G. Tomlinson

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 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.