C. Levien

On a Charter motion arising from a firearm prosecution, the applicant challenged an investigative detention, takedown, arrest, and subsequent seizure in an apartment building lobby and hallway.

The court held that although reasonable suspicion was conceded, the officer deliberately failed to inform the applicant of the reasons for detention, escalated force when the applicant lawfully tried to leave, and failed to provide full rights to counsel after arrest.

The court found breaches of ss. 7, 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b), and further found that the officer’s mistreatment of the applicant during key parts of the interaction was influenced by anti-Black racism.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that admission of the firearm evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute and excluded the evidence.

Following trial convictions on six firearms offences, the sentencing court imposed a 7-year global penitentiary sentence for public possession of a loaded handgun with an obliterated serial number while subject to a weapons prohibition.

The court treated denunciation and deterrence as paramount given the offender's related prior record, the recency of his release from a prior penitentiary-equivalent sentence, the public setting, and the physical struggle with police that heightened the risk of accidental discharge.

The court accepted mitigating factors including anti-Black racism, family trauma, remorse, employment, family support, restrictive bail compliance, and limited trial concessions, but held they could not outweigh the gravity of the offences and the offender's high moral culpability.

Enhanced credit was granted for harsh pandemic-era pre-trial custody and restrictive bail, but no additional sentence reduction was given for the minor s. 10(b) Charter breach.

Lifetime weapons, DNA, and forfeiture orders were also made.

In a firearms prosecution arising from a traffic stop outside a licensed establishment, the accused brought Charter applications alleging arbitrary detention and denial of the right to counsel.

The court held that the initial parking lot interaction did not amount to detention, and that the subsequent stop was a lawful sobriety investigation rather than a racially motivated or arbitrary detention.

The court found a minor breach of s. 10(b) based on an unjustified 19-minute delay in facilitating contact with counsel after arrest.

Applying the s. 24(2) framework, the court declined to exclude the firearm and ammunition because the breach was low in seriousness, had modest impact, and the evidence was real, reliable, and critical.