R. v. R.M.
The sentencing judge erred by imposing the weapons prohibition under s.51(3); offences subject to mandatory prohibitions under Criminal Code s.109 (including first-degree murder) require a s.51(1) prohibition, and given the seriousness and aggravating features of the respondent's conduct (planning, purchase and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2025 ONCA 398
- Parties
- Appellant: His Majesty the King; Respondent: R.M.
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 30 May 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal (youth Sentencing) / Appeal From Sentence; Court of Appeal Disposition
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; two-year s.51(3) weapons prohibition set aside and replaced with a 12-year s.51(1) weapons prohibition
- Legal Topics
- Youth Criminal Justice Act, Section 51 Prohibitions, Mandatory Weapons Prohibition (criminal Code S.109), First Degree Murder, Sentencing Appeal
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
His Majesty the King
Appellant
R.M.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (youth Sentencing) / Appeal From Sentence; Court of Appeal Disposition
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the weapons prohibition should have been imposed under s.51(1) rather than s.51(3) of the YCJA
- 2 Proper duration of a weapons prohibition where s.51(1) applies and custodial sentence is imposed
- 3 Whether a 12-year weapons prohibition is warranted given the offending conduct
Ratio Decidendi
The sentencing judge erred by imposing the weapons prohibition under s.51(3); offences subject to mandatory prohibitions under Criminal Code s.109 (including first-degree murder) require a s.51(1) prohibition, and given the seriousness and aggravating features of the respondent's conduct (planning, purchase and carrying of a handgun, shooting 16 bullets at close range, attempted recruitment and fabricated alibi) a 12-year weapons prohibition under s.51(1) is appropriate and replaces the two-year s.51(3) order.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; two-year s.51(3) weapons prohibition set aside and replaced with a 12-year s.51(1) weapons prohibition
Orders
- Set aside two-year weapons prohibition imposed under s.51(3) of the YCJA
- Impose a 12-year weapons prohibition under s.51(1) of the YCJA
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. R.M. Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2025-05-30 Neutral citation 2025 ONCA 398 Docket numbers COA-24-CR-0422 Judges Paciocco, David M.; George, Jonathon C.; Wilson, Darla A. Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. R.M., 2025 ONCA 398[1] DATE: 20250530 DOCKET: COA-24-CR-0422 Paciocco, George and Wilson JJ.A. BETWEEN His Majesty the King Appellant and R.M. Respondent Holly Loubert, for the appellant Maija Martin and Stephanie Brown, for the respondent Heard: in writing On appeal from the disposition imposed on March 19, 2024 by Justice Anastasia M. Nichols of the Ontario Court of Justice (Youth Justice Court) REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The respondent pleaded guilty to first-degree murder. The trial judge imposed the maximum youth sentence: six years in custody and four years of conditional supervision. She also imposed a two-year weapons prohibition, among other ancillary orders, under s. 51(3) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, S.C. 2002, c. 1 (the “YCJA”). Two-years is the maximum prohibition under that provision. [2] The appellant submits that the sentencing judge erred by imposing the weapons prohibition under s. 51(3) of the YCJA, since, by its terms, a s. 51(1) prohibition order must be imposed for offences subject to mandatory prohibition orders pursuant to s.109 of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1990, c. C-34. First-degree murder is one of those offences. Section 51(2) provides that s. 51(1) prohibitions must not end until 2 years after the custodial portion of the sentence. Although an 8-year prohibition order would therefore be a legal prohibition in the appellant’s case, give the relevant aggravating features the appellant asks that a 12-year weapons prohibition be imposed. [3] The respondent agrees that the sentencing judge erred in imposing the weapons prohibition under s. 51(3) and that the applicable section was s. 51(1). The respondent does not oppose the two-year weapons prohibition being struck, as it must be, and does not oppose imposing a 12-year weapons prohibition in its place. The appeal therefore proceeded in writing. [4] We agree with the positions taken by the parties. The trial judge ordered the prohibition under the wrong section and a 12-year prohibition is clearly warranted. The respondent had purchased a handgun and frequently carried it with him. He shot 16 bullets at close range into the deceased, who was in his driveway. The respondent had planned the murder over a period of months after a dispute between the two, which culminated in the deceased assaulting the respondent and injuring him. The respondent tried to persuade others to assist in the murder and planned his alibi carefully. Disposition [5] The appeal from sentence is allowed. The two-year weapons prohibition under s. 51(3) is set aside, and a 12-year weapons prohibition under s. 51(1) of the YCJA is imposed in its place. “David M. Paciocco J.A.” “J. George J.A.” “D.A. Wilson J.A.” [1] This appeal is subject to publication bans pursuant to ss. 110 and 111 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, S.C. 2022, c. 1.