Jill Cameron

The offender was sentenced following convictions for multiple firearms offences, including possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number, possession of a prohibited device, use of a firearm without reasonable precaution, possession of a firearm while subject to a prohibition order, and several probation breaches.

The offences arose after the offender ran through a residential townhouse complex in the afternoon carrying a loaded handgun following a shooting incident.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence given the serious risk posed to the public and the offender’s significant criminal record and repeated breaches of court orders.

Applying sentencing principles under the Criminal Code and considering comparable jurisprudence, the court imposed a global sentence of five years’ imprisonment before credit for pre‑sentence custody.

Enhanced credit of 1.5:1 was granted for 858 days of pre‑trial detention.

The accused applied for directed verdicts at the close of the Crown’s case in a jury trial involving multiple firearm offences arising from the discovery of a loaded handgun and other weapons in an apartment.

The Crown’s case was entirely circumstantial and relied on evidence connecting both accused to the premises and the location of the firearm within a shared laundry hamper.

The court reviewed the directed verdict test and principles governing circumstantial evidence, constructive possession, and joint possession.

It held that the circumstantial evidence could support reasonable inferences of knowledge and control sufficient for a properly instructed jury to convict on the firearm-related counts.

However, there was no evidence supporting the mental element required for possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace regarding a stun gun.

The accused was convicted by a jury of robbery after luring the victim to a meeting under the pretext of purchasing marihuana and participating with accomplices in a planned robbery involving violence and the use of an imitation firearm.

Although the Crown alleged use of a real firearm, it conceded the evidence did not establish this aggravating factor beyond a reasonable doubt, removing the applicable mandatory minimum.

The court weighed significant aggravating factors, including planning, group participation, violence, and the use of an imitation firearm, against strong mitigating factors such as youth, lack of prior record, remorse, employment history, and positive community support.

Applying the principles in ss. 718–718.2 of the Criminal Code, the court held that denunciation and deterrence required a custodial sentence despite the offender’s strong rehabilitative prospects.

A 12‑month custodial sentence was found appropriate but reduced to account for pre‑trial custody and restrictive bail conditions.

The accused was charged with multiple firearm and probation-related offences after running through a residential townhouse complex carrying a loaded prohibited handgun following a shooting incident.

He admitted possessing the firearm but argued he did so out of necessity after hearing gunfire and fearing for his life.

The court rejected the accused’s explanation, finding his testimony inconsistent with surveillance footage and other evidence, and concluded he armed himself to seek out the attackers rather than escape danger.

The defence of necessity therefore had no factual foundation.

The court convicted the accused of multiple firearm possession offences, breach of prohibition and probation orders, and using a firearm without reasonable precaution.

The accused brought a Charter application under s. 24(2) seeking exclusion of a firearm and oxycontin seized during execution of a telewarrant search of his hotel room.

The court found the information to obtain the warrant contained misleading statements and omissions, including falsely attributing the accused’s room number to a confidential informant, mischaracterizing surveillance as corroborating criminal activity, and failing to disclose innocent surveillance results.

After excising the misleading information and amplifying the record, the court held the remaining material did not establish reasonable and probable grounds for the warrant.

The search was therefore unreasonable and violated s. 8 of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the police conduct was deliberate and egregious, the intrusion into the accused’s residence was significant, and admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.