R. v. Shaw
- Citation
- 2026 ONCA 161
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Decision
- 4 March 2026
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Sentence
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Decision
- 4 March 2026
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Sentence
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The sentencing judge had regard to the appellant's status as a parent and the impact of incarceration on family relationships; there was no error in principle and the four-year sentence was not demonstrably unfit, so the appellate court must dismiss the appeal.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; sentence affirmed.
Orders
- Leave to appeal granted
- Appeal dismissed
- Sentence of four years less pre-sentence custody affirmed
02
Material facts
Parties
Leabert Shaw
Appellant Counsel: Leabert Shaw (self-represented); Chris Rudnicki (duty counsel)His Majesty the King
Respondent Counsel: Jacob MillnsAmounts and remedies
- Sentence Years: 4
- Appellant Requested Reduction Months: 3
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Sentence
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the sentencing judge failed to account for family separation consequences
- 02
Whether the four-year sentence was demonstrably unfit
- 03
Whether the sentence was appropriate for combined firearm and drug offences
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant argued the sentencing judge failed to adequately account for the consequences of family separation and sought a three-month reduction in sentence to reflect those consequences.
- Respondent
- The Crown submitted the sentencing judge was aware of the appellant's parental status and the impact of incarceration on family relationships, that the submissions before the judge did not raise additional family-consequence issues, and the sentence was appropriate and not demonstrably unfit.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Criminal sentencing jurisprudence and principles governing discretionary sentencing
Sentencing judges must consider all relevant factors, including family circumstances, when imposing sentence.
- 02
Appellate sentencing standards and jurisprudence
Appellate intervention on sentence requires demonstration that the sentence is demonstrably unfit or that an error in principle occurred.
- 03
Fundamental sentencing objectives in criminal law
Sentencing must reflect proportionality, denunciation, deterrence and public protection.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The sentencing judge had regard to the appellant's status as a parent and the impact of incarceration on family relationships; there was no error in principle and the four-year sentence was not demonstrably unfit, so the appellate court must dismiss the appeal.
Obiter and limits
- The appellant's submissions at sentence did not raise family-consequence issues beyond what was evident in the reasons below.
- Leave to appeal was granted despite the appeal being ultimately dismissed.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; sentence affirmed.
- Leave to appeal granted
- Appeal dismissed
- Sentence of four years less pre-sentence custody affirmed
Source and reliance status
Court of Appeal for Ontario · 4 March 2026
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Judgment· 4 March 2026
R. v. Shaw Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2026-03-04 Neutral citation 2026 ONCA 161 Docket numbers COA-24-CR-0688 Judges Fairburn, J. Michal; Paciocco, David M.; Wilson, Darla A. Subject Criminal Decision Content
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Shaw, 2026 ONCA 161 DATE: 20260304 DOCKET: COA-24-CR-0688 Fairburn A.C.J.O., Paciocco and Wilson JJ.A.
BETWEEN His Majesty the King Respondent and Leabert Shaw Appellant Leabert Shaw, acting in person Chris Rudnicki, appearing as duty counsel Jacob Millns, for the respondent Heard and rendered orally: March 2, 2026 On appeal from the sentence imposed by Justice Joseph Di Luca of the Superior Court of Justice, on June 19, 2024.
REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The appellant was convicted of firearm and drug-related offences. He was driving while having in his possession a handgun with a laser sight and a round in the chamber. He also had extra ammunition, fentanyl and crack cocaine along with drug paraphernalia in his possession. This is an appeal from a four-year sentence less pre-sentence custody. The appellant argues that the sentencing judge erred by failing to take into account the consequences that would arise from family separation. He asks for a three-month decrease in sentence to reflect these consequences. [2] In our view, the sentencing judge was well versed in the fact that the appellant is a father of two children, that he had a relationship with the children, and that incarceration would inevitably interrupt that relationship including his ability to contribute to the family. In these circumstances, including having regard to the submissions made before the sentencing judge that did not mention family consequences beyond what was evident in the reasons, we see no error in principle. Nor could this be called a demonstrably unfit sentence. [3] Accordingly, leave to appeal from sentence is granted, but the appeal is dismissed. “Fairburn A.C.J.O.” “David M. Paciocco J.A.” “D.A. Wilson J.A.”
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.