Shane Staniek

The accused was charged with multiple firearm offences after a .22 calibre rifle was discharged four times in a hospital parking lot, striking the tires of three parked vehicles.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance tracking the accused's vehicle and expert forensic evidence matching the spent casings to a rifle found in the accused's possession upon arrest.

The court found the circumstantial evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the shooter.

The accused was found guilty of careless use of a firearm and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, while the charge of discharging a firearm with recklessness was adjourned to address an error in the indictment.

The accused was charged with robbery, assault causing bodily harm, and several firearms offences after attacking a drug dealer and stealing a bag of marijuana.

The accused pleaded guilty to the robbery and assault but contested the firearms charges, claiming he found the gun inside the stolen bag and did not bring it to the robbery.

Undercover police officers witnessed the robbery and testified that the accused used a handgun to pistol-whip the victim.

The court rejected the accused's testimony, applying the W.(D.) framework, and accepted the officers' evidence.

The court also found that although the seized handgun had a defective firing pin, it met the definition of a firearm because it could be readily adapted for use within a reasonable time.

The accused was found guilty of the firearms offences.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder and two counts of aggravated assault following a shooting at a student pub.

He appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in instructing the jury regarding a firearms expert's testimony on muzzle flash, delivered an unbalanced jury charge, and erred in the instruction on post-offence conduct.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's characterization of the expert evidence or the balance of the charge, and concluding that the error in the post-offence conduct instruction did not warrant setting aside the conviction.