TORONTO — A Whitby father who fired at armed intruders who had just shot his son will not face additional jail time after the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed a Crown appeal seeking a harsher penalty.Jason Munroe received a conditional sentence of 729 days of house arrest followed by three years of probation last year for recklessly discharging a firearm. The Crown argued the sentence was “demonstrably unfit” and failed to properly emphasize denunciation and deterrence, but a three-judge panel led by Justice Steve Coroza rejected that claim in a decision released this week.“Given the exceptional circumstances of the offence and the significant mitigating factors, we see no error in principle in this case. Nor do we find that the sentence was manifestly unfit,” the court ruled..The home invasion took place at approximately 3:50 a.m. on June 17, 2022, at Munroe’s residence on Underwood Drive in Whitby. Armed men forced the family into the basement. During an altercation, Munroe’s son was shot in the leg. Munroe wrestled a handgun from one of the intruders and shot him. The invaders fled. Munroe chased them outside, stood on his porch, and fired three shots at their vehicle as it sped away. No one was hit.When first interviewed by police, Munroe denied having or using a gun. He later admitted he had fired the weapon taken from the intruders and told officers “he tried to kill them and that, if given the chance, he would have killed them all.”Trial Justice Nathan N. Baker found Munroe not guilty of charges related to the events inside the home, ruling he acted in self-defence. Baker convicted him of reckless discharge of a restricted or prohibited firearm for the shots fired from the porch, as well as obstruction of a peace officer for the initial false statement. The judge declared the five-year mandatory minimum sentence for the firearms offence unconstitutional in these circumstances. The Crown did not appeal that finding, only the length of the sentence..The Court of Appeal acknowledged that weapons offences “are very serious and that they should generally carry a significant custodial sentence, especially in circumstances where an accused discharges a firearm in a public place.”It nevertheless found the case exceptional because Munroe was still acting in the heat of the moment after seeing his family under threat and his son shot, and because he used a handgun wrestled from the intruders rather than one he had brought to the scene.The panel also cited Munroe’s remorse, extensive rehabilitative efforts, stable employment as a skilled worker, and the “onerous” conditions of the house arrest — including GPS monitoring and restrictions limiting him to home except for work — as justifying the original sentence.Munroe’s lawyer, Mark Halfyard, said his client would not comment on the ruling. “He and his family are trying to put this terrible ordeal behind them,” Halfyard said.The Crown’s unsuccessful push for a longer term leaves the conditional sentence intact.
