Celia Lindo-Butler

The accused, Jedidiah Drummond, brought an application under section 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unreasonable delay in his firearms-related prosecution.

Despite the total delay falling below the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan, the court found that the Crown's persistent failure to provide core disclosure promptly, both when the accused was self-represented and after counsel was retained, caused the case to take "markedly longer" than reasonably required.

The court emphasized the Crown's constitutional disclosure obligations, especially towards self-represented litigants, and found no defence delay.

The application was granted, and a stay of proceedings was ordered.

This sentencing decision concerns Peter Stewart, who pleaded guilty to possessing fentanyl and a loaded prohibited handgun.

The Crown sought a jail sentence of three to four years, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence.

The court considered significant aggravating factors, including the loaded firearm and the dangerous combination of guns and drugs, alongside numerous mitigating factors.

Key mitigating factors included an early guilty plea, first-offender status, strong family support, consistent employment, and compliance with strict bail conditions for over four years.

Crucially, the court gave significant weight to an Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report (EPSR) detailing systemic anti-Black racism, poverty, and community violence that diminished the offender's moral blameworthiness and contributed to his choices.

Applying principles from R. v. Morris and R. v. Proulx, the court determined that a penitentiary sentence was not required and imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, minus credit for pre-trial custody, followed by two years of probation, with strict house arrest conditions.

The accused, Rene Hamouth, faced charges of possessing firearms without a license.

Police executed a search warrant at his residence, finding multiple firearms and ammunition.

The defence argued for the exclusion of evidence under Charter s. 24(2) due to alleged s. 10(b) infringements, including delayed access to counsel and breaches of the "hold-off" duty.

The court found multiple s. 10(b) breaches by the police, citing lack of diligence in facilitating counsel access and improper questioning.

However, applying the Grant test, the court determined that the seriousness of the violations and their impact on the accused's Charter rights did not outweigh society's interest in a trial on the merits, especially given the lawful seizure of reliable evidence prior to the breaches.

Consequently, the firearms and ammunition were admitted.

The court then found the accused guilty on all counts, concluding that the prosecution proved constructive possession beyond a reasonable doubt.

The applicant, charged with firearms and drug offences, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing unreasonable delay.

The total delay from the date of the charges to the anticipated end of the trial was 39.25 months.

After deducting 4.5 months of defence delay, the net delay was 34.75 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling set in Jordan.

However, the court found that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a discrete exceptional event.

The court deducted 14.25 months of delay caused by the pandemic, bringing the remaining delay to 20.5 months, well below the presumptive ceiling.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The accused was charged with possessing a firearm without a licence under sections 91(1), 92(2), and 95(1) of the Criminal Code.

He was arrested following execution of a search warrant at his residence, though the warrant was originally directed at his son.

The accused brought a Garofoli application to set aside the search warrant and exclude the firearms seized from his home, arguing there was insufficient evidentiary basis in the Information to Obtain to support reasonable grounds that his son was in unlawful possession of a firearm and that the residence was his son's dwelling house.

The Crown conceded the redacted ITO was insufficient and requested a step-six procedure involving judicial summary review of unredacted portions.

The court found that on the available information, including unredacted paragraphs and the judicial summary, it was open to the issuing justice to find reasonable grounds that the son was in unlawful possession of a firearm and had sufficient residential attachment to the address to justify the warrant.

The application was dismissed.

The accused sought a bail review after a detention order was cancelled by consent.

The application was heard via teleconference during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court considered new evidence, including proposed sureties and electronic monitoring, as material changes in circumstances, allowing for a de novo hearing.

The court found no primary ground concerns (flight risk).

However, on secondary grounds, the court found a substantial likelihood that the accused would commit further offences or interfere with justice, given an extensive criminal record, history of non-compliance with court orders, and the serious nature of the current drug and firearm charges.

On tertiary grounds, considering the strength of the prosecution's case, the objective gravity of the offences, and the accused's personal circumstances, the court concluded that continued detention was necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The impact of the pandemic on correctional facilities and trial delays was considered but not found to be a sufficient basis for release in this specific case.

The application for bail review was denied.

The accused, Jason Bartley, charged with firearms offences, sought to introduce evidence regarding two confidential informants who received benefits contingent on arrests or discovery of illegal items.

The Crown objected on grounds of lack of notice, "innocence at stake" requirements, and lack of "air of reality" to the third-party suspect defence.

The court dismissed the Crown's objections, finding that the evidence was logically relevant to the underlying facts of the offence and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by its minimal prejudicial effect.

The accused was convicted of possession of a loaded restricted firearm, breach of a prohibition order, breach of probation, unauthorized possession of a firearm in a motor vehicle, and possession of a firearm knowing its possession is unauthorized.

Surveillance officers observed the accused transferring a bag containing a loaded firearm with one bullet in the chamber and additional ammunition between vehicles.

The court imposed a global sentence of 40 months less 23 months pre-trial custody, resulting in 17 months to be served, followed by 30 months probation.

The court emphasized the gravity of firearm offences and the need for exemplary sentencing while considering the accused's rehabilitative prospects.

The accused was charged with knowingly being in unlicensed possession of a restricted firearm, occupation of a motor vehicle knowing that there is a restricted firearm in that vehicle, possession of a loaded restricted firearm without authorization or license, breach of a firearms prohibition order, and breach of probation.

Police conducted surveillance based on information from confidential informants and observed the accused carrying a knapsack containing a firearm.

The accused claimed he had no knowledge of the firearm and suggested that either a friend or an unknown person at a party had placed it in his bag without his knowledge.

The court found the accused's testimony to be inconsistent and not credible, and rejected the defence of innocent possession as speculative and contrary to human experience.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The defendant was charged with seven counts relating to possession of a restricted firearm and ammunition found in a speaker box during a search warrant execution at his Toronto residence on October 27, 2013.

The Crown alleged the defendant had knowledge, custody, and control of the firearm.

The defendant raised an alternate suspect defense, arguing his younger brother M.E. had placed the gun in the speaker without his knowledge or consent.

The trial judge found that while the Crown's circumstantial evidence was substantial, the defense evidence established an air of reality to the third-party suspect theory.

The judge concluded that the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the defendant on all counts.

The accused sought leave to cross-examine the informant who swore the Information to Obtain (ITO) a search warrant for his residence.

The court dismissed the application.

While confirming that a preliminary inquiry justice has jurisdiction to grant leave to cross-examine an informant under the Garofoli test, the court held that the contextual factors at a preliminary inquiry—particularly the protection of confidential informers and concerns about prolixity—warrant a more restrictive approach than at trial.

The court found that the accused failed to meet the threshold for leave in all proposed areas of cross-examination.