Geary Tomlinson

The defendant was charged with assault, assault with a weapon, kidnapping, forcible confinement, pointing a firearm, and firearm possession offences following a police stop on April 6, 2024.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the testimony of the alleged victim, whose account was riddled with contradictions and demonstrated significant credibility issues.

The defendant testified that he had no knowledge of the firearm and denied assaulting or confining the alleged victim.

The court found the Crown failed to prove any charges beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the defendant on all counts.

The defendant was charged with multiple drug trafficking and firearm offences.

He admitted to trafficking cocaine and possessing proceeds of crime, and cocaine for trafficking.

The contested charges were possession of a firearm and possession of fentanyl for trafficking.

The court found the defendant guilty of the firearm charges, rejecting his explanation that the firearm belonged to another individual, Bogdan, due to inconsistencies in his testimony and strong circumstantial evidence (defendant's bank card and personal ornaments found with the firearm).

However, the court acquitted the defendant of the fentanyl charge, finding reasonable doubt due to weaknesses in the prosecution's evidence regarding the location and association of the fentanyl with the defendant's documents, despite the defendant's impaired credibility.

Sheldon Livingston, a co-accused, brought a motion for severance from his co-accused, Yasmin Muzafary, to allow him to call her as a witness in support of his self-defence claim.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility that the co-accused would testify if severed, or that her testimony would favorably affect the verdict, especially given the strong video evidence of a joint attack.

The court emphasized the strong presumption in favour of joint trials for co-accused acting in concert and the public interest in judicial efficiency.

The defendant, Letrae Paul Shallow, was convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a 15-month jail sentence, while the defence requested a suspended sentence with three years' probation, citing exceptional circumstances and a Charter breach.

The court considered mitigating factors, including the defendant's youth, lack of criminal record, rehabilitative efforts, strong family and community support, and significant personal growth since the offence.

Aggravating factors included the quantity of cocaine (21.79 grams) and the commercial nature of the trafficking.

The court found some exceptional circumstances but determined they did not warrant a sentence entirely outside the usual range for this offence.

Balancing denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, the court imposed a 90-day intermittent sentence, less two days pre-sentence custody, followed by three years' probation with specific conditions, and a ten-year weapons prohibition order.

The accused was stopped by police for using a cell phone while driving.

During the stop, the officer smelled fresh marihuana and subsequently observed a bag of marihuana in plain sight.

The accused was arrested for possession of marihuana, and a search incident to arrest revealed crack cocaine.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging breaches of ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b), seeking to exclude the cocaine under s. 24(2).

The court found minor breaches of ss. 8 and 10(b) because the officer asked a question about the bag before advising the accused of his rights.

However, applying the Grant framework, the court concluded the breaches were minor, the police acted in good faith, and the evidence was reliable.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

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 accused was charged with multiple firearm-related offences and weapons violations.

Police obtained search warrants based on information from two confidential informants that the accused was in possession of a firearm.

During surveillance, officers observed the accused carrying a satchel and conducted a takedown stop.

A firearm was found in the satchel during a protective search.

The accused challenged the validity of the search warrants and the lawfulness of the investigative detention and search.

The court found that the police had reasonable grounds to stop and investigate the accused based on the judicially issued search warrants and the circumstances observed, and that the protective search of the satchel was warranted for officer safety.

The offender, a 20-year-old with a criminal record, was found guilty of multiple firearm offences after police seized a loaded revolver from his vehicle.

He attempted to flee from police during the arrest.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of possessing a loaded firearm in public and his prior record against his youth and difficult upbringing.

The court imposed a total sentence of 51 months, reduced to 25 months after credit for pre-sentence custody.

The offender was convicted of possessing 486 grams of heroin for the purpose of trafficking after accepting a controlled delivery package.

The offender acted as a low-level conduit or 'mule' for financial gain while also participating in fraudulent schemes.

The court weighed the highly addictive nature of heroin and the profit motive as aggravating factors against the offender's lack of a prior criminal record.

A global sentence of four years was imposed, reduced to 22 months of further custody after applying enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

The accused brought a pre‑trial application seeking to quash a search warrant issued under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to exclude evidence seized during the execution of the warrant pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court held that the warrant authorizing the search of the residence was valid because the information from confidential informants, corroborated by police investigation, provided sufficient grounds for the justice of the peace to issue the warrant.

However, the warrant did not authorize the search of a motor vehicle located in the driveway, and the search of that vehicle constituted a warrantless search contrary to s. 8 of the Charter.

Applying the framework in R. v. Grant, the court concluded that the police acted in good faith and that the evidence, including a loaded handgun discovered in the vehicle, was highly probative.

The seized evidence was therefore admitted and the application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The appellant appealed her conviction for uttering a threat to cause death or bodily harm, arguing that the Crown failed to prove her identity as the caller and that the trial judge reversed the burden of proof.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it was open to the trial judge to rely on the complainant's voice recognition evidence to establish identity.

The Court also found no reversal of the burden of proof and that the trial judge properly applied the reasonable doubt standard.