Accused’s eloquence, good intentions insufficient to hit appeal target

Law360 Canada (January 16, 2026, 10:54 AM EST) --

John L. Hill

The cynical remark “No good deed goes unpunished” will be remembered by Joacquin Rowe. He did a good deed, but he was punished for it.

Rowe pleaded guilty to three firearms-related offences, including possession of a loaded firearm and ammunition while subject to multiple weapons prohibitions, when he appeared before Justice Robert F. Goldstein of the Ontario Superior Court on March 28, 2025. He appealed the imposition of a seven-month conditional sentence, arguing that he should have been discharged.

The case was unusual. The sentencing judge accepted that Rowe took possession of a firearm to prevent danger after encountering an intoxicated individual. He did not intend to keep the gun. His goal was temporary possession to prevent future harm and to store the gun securely. Rowe unsuccessfully sought legal advice on how to dispose of it. Police later seized the firearm during a search. Despite these mitigating factors, Rowe took these steps while subject to three active firearm prohibitions.

Even though the sentence was noncustodial, Rowe felt he had been wronged by the criminal justice system and appealed his conviction and sentence to the Ontario Court of Appeal. That court’s decision was delivered on Jan. 12, 2026 (R. v. Rowe, 2026 ONCA 8).

Rowe was self-represented on appeal, although duty counsel Mark Halfyard assisted him. Rowe argued that the sentencing judge 1) failed to credit the lengthy house arrest period appropriately, 2) placed undue weight on the two-and-a-half-month duration of possession, and 3) wrongly distinguished cases where discharges had been granted.

The sentencing judge accepted the assertions in the Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report that Rowe was distrustful of police, given his past experiences with law enforcement. However, Justice Goldstein observed that the sentence must send a message that honest attempts to return a handgun will not “land a person in jail.” On that basis, an 18-month conditional sentence was imposed, with 11 months’ credit for pre-sentence custody deducted. Further, Rowe had not acted with due diligence in disposing of the firearm and ammunition he was holding for safekeeping.

The appellate court rejected all three arguments. It held that the sentencing judge adequately accounted for stringent bail conditions. Although Rowe had been under a release order for a year and a half, the sentencing judge referred only to a year of house arrest. Nonetheless, the appellate court was satisfied that the sentencing judge had granted a modest measure of Downes credit (R. v. Downes, 79 O.R. (3d) 321). The sentencing judge found that Rowe was “not an ingenue.” He was intelligent, with business experience and experience in the criminal justice system. The sentencing judge believed Rowe could and should have turned in the gun and ammunition sooner. This opinion deserved appellate deference.

The trial judge had correctly distinguished discharge cases involving first offenders who were not subject to weapons prohibitions, as Rowe noted. Although the sentencing judge’s reference to “gun toting outlaws” was unfortunate, the court was satisfied that it was drawn from Supreme Court language in R. v. Nur, 2015 SCC 15, where the Supreme Court used such language to assess outlaws who carried weapons as tools of their trade. It was not meant to describe the appellant.

The court concluded that, although the case was exceptional, a discharge was not in the public interest given the seriousness of the firearms offences, the appellant’s criminal record and the active prohibitions, and that the conditional sentence appropriately balanced accountability and leniency.

The Court of Appeal concluded its brief 16-paragraph judgment by offering some consolation to Rowe: “In closing, we observe that the appellant was very ably represented by duty counsel on this appeal, but also offered his own eloquent submissions. Like the sentencing judge, we were impressed by his intelligence and sophistication. We encourage him to continue exploring his rehabilitative potential.”

Leave to appeal the sentence was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a JD from Queen’s and an LLM in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. His most recent book, Acts of Darkness (Durvile & UpRoute Books), was released July 1. Hill is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books) and The Rest of the (True Crime) Story (AOS Publishing). Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.