The accused sought judicial interim release following his arrest on serious firearms-related charges, including carrying a concealed firearm, possession of a firearm for committing an offence, pointing a firearm, and discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life.
The Crown opposed release.
The court found that while the Crown's case had some evidentiary weaknesses, the surveillance video evidence was strong and clear.
The proposed release plan was found to be inadequate because the financial and supervisory components did not co-exist: one surety pledged significant funds but could not supervise, while the residential surety could supervise but pledged virtually no funds.
The court held that the accused failed to meet the reverse onus on the secondary ground and ordered detention.
