police never found any cannabis during these searches. In his view, these experiences were the result of anti-Black racism. He further stated that police treat Black people more harshly than white people in comparable circumstances, contributing to his mistrust of police and his efforts to avoid contact with them.
26In his statements to the authors of the PSR and EPSR, Mr. Kerridge-Lall accepted responsibility for his participation in the robbery and expressed remorse for his actions and the harm caused to the victim. With respect to his firearm offences, Mr. Kerridge-Lall stated that he believed his life would be in danger unless he had a gun, citing the violent deaths of people he has known by way of explanation.
III. The Excessive Force Claim
27Mr. Kerridge-Lall’s preliminary inquiry into the charges that are the subject of this proceeding took place at the Brampton Courthouse in late May 2025. On the third day of his preliminary inquiry, May 28, 2025, at approximately 8:18 a.m., following his arrival at the courthouse, Mr. Kerridge-Lall was placed in a holding cell along with three other prisoners.
28Within minutes of being placed in the holding cell, Mr. Kerridge-Lall became involved in a fight with another prisoner. He had been involved in an altercation in the courthouse cells the previous day and testified that the prisoner he fought on May 28 was acquainted with the individuals involved in that earlier incident. Surveillance video from the holding cell shows Mr. Kerridge-Lall and the other prisoner exchanging words before the other man quickly approached with his fists raised and threw the first punch.
29The fight was short-lived. Within 45 seconds, a special constable arrived at the holding cell and pepper-sprayed both Mr. Kerridge-Lall and the other prisoner. Mr. Kerridge-Lall and the other man immediately separated and raised their hands to shield their faces from the spray. Several other special constables then arrived at the cell.
30The door to the holding cell was opened, and Mr. Kerridge-Lall was then directed to come to the door, which he did. Once there, Special Constable Ashton Moore took his left arm, and Special Constable Carlos Santos took his right arm.
31Special Constable Moore used one of his hands to push Mr. Kerridge-Lall’s head forward while using his other hand to hold Mr. Kerridge-Lall’s left arm behind his back. Special Constable Santos secured Mr. Kerridge-Lall’s right arm behind his back, in what he described as an “arm-lock” and “wrist-hold.”
32With Mr. Kerridge-Lall’s head bent forward and his arms secured behind his back with his elbows bent, the officers escorted him, hunched at the waist, toward an isolation cell, where he would be held separately because of the fight. Special Constable Silva Russo followed and, moments before Mr. Kerridge-Lall was placed inside, unlocked and opened the isolation cell door.
33There was conflicting evidence as to whether Mr. Kerridge-Lall physically resisted the officers during the escort and in the moments before he was placed in the isolation cell, what, if anything, was said between Mr. Kerridge-Lall and the officers during the escort, and whether Special Constable Santos kneed Mr. Kerridge-Lall in the face immediately before he was placed in the isolation cell.
Testimony of Mr. Kerridge-Lall
34Mr. Kerridge-Lall testified that he cooperated with the officers that morning. He noted that, after the fight ended with the use of pepper spray, he immediately complied with the direction to come to the cell door, and he maintained that he “did not fight or anything” as the officers escorted him to the isolation cell.
35During cross-examination by the Crown, Mr. Kerridge-Lall was played one of the recordings showing him exiting the holding cell as Special Constables Santos and Moore each took hold of him. Mr. Kerridge-Lall agreed that, as that was happening, he could be seen momentarily laughing and smiling, and also saying something.
36Mr. Kerridge-Lall testified that he tends to laugh and smile as a coping mechanism in difficult situations “to kind of play things off.” Further, he testified that all he said was, “I am not resisting.” He denied the suggestion that he said something like “I love this,” or “I love this stuff,” or anything along those lines.
37As they walked him to the isolation cell, Mr. Kerridge-Lall testified that the way in which the officers were holding him hurt, and he told them as much, and also said, “I am not resisting.” He did not remember the officers saying anything to him as they escorted him through the corridors toward the isolation cell.
38Just outside the isolation cell door, Mr. Kerridge-Lall testified that one of the officers said to him: “You fucking niggers are crazy.” That officer then kneed him in the face just before he was pushed into the isolation cell. Mr. Kerridge-Lall testified that the “bony part” of the officer’s knee made “hard” contact with the area around his right eye and cheekbone.
39A short time later, another female officer happened past the isolation cell. Mr. Kerridge-Lall testified that he complained to that officer about what had happened to him, including that the officers had twisted his arms, uttered a racial slur, and kneed him in the face. He further testified that nothing came of that complaint. A video recording of the isolation cell corroborates that, within minutes, Mr. Kerridge-Lall spoke with another female officer who passed by. During that interaction, he appears to voice his complaint and to demonstrate it by placing his arms behind his back, lifting his knee and then gesturing toward his face.
40Mr. Kerridge-Lall acknowledged that when he was brought into court later that same morning, he did not complain about what had taken place in the cells to the presiding judge or his lawyer. He testified that an injury to his face only became apparent later, and that the area on his face where he was struck developed swelling and a bruise.
41During cross-examination, Mr. Kerridge-Lall disagreed with the suggestion that he only raised what he alleged had occurred after an injury he might have suffered was no longer visible. He testified that he told his mother about it during a phone call soon afterward.
42Mr. Kerridge-Lall’s mother testified. She works as a Registered Nurse at Princess Margaret Hospital. She testified that a few days after her son’s preliminary inquiry, he complained about experiencing pain in his face, and said he was kneed in the face. When she pressed him about how that happened, he eventually told her a guard at the courthouse had done it.1 The following week, when she visited him at the detention centre, she testified that she observed some discolouration on his cheek beneath his eye – consistent with a bruise.
Testimony of Special Constable Santos
43Special Constable Santos testified that Mr. Kerridge-Lall resisted throughout the escort. He described Mr. Kerridge-Lall as squirming, slowing his pace, and continuing to struggle despite repeated commands to “stop resisting.”
44During cross-examination by the Crown, he adopted a portion of the statement he gave to Internal Affairs, that during the escort, Mr. Kerridge-Lall had said: “Fuck you guys, you can’t - you guys can’t do nothing to me.”
45Special Constable Santos testified that throughout the escort, he used only the force that was necessary to maintain control over Mr. Kerridge-Lall and to move him through the corridors toward the isolation cell.
46With respect to the moments immediately before Mr. Kerridge-Lall was placed in the isolation cell, Special Constable Santos testified that, as officers were positioning Mr. Kerridge-Lall to place him in the cell, he felt he was losing control of Mr. Kerridge-Lall’s arm and that Mr. Kerridge-Lall was grabbing his wrist or forearm. He said Mr. Kerridge-Lall leaned toward Special Constable Moore and, given Mr. Kerridge-Lall’s recent involvement in a fight, he was concerned that if control was lost, Mr. Kerridge-Lall might turn and strike either him or Special Constable Moore.
47Special Constable Santos testified that, in response, he struck Mr. Kerridge-Lall’s shoulder area using his thigh, with the intent of distracting him so that he could regain control over him, so that they could place Mr. Kerridge-Lall into the isolation cell. He maintained that he did not intend to strike Mr. Kerridge-Lall in the face and denied doing so. On his account, the strike was used to maintain control long enough to complete placement in the cell.
48Special Constable Santos denied swearing at Mr. Kerridge-Lall or using any racial slur. He testified that once Mr. Kerridge-Lall was placed in the isolation cell, he yelled and swore at the officers. Special Constable Santos said he checked on Mr. Kerridge-Lall approximately ten minutes later, and that Mr. Kerridge-Lall appeared fine and said he was.
49Special Constable Santos acknowledged that he did not complete a use-of-force report or make contemporaneous notes. He explained that he did not view the incident as a “use of force” at the time, though he accepted that, in hindsight, he should have completed such a report.
Testimony of Special Constable Moore
50Special Constable Moore testified that after the fight between Mr. Kerridge-Lall and another prisoner, he and Special Constable Santos escorted him to an isolation cell. He described the control hold used during the escort as a standard method employed in the aftermath of a fight, particularly where there is no opportunity to apply handcuffs before moving a prisoner.
51On his account, the escort posed no real difficulty. Special Constable Moore explained that the technique used—moving a prisoner with the arms secured behind the back and the head directed forward—requires the escorting officers to continually make adjustments as they guide the prisoner from either side, which can make it difficult to walk in a straight line.
52Special Constable Moore did not regard the escort as problematic. He testified that if there had been genuine difficulty, they would have stopped and called for additional officers.
53Special Constable Moore did not have a clear recollection of Mr. Kerridge-Lall saying anything during the escort, though he believed Mr. Kerridge-Lall may have said something along the lines of “I love this,” or “I love this shit.” He also did not recall any specific comments being directed at Mr. Kerridge-Lall during the escort and denied hearing any racial slurs. He testified that if anything was said, it would likely have been a directive such as “stop messing around,” or words to that effect.
54Finally, Special Constable Moore did not recall Special Constable Santos saying at any point that he was losing control of Mr. Kerridge-Lall. Nor did he recall a knee strike or compliance strike being used, or any discussion with Special Constable Santos afterward about a strike having occurred.
Testimony of Special Constable Russo
55Special Constable Russo initially testified that she did not recall Mr. Kerridge-Lall causing any difficulty during the escort to the isolation cell.
56When she was later shown the video of the moments immediately before Mr. Kerridge-Lall was placed in the cell, she agreed that it depicts Special Constable Santos making a kneeing motion toward Mr. Kerridge-Lall. However, she testified that it did not appear to her that Special Constable Santos made contact with Mr. Kerridge-Lall, that his leg appeared simply to go “in the air.”
57Special Constable Russo explained that events unfolded quickly at the cell door and that, at the time, her attention was on unlocking and opening the door. As a result, at that time, she did not observe what is depicted in the video recording.
58After viewing the recording, Special Constable Russo’s description of the escort also changed. She testified that Mr. Kerridge-Lall was “pretty wild,” “aggressive,” and “not cooperative” throughout the escort, and that he was not walking “like normal.”
59Finally, Special Constable Russo testified that if she had observed a fellow officer knee a prisoner in the face, she would have regarded that as improper and would have addressed it with the officer, made notes, and checked on the prisoner’s well-being. She did not take any of those steps regarding this incident.
The video recordings and the court’s findings
60The video recordings from the various cameras in the courthouse cells area on May 28, 2025 provide the most reliable evidence of the events at issue. They capture what took place in the cells that morning and, in that respect, serve as “a constant, unbiased witness with instant and total recall of all that [the cameras] observed”: R. v. Nikolovski, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1197, at para. 21.
61The recordings inform the court’s assessment of the viva voce evidence. Where the video recordings clearly depict the relevant events, I rely on them to resolve conflicts in the testimony. At the same time, where the recordings do not clearly capture a particular detail, I recognize the need for caution before relying on them to resolve conflicts in the witness evidence.
62Based on the video recordings of Mr. Kerridge-Lall’s movements immediately after he exited the holding cell where the fight occurred, I find that he was not fully cooperative at the outset of the officers’ efforts to escort him. The video shows that, although Mr. Kerridge-Lall went to the cell door when directed, he appeared to remain agitated in the immediate aftermath of the altercation. When officers first attempted to secure his arms, the footage shows some initial, albeit limited, resistance, consistent with a person who had not yet fully settled down following a fight.
63That said, once the officers had secured Mr. Kerridge-Lall’s arms behind his back, the recordings of the escort toward the isolation cell do not support a finding of sustained resistance by him. The footage depicts an escort that is inherently awkward in its mechanics, requiring continuous adjustments by the officers as they move a hunched prisoner, with his arms locked behind his back, through the corridors. I therefore find that any resistance shown at the outset was brief and did not persist throughout the escort.
64In that regard, the recordings are consistent with Special Constable Moore’s description of the escort and with Special Constable Russo’s initial evidence that there was nothing particularly problematic about it. To the extent Special Constable Santos described sustained resistance during the escort, I do not accept that characterization because it is not supported by the video recordings.
65I reach a similar conclusion regarding Special Constable Santos’ evidence that he repeatedly directed Mr. Kerridge-Lall to “stop resisting” during the escort. The video does not corroborate that claim; notably, his mouth does not appear to be moving in any of the recordings during the escort. In addition, Special Constable Moore had no recollection of any such directions being given, and Special Constable Santos’ account is difficult to reconcile with Special Constable Moore’s evidence that there was nothing problematic about the escort, evidence that I accept without reservation.
66The most significant events occur at the isolation-cell door, in the moments immediately before Mr. Kerridge-Lall was placed inside. Special Constable Santos testified that, at that point, he felt he was losing control of Mr. Kerridge-Lall, who was shifting his weight toward Special Constable Moore while also grabbing at his wrist or forearm. He said he delivered a thigh strike to Mr. Kerridge-Lall’s shoulder to distract him, regain control, and ensure officer safety.
67The video does not corroborate an apparent loss of control at the door. What it shows is the officers repositioning their bodies to turn Mr. Kerridge-Lall and orient him for placement into the cell. Mr. Kerridge-Lall’s body position and the officers’ movements are consistent with the mechanics of guiding and turning a hunched prisoner, with both arms locked behind him, through the doorway, rather than a response to any apparent resistance at that moment. I acknowledge that the camera angle—positioned behind Special Constable Santos—does not reveal every detail of hand placement; however, on the record before me, I reject Special Constable Santos’ claim that he felt he was losing control of Mr. Kerridge-Lall and struck him to regain control over him.
68The video also bears directly on the location of the strike. Special Constable Santos maintained that he struck Mr. Kerridge-Lall on the shoulder with his thigh. From the camera angle, the precise point of contact cannot be seen clearly. Nevertheless, the video shows Special Constable Santos bending and quickly raising his right leg when Mr. Kerridge-Lall’s head would have been immediately above his knee. Almost simultaneously, Mr. Kerridge-Lall’s head moves upward and his braids fly up. In my view, what the recording shows is more consistent with Special Constable Santos kneeing Mr. Kerridge-Lall in the face than striking him on the shoulder. I therefore reject Special Constable Santos’ evidence that he struck Mr. Kerridge-Lall on the shoulder with his thigh.
69On a balance of probabilities, and having regard to what is depicted in the video together with the evidence as a whole, I accept Mr. Kerridge-Lall’s evidence that he was struck in the face by Special Constable Santos’ knee in the moments immediately before he was placed in the isolation cell. The screenshots taken from the relevant recording (see Appendix A) depict the movements immediately preceding, coinciding with, and following the strike. They assist in illustrating why the video evidence is more consistent with Mr. Kerridge-Lall’s account than with Special Constable Santos’ description of a shoulder strike.
70While I am mindful of the difficult work performed daily by officers responsible for prisoner transport, and of the challenges they face in managing individuals in custody who may be struggling with mental illness, are often dysregulated, and sometimes even violent, those realities do not relieve them of their obligation to use force only when reasonably necessary, and only to the extent proportionate to any threat an inmate may pose to them or others: see Criminal Code, s. 25(1); see also Nasogaluak, at paras. 33–34
71Based on the video evidence, I am satisfied that a strike was not reasonably necessary in the moments before Mr. Kerridge-Lall was placed in the isolation cell, let alone a strike to the face with the officer’s knee. At that point, the officers appeared to have physical control over him. In those circumstances, a strike to the head or face cannot reasonably be justified as necessary or proportionate. On the evidence before me, it was unnecessary and excessive. In short, it was an entirely unwarranted and gratuitous use of force.
72More difficult to adjudicate is Mr. Kerridge-Lall’s allegation that a racial slur was uttered immediately before the strike. The video has no audio. Special Constable Moore, who was in close proximity, testified that he did not hear a racial slur. Given that Mr. Kerridge-Lall downplayed the resistance he offered at the outset of the escort, and in the absence of reliable corroboration, I am unable to conclude, on a balance of probabilities, that a racial slur was uttered at that time.
73In the moments immediately before Mr. Kerridge-Lall was placed in the isolation cell, Special Constable Santos, together with Special Constable Moore, was attempting to turn him. The video shows that Special Constable Santos’ feet were not firmly planted on the ground before he delivered the knee strike. As a result, the strike was not delivered with significant force and, fortunately, did not cause a more serious injury. Nevertheless, I accept Mr. Kerridge-Lall’s evidence that he later developed swelling and bruising where he was struck. I also accept, without reservation, his mother’s evidence that, when she saw him the following week, she observed discolouration on his cheek beneath his eye consistent with a bruise.
74This conclusion is reinforced by defence counsel’s representation that, when Mr. Kerridge-Lall was brought into the courtroom on the morning of May 28, 2025, counsel observed some redness on his face. At the time, Mr. Abbey indicated that he initially wondered whether the redness might have been the result of an allergic reaction, given that he had arranged for Mr. Kerridge-Lall to receive a meal from the courthouse cafeteria the day before. To Mr. D’Iorio’s credit, he rightly accepted Mr. Abbey’s representation as an officer of the court: see R. v. Dunnett, 2025 ONCA 3921, 177 O.R. (3d) 430, at para. 35, leave to appeal to SCC refused, January 29, 2026.
IV. The Appropriate Sentence
75The parties have made a joint submission. They propose a global sentence of four years’ imprisonment, less credit for Mr. Kerridge-Lall’s pre-sentence custody, including any enhanced credit the court determines to be appropriate in light of the conditions at the Maplehurst Correctional Complex during his detention there.
76The parties also agree that, if the court finds Mr. Kerridge-Lall was subjected to an excessive use of force in the courthouse cells on May 28, 2025, that finding should be treated as a mitigating factor reducing the sentence that would otherwise be imposed.
The joint submission
77Judges may depart from a joint submission only where the proposed sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or otherwise be contrary to the public interest: see R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204. In my view, the joint submission in this case does neither.
78The gravity of Mr. Kerridge-Lall’s offences is difficult to overstate. He participated in a gunpoint robbery in which the victim’s vehicle was stolen. He also unlawfully possessed a loaded prohibited firearm with an obliterated serial number and an overcapacity magazine, itself a prohibited device. The use of a firearm in the robbery is undoubtedly a very significant aggravating factor. In that regard, Mr. Kerridge-Lall is fortunate that the Crown did not proceed on a charge of robbery with a firearm, which would have attracted a five-year mandatory minimum sentence: see Criminal Code, s. 344(1)(a)(i).
79These are offences for which the Court of Appeal has repeatedly emphasized the need for exemplary sentences that prioritize denunciation and deterrence. A global sentence of four years’ imprisonment is significant. It reflects the gravity of Mr. Kerridge-Lall’s misconduct and more than adequately addresses the sentencing objectives that predominate in this case.
80At the same time, the proposed sentence properly accounts for the significant mitigating factors in this case, including Mr. Kerridge-Lall’s youth, his status at the time as a first offender, his guilty pleas, and his acceptance of responsibility.
81In addition, the EPSR leads me to conclude that anti-Black racism contributed, to some extent, to the social and educational constraints Mr. Kerridge-Lall experienced that influenced his worldview and the choices he made. While these considerations do not excuse his serious crimes, they assist in gauging his degree of responsibility for their commission and somewhat attenuate his level of moral culpability: see R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, 159 O.R. (3d) 641, at paras. 76, 99–101, 105–107, 123.
82Having regard to all the circumstances of the offences and the offender, the purposes and principles of sentencing, the applicable sentencing ranges, and the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, I am satisfied that the jointly proposed sentence is fit and appropriate.
The credit for pre-sentence custody
83As of today, Mr. Kerridge-Lall has spent 758 days in pre-sentence custody. At a minimum, he is entitled to credit at the statutorily prescribed rate of 1.5 days for each day served: see Criminal Code, ss. 719(3), 719(3.1); R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 575.
84Mr. Kerridge-Lall has spent most of his pre-sentence custody at the Maplehurst Correctional Complex. Records filed indicate that, as of January 19, 2026, while at Maplehurst, he was “triple-bunked” (three inmates housed in a cell designed for two) for 370 days, spent 182 days in full lockdown, and 50 days subject to partial lockdown.
85Beyond those records, Mr. Kerridge-Lall testified about the impact of triple-bunking and lockdowns, as well as the unhygienic conditions he experienced at Maplehurst. Although he acknowledged being involved in numerous fights with other inmates while held there, he attributed those incidents to the conditions of confinement and the tensions they create among inmates.
86Given the records and Mr. Kerridge-Lall’s evidence, I am satisfied that he is entitled to enhanced credit for his time at Maplehurst. Ordinarily, that would be treated as a mitigating factor in determining a fit sentence: see R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754, at paras. 6–7. However, because the parties have advanced a joint submission, it is necessary to quantify the enhanced credit for the conditions at Maplehurst in calculating Mr. Kerridge-Lall’s remaining sentence.
87Accordingly, I credit Mr. Kerridge-Lall as follows for the 758 days of pre-sentence custody. For 388 days, he will receive credit at 1.5 days for each day served, for a total of 582 days. For the 370 days during which he was subject to triple-bunking and related conditions at Maplehurst, he will receive credit at 2 days for each day served, for a total of 740 days. In all, Mr. Kerridge-Lall is entitled to 1,322 days of credit, the equivalent of just over 43 months. On a four-year (48-month) global sentence, that would ordinarily leave approximately 138 days (about 4½ months) remaining to serve.
The credit for being subject to an excessive use of force
88The case law does not provide a formula for determining the appropriate sentencing reduction for state misconduct, such as the excessive use of force by a police or correctional officer against an offender. However, as I noted in an earlier decision, “a review of the case law suggests there are two key determinants — the effects of the misconduct on the offender and the nature and extent of the state misconduct”: R. v. McAlpine, 2024 ONSC 797, 548 C.R.R. (2d) 53, at para. 90; see also paras. 91–95.
89In this case, the physical injury to Mr. Kerridge-Lall was, fortunately, relatively minor: he experienced some swelling and facial bruising. However, both the nature and extent of the state misconduct were significant. The knee strike was entirely unjustified. Having viewed the recording several times, I am left with the distinct impression that it was delivered as a form of summary punishment—a parting shot immediately before Mr. Kerridge-Lall was placed in the isolation cell—ostensibly to punish him for his misconduct in the courthouse cells.
90In all the circumstances, I conclude that the knee strike to Mr. Kerridge-Lall’s face warrants a reduction of six months from what would otherwise be appropriate.
Conclusion
91A sentence of four years’ imprisonment is imposed on count 1 (robbery) and count 4 (possession of a loaded prohibited firearm without a licence or authorization), to be served concurrently.
92However, after crediting Mr. Kerridge-Lall for his time spent in pre-sentence custody, including enhanced credit for the harsh conditions at Maplehurst, and further credit in respect of the knee strike, he has now more than served his sentence. Accordingly, a sentence of one day’s further custody is imposed on each count, concurrent, and is deemed served. Additionally, the following ancillary orders are made:
- a DNA order;
- a lifetime weapons prohibition order under section 109;
- a forfeiture order in respect of the firearm, ammunition, and magazine; and
- victim surcharges totalling $400, payable within five years.
Signed: Justice J. Stribopoulos
Released: February 2, 2026
APPENDIX A
CITATION: R v. Kerridge-Lall, 2026 ONSC 616
COURT FILE NO.: CRIM J(P) 514/25
DATE: 20260202
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
- and -
ELIJAH KERRIDGE-LALL
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Stribopoulos J.
Released: February 2, 2026
Footnotes
- I reference Mr. Kerridge-Lall’s prior complaints regarding the incident in this paragraph and in paragraph 39 because they serve to rebut the suggestion of recent fabrication: see R. v. Ellard, 2009 SCC 27, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 19, at paras. 32-33; R. v. Stirling, 2008 SCC 10, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 272, at para. 5. In that regard, I recognize that “it is impermissible to assume that because a witness has made the same statement in the past, he or she is more likely to be telling the truth”: Stirling, at para. 7. I also recognize that it is an error to use a witness’s prior consistent statement as corroboration of their in-court testimony: see R. v. Dinardo, 2008 SCC 24, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 788, at para. 40; R. v. K.T., 2013 ONCA 257, 295 C.C.C. (3d) 283, at para. 68; R. v. A.S., 2020 ONCA 229, at para. 52. To be clear, I do not rely on Mr. Kerridge-Lall’s prior complaints for either of those prohibited purposes.