The accused was tried on firearms charges arising after police responded to a possible gunshots call and pursued him when he fled during an attempted investigative interaction.
He argued that the initial police conduct amounted to arbitrary detention motivated by racial profiling and that he did not know a satchel he carried contained a loaded handgun.
The court applied the detention framework under s. 9 of the Charter and held there was no physical or psychological detention before flight, and that the later arrest was supported by reasonable grounds.
The court rejected the defence account as implausible and contrary to common sense, found knowing possession and control proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and entered convictions on the ammunition-possession and prohibition-order counts while conditionally staying the overlapping possession count under Kienapple.
