Erin Pancer

The accused pleaded guilty to numerous firearms offences including possession of a firearm with readily accessible ammunition, conspiracy to transfer firearms, transferring firearms, and possession of firearms for the purpose of transferring them.

Over a five‑month period, the accused used his valid firearms licence to legally purchase 47 handguns and transferred 43 of them to another individual, receiving payment for each purchase.

Several of the firearms were later recovered at crime scenes while many remained unrecovered.

The court considered aggravating factors including the scale of the trafficking and the risk posed to public safety, balanced against significant mitigating factors such as the accused’s youth, lack of criminal record, guilty plea, remorse, and strong prospects for rehabilitation.

The court concluded that denunciation and deterrence required a penitentiary sentence but that the Crown’s requested sentence was excessive.

A sentence of eight years’ imprisonment was imposed, subject to credit for pre‑sentence custody.

The accused brought a pre‑trial Garofoli application seeking exclusion of evidence obtained pursuant to search warrants for his residence and vehicle.

The warrants were based partly on information from a confidential informant and were obtained through a telewarrant.

The court reviewed the unredacted Information to Obtain (ITO) under the step‑six Garofoli procedure and found the affiant had been full, frank, and fair.

The informant’s information met the Debot criteria of being compelling, credible, and corroborated by police surveillance and investigation, providing reasonable and probable grounds for the search.

The court also held that the use of the telewarrant procedure under s. 487.1 of the Criminal Code was justified because it was impracticable to appear before a justice in person.

No s. 8 Charter breach occurred and, in any event, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2).

The accused pleaded guilty to unauthorized possession of a firearm contrary to section 91(1) of the Criminal Code.

The accused inherited firearms from his grandfather and stored them in his closet after a basement flood.

He did not have a valid permit and was unaware of the legal requirements for firearm ownership.

His son, who was on bail for firearms-related offences, was living in the residence and could have accessed the firearms.

The Crown sought 90 days intermittent imprisonment; the defence sought an absolute discharge.

The court imposed an absolute discharge, finding that despite the seriousness of firearm offences and the need for deterrence and denunciation, the unique circumstances, the accused's exemplary character, his guilty plea, cooperation with police, and the disproportionate impact of a criminal record on his business warranted a discharge.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, unauthorized possession of a firearm, possession of a firearm in a motor vehicle, possession for the purpose of trafficking in MDMA, and four counts of breach of a prohibition order.

The offences arose from an arrest on March 5, 2013, when police executed a high-risk vehicle stop and found the accused armed with a loaded .40 calibre Glock pistol and in possession of MDMA.

The accused had an extensive criminal record dating back to 1991, including four prior firearm convictions and multiple breaches of firearms prohibition orders.

The court imposed a global sentence of 10½ years less credit for time served (8 months pre-trial custody on a 1:1 basis), resulting in a total sentence of 9 years and 10 months.

The accused brought a Garofoli application challenging the validity of search warrants executed at an apartment where police seized a firearm, cocaine, drug paraphernalia, and cash.

The accused sought exclusion of the evidence under ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Charter, arguing that the Information to Obtain relied on confidential informants and contained misleading statements and insufficient disclosure.

The Crown applied under step six of the Garofoli procedure to permit the court to consider the unredacted affidavit.

The court held that the redacted ITO and judicial summary provided sufficient disclosure to allow a facial challenge under the Debot criteria and therefore granted the Crown’s cross‑application.

After excising two exaggerated statements from the affidavit, the court concluded that the remaining information established reasonable and probable grounds for the warrant.

The search authorization was upheld and the Charter application dismissed.

The accused was charged with weapons offences related to possession of an illegal handgun.

He brought an application to exclude the gun from evidence, alleging that police conduct violated his Charter rights.

The officer stopped the accused based on suspicion that he might be one of two Fountain brothers, one of whom might be wanted.

After clarifying the accused's identity and confirming no warrants existed, the officer continued to detain the accused to complete a field investigative report (FIR card).

When a third party suddenly interjected, the accused's demeanor changed and he adopted a blading stance.

The officer, concerned for safety, conducted a pat-down search and discovered the gun.

The court found an unlawful detention during the FIR process but held that the pat-down search was lawful as it was conducted in response to exigent circumstances triggered by the accused's sudden threatening posture.

The gun was admitted into evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused was sentenced following convictions after trial for possession of a loaded restricted firearm, related firearms offences, carrying a concealed weapon, and possession of cocaine.

Police discovered a loaded revolver and knife on the accused during a pat‑down search following a traffic stop, and crack cocaine was later found in the rear seat of the police vehicle used to transport him.

The court considered aggravating factors including possession of a loaded handgun in public, the combination of firearms and drugs, and the presence of multiple weapons, while also weighing mitigating factors such as the offender’s lack of criminal record, family support, disability, and rehabilitative prospects.

Relying on jurisprudence addressing the constitutional status of the mandatory minimum for s. 95 offences and sentencing ranges for loaded handgun possession, the court imposed a global sentence of three years.

After applying credit for pre‑trial custody and strict bail conditions including house arrest, the effective custodial sentence was reduced to 20 months.

The accused was stopped for driving a vehicle with heavily tinted windows, leading the officer to smell fresh marijuana and conduct a vehicle and pat-down search that revealed a concealed knife and loaded handgun.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude the evidence, alleging breaches of his ss. 8, 9, and 10(a) and (b) rights.

The court found that the officer lacked the subjective belief required for an arrest, rendering the searches unlawful under ss. 8 and 9, and also found a s. 10(b) breach due to a delay in advising the accused of his right to counsel.

However, applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court concluded that the police conduct was not egregious, the evidence was highly reliable, and society's interest favoured admission.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

Sentencing decision following convictions for trafficking in cocaine, possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of property obtained by crime, and firearms offences including possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm and attempted possession of a firearm without a licence.

The offender participated in a drug trafficking network connected to a large organized criminal operation and sought to obtain firearms through associates.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence due to the combination of illegal drugs and firearms, persistent commercial trafficking activity, and the offender’s association with an organized drug trafficking network.

Aggravating factors included the offender’s ongoing trafficking, lack of remorse, and efforts to acquire firearms, while mitigating factors included youth, a relatively minor criminal record, and factual admissions at trial.

Applying the principle of totality, the court imposed a global sentence of seven years’ imprisonment, together with a lifetime weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The accused was tried before a judge alone on multiple drug and firearm offences arising from a large police investigation into organized drug trafficking.

The Crown relied heavily on intercepted private communications interpreted through expert testimony regarding drug and firearms terminology.

The accused admitted some drug possession but asserted that coded language referred to marihuana rather than cocaine and that references to firearms concerned a paintball gun.

The court rejected the accused’s explanations as implausible and inconsistent with the surrounding evidence, including expert interpretations, seizure evidence, and contextual communications.

The court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused trafficked crack cocaine, attempted to obtain an illegal firearm, possessed a firearm, possessed cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possessed proceeds of crime, but was not guilty of trafficking in marihuana.