Jeffrey Reisman

The two offenders were convicted of firearms offences after a loaded restricted firearm with an extended magazine was found in the vehicle they were occupying, shortly after an exchange of gunfire with another vehicle.

The Crown sought 6 years for the passenger and 2 years less a day for the driver, while the defence sought 30 months and 12 months respectively.

The court sentenced the passenger to 40 months and the driver to 18 months, finding their moral blameworthiness differed significantly.

The court granted credit for pre-sentence custody and house arrest but declined to grant additional credit for the Covid-19 pandemic due to a lack of specific evidence regarding its impact on the offenders' incarceration.

The three accused were charged with firearms offences after police located a loaded restricted firearm in a vehicle they occupied.

The police were investigating reports of gunshots and detained the vehicle.

The court dismissed the Crown's application to admit a police officer's preliminary inquiry evidence due to insufficient proof of his medical inability to testify.

The court found the investigative detention and pat-down searches lawful, but held that the subsequent search of the vehicle violated section 8 of the Charter because the searching officer did not testify to his subjective grounds.

However, the court declined to exclude the firearm under section 24(2).

Ultimately, the passenger who hid the firearm was convicted of possession offences, the driver was convicted of occupying a vehicle with a firearm, and the other passenger was acquitted of all charges.

The accused were charged with firearms offences after a gun was seized during a traffic stop.

They brought Charter applications to exclude the gun evidence under s. 24(2), alleging violations of their s. 8 (unreasonable search and seizure) and s. 9 (arbitrary detention) rights.

The court found that while the initial traffic stop was lawful, the police unlawfully detained the passenger, requested his identification without justification, and conducted an unlawful search of the vehicle based on a hunch, not reasonable grounds for a CDSA arrest.

Consequently, the court excluded the gun evidence against both accused, leading to their acquittal.