Janani Shanmuganathan

The appellant appealed his convictions for discharging a firearm, possession of a firearm while prohibited, and breach of probation, as well as his 10-year global sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred in refusing to put self-defence to the jury, admitting evidence of prior disreputable conduct, and finding his police statement voluntary.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no air of reality to the self-defence claim and no errors in the evidentiary rulings.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the 10-year sentence fell within the established range for serious firearm offences.

The Crown appealed acquittals entered after the trial judge quashed a CDSA search warrant and excluded drugs, firearms, and other seized evidence from an apartment searched during a nightclub drug-trafficking investigation.

The Court of Appeal held that refusal of leave to cross-examine the affiant did not bar a sub-facial challenge to the warrant, but concluded that the trial judge nevertheless exceeded the proper scope of Garofoli review by reweighing the amplified record, preferring inferences, and effectively conducting a de novo assessment.

The court reaffirmed that warrant review asks whether reliable evidence that might reasonably be believed remained on the basis of which the warrant could have issued.

The acquittals tied to the seizure at 306 Adelaide were set aside and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant, a 19-year-old first offender, pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and challenged the constitutionality of the three-year mandatory minimum sentence under s. 95 of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal held that the mandatory minimum sentence violates s. 12 of the Charter because it is grossly disproportionate when applied to a reasonable hypothetical offender at the regulatory end of the spectrum.

The court declared s. 95(2)(a)(i) of no force or effect, but affirmed the appellant's specific sentence of time served.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of a loaded prohibited weapon and his sentence of 3.5 years' imprisonment.

He argued that his takedown and search by police breached his ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the police lawfully exercised their common law power of investigative detention in a volatile situation involving a firearm.

On the sentence appeal, the Court found the trial judge erred in denying enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody merely because the appellant pursued a weak Charter motion.

The Court granted enhanced credit at a ratio of 1.5:1 due to harsh remand conditions and ineligibility for remission, reducing the remaining sentence.

The constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentence was deemed irrelevant as the 3.5-year sentence was otherwise fit.