Article content continued

“As the trial judge said, these actions were about ‘as careless as one can imagine’ and could ‘easily have caused immeasurable tragedy.’ ”

Fortunately on that morning — Dec. 28, 2015 — it was about 2:20 a.m. when the shots were fired.

The three-judge panel felt a discharge sent the wrong signal.

“The sentencing judge erred in placing insufficient weight on the primary sentencing principles of general deterrence and denunciation. The trial judge also erred in using the fact of the appellant’s intoxication as a mitigating factor, when in fact it was a significant aggravating factor in this case.”

It also called the multiple shots “aggravating factors” and noted the discharged bullets could have had “catastrophic” results.

Instead, the appeal court imposed a conviction on a charge of careless use of a firearm, suspended the sentence but included a period of probation.

The ruling noted that Yang had spent more than five months in custody before his trial.

The distinction between a discharge and a suspended sentence is an important one: it hands Yang a criminal record. In his case, this could be especially important, the judges noted.

“Although we are aware of the immigration implications arising from a conviction in this matter, these consequences cannot operate to allow the imposition of an unfit sentence.”

According to a Postmedia story at the time, Ottawa police initially thought they were dealing with the accidental discharge of a firearm in the unit. The call drew patrol officers and the tactical unit.

Further investigation led to a search warrant, which recovered a firearm, and Yang was placed under arrest. He was initially charged with three counts of recklessly discharging a firearm and unsafe storage.

Neither Yang nor his lawyer could be reached for comment on the weekend.

To contact Kelly Egan, please call 613-726-5896 or email kegan@postmedia.com

Twitter.com/kellyegancolumn