Firearm possession

The court considered whether the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Kimera Fullwood was in possession of a prohibited firearm found in a residence during a drug trafficking investigation.

The court reviewed the law on circumstantial evidence and possession, ultimately finding that the evidence was reasonably capable of supporting an alternative inference that another individual, Hasnan Sandhu, brought the firearm into the residence without Fullwood’s knowledge.

Fullwood was acquitted on the firearm charges.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal of Barrington Grant’s conviction for possession of a loaded firearm.

The appellant had challenged the admissibility of evidence obtained under a warrant, but his application was dismissed at trial.

After his conviction, related proceedings involving the same information to obtain (ITO) resulted in stays due to disclosure issues.

The Crown conceded the appeal in light of these developments and a prior Court of Appeal decision in R. v. Khamo, which quashed a conviction based on the same evidence.

The court set aside the conviction, ordered a new trial, and entered a stay of proceedings.

The decision concerns the prosecution of Brandon Caleb for trafficking in a controlled substance, possession of a loaded firearm, and possession of a firearm while prohibited.

The court found that the circumstantial evidence, including intercepted communications, expert testimony, and physical evidence, established beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Caleb trafficked in cocaine and possessed a loaded firearm at his residence.

The court rejected alternative explanations and found the evidence did not support reasonable doubt as to his guilt.

The appellant, Isaiah Todd, appealed his conviction for possession of a loaded firearm and possession of a firearm while prohibited, following the dismissal of his s. 8 Charter application.

The Court of Appeal upheld the reviewing judge’s finding that the confidential informant’s information was compelling and corroborated, and that the Information to Obtain (ITO) established reasonable grounds for the search warrant.

The appeal was dismissed.

Saieed Hagi pled guilty to possession of a loaded firearm in breach of a firearm prohibition order while on parole for a manslaughter conviction involving a firearm.

The Crown sought a 5-year sentence emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, while the Defence argued for 4 years with credit for harsh pre-sentence incarceration conditions and social context mitigating factors.

The court balanced aggravating factors including possession of two firearms while intoxicated and on parole, against mitigating factors such as a guilty plea, significant lockdown conditions, social disadvantage, and demonstrated rehabilitation efforts.

The sentence imposed was a global 4 years minus pre-sentence custody, with ancillary orders including a lifetime firearm prohibition and DNA sample.

This decision addresses sentencing for Jeremy Brown, a 25-year-old with no prior record at the time of offences, convicted of possession of a firearm with an altered serial number, carrying a concealed weapon, careless storage, and knowledge of unauthorized possession.

The case is complicated by Brown’s prior manslaughter conviction involving a firearm, for which he received an 11-year sentence.

The Court considered aggravating factors including the altered serial number, proximity to vulnerable persons, and the dangerous nature of the firearm possession, alongside mitigating factors such as Brown’s age, health condition (sickle cell disease), and social context as a Black man.

The Court imposed consecutive custodial sentences totaling 21 months, to be served consecutively to the manslaughter sentence, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

After trial, Dominic D’Angelo Wright was found guilty of multiple drug trafficking and firearm offences involving possession of a loaded handgun, large sums of cash, and various controlled substances.

A joint submission for a global sentence of six years was accepted by the court.

The sentencing considered an Impact of Race and Culture Assessment Report (IRCA) which detailed Mr. Wright’s challenging upbringing in a high-crime, low-income neighbourhood, his struggles with loss, substance abuse, and systemic discrimination.

Despite these mitigating factors, the court emphasized the seriousness of the offences, particularly the impact of opioid trafficking and gun possession on community safety.

Enhanced presentence custody credit was granted due to harsh incarceration conditions.

The sentence balances denunciation and deterrence with recognition of Mr. Wright’s rehabilitative potential, including his educational achievements while in custody.

This sentencing decision addresses the possession of a loaded restricted firearm and related offences by Chadwick Francis, who was stopped at a RIDE spot-check.

The trial focused on a racial profiling claim which was dismissed.

The judge considered the social context of systemic racism and Mr. Francis’ personal history, including his victimization by gun violence, as mitigating factors.

The decision carefully balances denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and public protection, ultimately imposing a conditional sentence order (CSO) of two years less one day with strict conditions, including GPS monitoring and probation, rather than incarceration.

The case highlights the complexity of sentencing in firearm possession cases involving racialized offenders and the evolving role of social context evidence.

This criminal trial concerned the defendant, Cory Leclair, who was charged with illegal possession of a firearm and being an accessory after the fact to discharging a firearm.

The charges stemmed from an altercation where Jamie Labelle, a companion of the defendant, brandished a handgun.

The Crown alleged Leclair took the bag containing the firearm from Labelle and hid it.

The court found the defendant guilty of illegal possession of a prohibited firearm (counts 4 and 8), concluding that the only reasonable inference from the circumstantial video evidence was that the defendant knew the gun was in the bag when he took possession of it.

However, the court found the defendant not guilty of being an accessory after the fact to discharging a firearm (count 9), as there was reasonable doubt whether Labelle had actually fired the weapon, despite some witness testimony.

This criminal trial addressed charges against Gianni Deluca, including discharge of a firearm, firearm possession, and possession of fentanyl and fluorofentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The court found that Deluca acted in self-defence when discharging the firearm, leading to an acquittal on that charge.

However, the court rejected Deluca's explanation that he acquired the satchel containing the firearm and drugs during the altercation, finding beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed these items prior to the incident.

Consequently, Deluca was found guilty of the drug and firearm possession charges, including breaching a weapons prohibition order, but not guilty of possessing proceeds of crime.

The defendant was charged with multiple drug trafficking and firearm offences.

He admitted to trafficking cocaine and possessing proceeds of crime, and cocaine for trafficking.

The contested charges were possession of a firearm and possession of fentanyl for trafficking.

The court found the defendant guilty of the firearm charges, rejecting his explanation that the firearm belonged to another individual, Bogdan, due to inconsistencies in his testimony and strong circumstantial evidence (defendant's bank card and personal ornaments found with the firearm).

However, the court acquitted the defendant of the fentanyl charge, finding reasonable doubt due to weaknesses in the prosecution's evidence regarding the location and association of the fentanyl with the defendant's documents, despite the defendant's impaired credibility.

Lewis Moye pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded firearm.

The Crown sought a three-year penitentiary sentence, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

The defence argued for a conditional sentence of two years less a day, highlighting mitigating factors such as the offender's lack of a prior record, guilty plea, efforts towards rehabilitation, and the impact of systemic anti-Black racism on his moral culpability.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by two years of probation with community service, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and forfeiture of the firearm.

The judge balanced the seriousness of the offence with the offender's strong rehabilitation prospects and background circumstances, concluding that a conditional sentence could adequately achieve sentencing objectives.

The appellant was convicted of firearm charges and appealed, arguing that his initial arrest for breach of an undertaking was unlawful, leading to an illegal search and discovery of the firearm, thus violating his Charter rights.

The Court of Appeal found that the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds for the initial arrest due to their failure to check an available database (Versadex) for consent to communicate, constituting a s. 9 Charter breach.

However, the Court also determined that the police had independent lawful grounds to search the vehicle under the Cannabis Control Act, 2017, based on observations of marijuana possession.

Applying a fresh s. 24(2) Charter analysis, the Court concluded that despite the s. 9 breach, the firearm evidence should not be excluded, as the impact on the appellant's Charter rights was minimal (due to the lawful CCA search) and society's interest in adjudicating serious charges on their merits strongly favored admission.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of firearm possession and drug trafficking and appealed both his conviction and sentence.

The conviction appeal argued that the information to obtain a search warrant (ITO) lacked sufficient grounds, specifically alleging the affiant misled the Justice of the Peace (JP) regarding the appellant's address and failed to establish reasonable grounds for drugs at his residence.

The Court of Appeal found that while the reviewing judge misapprehended one argument, it was immaterial as police observations provided sufficient grounds for the search warrant.

The conviction appeal was dismissed.

On the sentence appeal, the Crown conceded credit for time served, and the Court granted enhanced credit (1.5:1) for 145 days, resulting in 217 days credit.

The sentence appeal was allowed.

The accused, Myles Robinson, was charged with possession of a loaded and prohibited firearm and related breach of recognizance charges.

The charges stemmed from an attempted firearm sale where Robinson was the alleged purchaser.

The court found no evidence that Robinson ever had personal, constructive, or joint possession of the firearm, as he never exercised the requisite control over it.

However, the court found him guilty of attempted possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, as his actions went beyond mere preparation and were moments from completion of the substantive crime.

He was found not guilty of the original possession and breach charges.

Tyriq Brooks was convicted of multiple offences, including three armed bank robberies and firearm possession.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the planned nature of the robberies, use of a real firearm, threats to victims, profound victim impact, the offender's significant role, and his criminal record including prior weapon prohibition.

Mitigating factors included his youth, family support, limited weight given to challenges as a young Black male, a late guilty plea to firearm possession, and harsh pre-trial custody conditions (Duncan credit).

The court emphasized deterrence and denunciation, imposing a global sentence of 10 years imprisonment, less enhanced pre-sentence custody.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, lifetime weapon prohibition, non-communication order, and forfeiture.

This case concerns a Charter application to exclude firearm evidence in a criminal trial.

The defendant, a Black male, was stopped by police based on a robbery suspect description (white male, skinny build) that he did not match.

The court found that the initial detention was unlawful, violating sections 9 (arbitrary detention) and 10 (right to counsel) of the Charter, as police lacked reasonable suspicion and failed to provide rights immediately.

Constable Akgul's testimony regarding the reasons for detention was deemed unreliable.

However, the court accepted Constable Mehmoud's evidence that subsequent observations of the defendant displaying signs of firearm possession created reasonable suspicion for the physical takedown, during which the loaded firearm fell out.

The court found no section 8 (unreasonable search) violation.

Applying the R. v. Grant s. 24(2) analysis, the court acknowledged the seriousness of the Charter breaches due to the officer's wilful disregard and fabricated reasons.

However, the impact on the defendant's Charter rights was deemed fleeting, as the evidence would have been discovered lawfully seconds later.

Crucially, society's interest in adjudicating serious firearm offences on their merits overwhelmingly favored admission.

Consequently, the firearm evidence was admitted.

The defendants, brothers Garret and Garnett Grant, were arrested following a traffic stop that escalated into a search for cannabis and then a firearm.

They faced charges related to unauthorized firearm possession and possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking.

Both defendants brought Charter applications alleging arbitrary detention, unreasonable searches, and breaches of their right to counsel, including racial profiling.

The court dismissed the Charter applications for arbitrary detention and unreasonable search, finding the police conduct lawful and not racially motivated.

However, it found a breach of the right to be informed of the reason for detention (s. 10(a)) due to delayed notification of drug charges.

Applying the Grant analysis, the court admitted the evidence.

On the merits, Garret Grant was found guilty of all firearm charges, while Garnett Grant was found guilty of most drug trafficking charges and simple possession of oxycodone.

Garret Grant was acquitted of all drug charges, and Garnett Grant was acquitted of one drug trafficking count.

The accused, Daquon Dawkins, was charged with unauthorized possession of a loaded restricted firearm, possession of a restricted firearm without a license, and possession of a firearm while prohibited.

The trial involved a voir dire challenging the validity of search warrants obtained based on confidential informant information, applying the Garofoli "Step 6" procedure and Debot criteria.

The court upheld the warrants, finding the information to obtain (ITO) provided sufficient grounds and full, fair, and frank disclosure.

The central issue at trial was whether Dawkins had knowledge of the handgun found in a backpack he was carrying.

The court rejected Dawkins' exculpatory testimony as incredible and found him guilty of all charges, concluding that his knowledge of the firearm was proven beyond a reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence and common sense inferences.

The defendant was sentenced for possessing a loaded restricted firearm and dangerous controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking, including fentanyl.

The court balanced the objectives of denunciation and deterrence with the defendant's strong rehabilitative potential, youth, and community support.

Aggravating factors included the firearm's purpose (drug trade protection), the deadly nature and quantity of fentanyl, other drugs, motive of greed, bail breaches, and quick return to drug trade.

Mitigating factors included an early guilty plea, first offender status, youth, community support, and excellent rehabilitative potential.

The global sentence was set at six years, reduced from an initial seven years to foster rehabilitation, less presentence custody.