John Pollard

The accused was charged with three firearm-related offences: possession of a loaded prohibited firearm contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code, unauthorized possession of a firearm contrary to s. 91(1), and possession of a firearm knowing its possession was unauthorized contrary to s. 92(1).

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence that a loaded handgun and ammunition were discovered by the accused's father under a mattress in the basement bedroom where the accused resided.

The central issue was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused possessed the firearm.

The court found that the accused's knowledge and control of the firearm was the only reasonable inference from the totality of the evidence and convicted on all three counts.

This is an appeal from a conviction for three counts of careless driving causing bodily harm and the dismissal of an application for a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The appellant challenged the admissibility of a roadside statement, the trial judge's finding of guilt and sufficiency of reasons, and the ruling on unreasonable delay due to the COVID-19 pandemic, including a request to admit fresh evidence.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in law, no unreasonable verdict, and no miscarriage of justice regarding the voluntariness of the statement, the conviction, or the 11(b) application.

Shamar Brown was convicted of drug trafficking and gun possession, including a loaded handgun with an over-capacity magazine, cocaine, Oxycontin, and Xanax for trafficking.

He had an extensive criminal record with multiple firearm convictions and was on federal parole and subject to firearm prohibitions at the time of arrest.

The Crown sought a 10-year sentence, while the defence argued for a 7-7.5 year sentence, reduced to 4.5 years due to harsh custody conditions and a Charter breach.

The court imposed a total sentence of 10 years, applying 1.5:1 credit for pre-trial custody, resulting in 8 years, 5 months, and 15 days remaining to serve.

The court considered aggravating factors such as his criminal history and public threat, and limited mitigating factors, while dismissing the anti-Black racism argument due to lack of specific evidence.

This ruling addresses a Charter application under s. 10(b) and s. 24(2) by two accused seeking to exclude evidence (a firearm and drugs) due to alleged breaches of their right to counsel.

The Crown conceded a s. 10(b) breach occurred due to a communication breakdown between police forces, resulting in a delay of 1 hour 15 minutes for one applicant and 1 hour 45 minutes for the other to speak with counsel.

The court found the Toronto Police Service acted professionally, but the Durham Regional Police Service failed in their duty to facilitate access to counsel at the booking stage.

Applying the R. v. Grant factors, the court characterized the breach as serious but not systemic, found the impact on the applicants moderate, and society's interest in adjudication on the merits high given the serious nature of the charges (firearm and large quantity of drugs).

The application for exclusion of evidence was dismissed.

The applicants sought to exclude evidence obtained from a search warrant, arguing insufficient grounds for the warrant and an unreasonable manner of search, violating their s. 8 Charter rights.

The court found the warrant invalid due to reliance on generalized assumptions rather than case-specific information linking firearms to the residence.

The manner of search was deemed reasonable.

Applying the Grant factors, the court concluded that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, thus excluding the evidence.

This is a ruling on committal for three accused charged with a brazen daytime shooting in Regent Park on May 28, 2018, allegedly in retaliation for a shooting in Vanauley Walk the previous day.

The Crown alleges the accused are members of Menace Gang, a junior gang associated with the Project Originals criminal organization.

The accused are charged with numerous offences including possession and discharge of firearms, dangerous driving, and committing these offences for the benefit of a criminal organization.

The court examined party liability under sections 21(1) and 21(2) of the Criminal Code, the admissibility of rap music videos as evidence of criminal organization status, and the distinction between acts that have the effect of benefitting a criminal organization versus acts done for that purpose.

A youth pleaded guilty to theft of a motor vehicle, possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, and failing to stop for police.

The Crown sought six months secure custody followed by probation, while the defence sought a non-custodial sentence with probation and community service.

The court determined that the flight from police constituted a violent offence under section 39(1)(a) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, making custody an available option.

However, the court found this was not an exceptional case under section 39(1)(d).

Considering the youth's first-time offender status, guilty pleas, pre-trial custody served, positive pre-sentence report, remorse, and return to stable home environment, the court imposed an 18-month probation with 100 hours of community service instead of custody.

The accused, charged with firearms and drug offences, brought applications to cross-examine the affiant and sub-affiants of an Information to Obtain (ITO) a wiretap authorization, and a Garofoli application to exclude the intercepted communications.

The applicants argued that the ITO relied heavily on confidential informants and lacked sufficient detail to establish reasonable and probable grounds.

The court dismissed the application to cross-examine, finding no evidentiary basis to suggest it would elicit testimony discrediting the statutory preconditions.

The court also dismissed the Garofoli application, concluding that the redacted ITO and judicial summary provided sufficient evidence to establish reasonable and probable grounds to believe the interceptions would afford evidence of the offences.

The accused, a 37-year-old woman with a lengthy criminal record related to drug addiction, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to traffic 28.75 grams of crack cocaine.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of approximately 15 months, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court imposed an 18-month conditional sentence with the first six months subject to electronic monitoring, followed by two years of probation.

The decision reflects a modern approach to sentencing addict-traffickers, emphasizing genuine rehabilitation efforts and the possibility of community-based sentences where appropriate.