Firearm possession

The defendant was charged with assault, assault with a weapon, kidnapping, forcible confinement, pointing a firearm, and firearm possession offences following a police stop on April 6, 2024.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the testimony of the alleged victim, whose account was riddled with contradictions and demonstrated significant credibility issues.

The defendant testified that he had no knowledge of the firearm and denied assaulting or confining the alleged victim.

The court found the Crown failed to prove any charges beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the defendant on all counts.

The accused was charged with 23 offences arising from four armed robberies at gunpoint and firearm possession charges.

The Crown sought to introduce evidence of each robbery as similar act evidence to establish identity.

The court admitted the similar act evidence, finding striking similarities across all four robberies including the use of the same firearm, vehicle, clothing, and modus operandi.

The court convicted the accused of three counts of armed robbery, one count of attempted armed robbery, four counts of pointing a firearm, four counts of disguising face with intent to commit indictable offence, four counts of possessing a weapon for purpose of committing criminal offence, four counts of breaching a release order, and three firearm possession offences.

The offender was convicted of unauthorized possession of a loaded restricted or prohibited firearm contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code and possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The offences occurred during a police search of an illegal bar in Toronto in September 2019.

The offender was 21 years old at the time of the offences and 27 at sentencing.

The Crown sought 7-8 years imprisonment while the defence sought 2 years 9 months.

The court imposed a sentence of 4.5 years total (3.5 years for the firearm offence and 1 year consecutive for the drug offence), taking into account the offender's difficult background, youth at the time of the offences, and the principle of totality, balanced against the serious nature of the offences and the offender's subsequent criminal record.

The accused was convicted by jury of two counts of possession of a loaded, restricted firearm contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code, two counts of careless storage of ammunition contrary to s. 86(1), and one count of possession of a prohibited device contrary to s. 92.

The accused jumped from a balcony during a police search warrant execution and was found with two loaded prohibited firearms in the laneway below.

The court imposed a global sentence of 3½ years in custody, with credit for pre-sentence custody and restrictive bail conditions, resulting in six months remaining to be served.

The court balanced the serious nature of firearm offences and the need for denunciation and deterrence against mitigating factors including the accused's youth, first-time offender status, supportive family, rehabilitative potential, and harsh conditions of pre-sentence detention.

The accused, Sajeeth Vijayakumaran, faced a six-count indictment for firearm possession and threatening bodily harm.

The court assessed the credibility of the main complainant, noting inconsistencies and potential bias due to her own outstanding criminal charges.

While the complainant's testimony regarding the threats was deemed uncorroborated and insufficient for conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, her testimony about the accused's handgun and a unique lockbox was strongly corroborated by police findings during a search.

The court found the accused had constructive possession of the firearm and ammunition, having hidden them after an argument.

Consequently, the accused was acquitted of the threatening charges but found guilty of the three firearm possession offences.

Brian Aguiar pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for trafficking and unauthorized possession of a prohibited firearm.

Police found significant quantities of drugs and a Glock handgun in hidden compartments in vehicles registered to him.

The Crown sought a 9-year consecutive sentence, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence or a maximum of 3 years further imprisonment.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the sophisticated nature of the trafficking, the dangerous combination of drugs and a firearm, and greed as a motive.

Mitigating factors included the offender's difficult past, positive character references, and guilty pleas, which were particularly mitigating due to serious police violations of solicitor-client privilege during wiretap interceptions.

The court credited 397 days of pre-sentence custody at 2:1 due to harsh conditions, and also applied "Downes credit" for strict bail conditions.

The court imposed a global sentence of 5 years imprisonment for the cocaine conviction and 2 years concurrent for the firearm conviction, resulting in a net sentence of 950 days (approximately 2.6 years) from the date of sentencing, after accounting for pre-sentence custody and Downes credit.

The court declined a conditional sentence, emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence for the serious nature of the offences.

Richard Gurhan was charged with multiple criminal offences including careless storage of a firearm, unauthorized possession of a firearm, possession of a restricted weapon with ammunition, possession of proceeds of crime, and possession of oxycodone and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The charges stemmed from the execution of search warrants at a residence and a vehicle (Hyundai Kona).

The Crown's case was circumstantial, relying on surveillance, the discovery of drugs, a firearm, and cash in the vehicle, and the accused's possession of the vehicle keys.

The court found the accused guilty on all counts, concluding that the only rational inference from the circumstantial evidence was that the accused had knowledge and control of the illicit items.

Tremar Thorpe pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded and prohibited firearm.

The offence involved pointing the gun at a victim and making racist remarks.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the nature of the firearm, its loaded and defaced state, its accessibility, and the offender's use of it.

Mitigating factors included the offender's youth, early guilty plea, remorse, strong community support, prosocial goals, and time spent on strict bail conditions.

The Crown sought a 3-4 year penitentiary sentence, while the Defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court emphasized deterrence and denunciation as paramount objectives for gun crimes, ultimately imposing a 28-month penitentiary sentence, reduced to 22 months after credit for pre-trial custody and stringent bail conditions, along with a 10-year firearms prohibition and a DNA order.

Uygar Kaan Celenk was convicted by a jury of possession of 1.35 kg of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and two firearm offences (possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and possession of a firearm without a license/registration).

The Crown sought a 15-year prison sentence, while the Defence requested a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the large quantity of fentanyl and the presence of a loaded prohibited firearm in a commercial vehicle, and mitigating factors such as the offender's youth, first-time offender status, rehabilitative potential, and childhood trauma.

Applying sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence, balanced with rehabilitation and restraint, the court imposed a global sentence of 13 years imprisonment, with 1 year of credit for pre-trial custody and other factors, resulting in a remaining sentence of 12 years.

Ancillary orders included a 10-year firearm prohibition and a DNA order.

Justin Barrett pleaded guilty to failing to comply with a release order, possession of cocaine, fentanyl, a prohibited loaded firearm, and an oversized magazine.

The sentencing hearing was delayed for a 'Morris' report.

Both Crown and defence sought a conditional sentence, differing on its legal basis and length.

The court considered aggravating factors (loaded, modified firearm in public, flight from police, breach of house arrest, drug possession) and significant mitigating factors, including social context evidence (trauma, poverty, racism, lack of support, positive rehabilitation efforts).

The court found Mr. Barrett's moral blameworthiness significantly reduced.

A conditional sentence of two years less one day was imposed for the firearms charges (concurrently with a 60-day conditional sentence for other offences), followed by one year of probation, a DNA order, and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

The sentence included a de-escalating house arrest and curfew period.

The defendant, Adrian Thomas, was charged with multiple offences, including assault with intent to resist arrest and various firearm-related charges, following a traffic stop and struggle with police.

The court found the initial traffic stop lawful and the prolonged detention not arbitrary.

However, it found that the police used excessive force during the arrest, constituting a breach of the defendant's section 7 Charter rights, and that there were unjustified delays in providing and facilitating access to counsel, breaching section 10(b) Charter rights.

While the search of the vehicle was deemed a lawful inventory search, the court applied the Grant analysis and determined that the serious section 7 violation necessitated the exclusion of the handgun evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

Consequently, the defendant was found not guilty of all gun-related charges but guilty of resisting arrest.

The appellant, Pheonix Haist, appealed her convictions for gun-related offences and refusal to provide a breath sample.

She argued that her s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel was violated due to delays in being informed of the right and in facilitating access to counsel.

She also contended that her convictions for firearm possession were unreasonable, alleging misapprehension of evidence by the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, concluding that the delays in advising and facilitating counsel were justified by the immediacy requirements of breath demands and officer safety concerns.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's assessment of circumstantial evidence regarding firearm possession, affirming that the inference of possession was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Nicholas Wong, appealed his dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence.

He was convicted of two counts of attempted murder with a firearm and other related offences.

The Crown sought the dangerous offender designation based on a pattern of repetitive and persistent aggressive behaviour, including prior firearm possession offences.

Wong argued the sentencing judge erred by considering firearm possession as part of the pattern and by admitting expert evidence on gang affiliation and prior gun use.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the sentencing judge's determination that Wong met the dangerous offender criteria, nor in the admission of the challenged evidence.

The defendant was found guilty after trial of possessing an unloaded restricted firearm in a motor vehicle and careless storage of the firearm and ammunition.

The prosecution sought a total of nine months jail (six months for possession counts concurrent, three months for careless storage consecutive), plus probation.

The defendant sought a six-month concurrent conditional sentence.

The court imposed a total sentence of nine months imprisonment (six months concurrent for possession offences, three months consecutive for careless storage of ammunition) and two years probation, along with a lifetime firearms prohibition for restricted/prohibited firearms and a 10-year prohibition for all other firearms.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence due to the dangerous nature and unlawful provenance of the firearm, rejecting a conditional sentence despite mitigating factors and the global pandemic.

The accused was arrested following a motor vehicle collision on Highway 400.

During the accident investigation, he provided false identification to police.

A search of his vehicle revealed a loaded handgun with an overcapacity magazine containing 13 rounds of ammunition, which had been stolen in the United States.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of a prohibited firearm contrary to s. 95 of the Criminal Code and possession of a firearm knowing its serial number was defaced contrary to s. 92.

The court imposed a sentence of 14 months incarceration (reduced from 18 months to account for COVID-19 collateral consequences), plus three years probation, with credit for presentence custody and restrictive bail conditions.

The defendant brought a Charter application to exclude a loaded handgun discovered during a warrantless search of his apartment.

The defendant alleged violations of sections 8 and 10(a) of the Charter.

The court found that the defendant's mother, who was a tenant, gave valid consent to a protective visual search of the apartment conducted by Sergeant Wallbank.

The court also found that the search was justified as a safety search under common law authority to protect life and ensure scene safety.

The court concluded that no Charter violations occurred and dismissed the application to exclude the evidence.

The defendant was charged with seven firearm-related offences.

The Crown withdrew one count to proceed summarily on six remaining charges under the Criminal Code.

The defendant admitted to handling a firearm and ammunition found in his former girlfriend's vehicle but claimed he discovered them inadvertently in the glove compartment while searching for his lighter.

The Crown alleged the defendant knowingly possessed the firearm and stored it carelessly in the vehicle.

The court found the defendant's explanation incredible and rejected his testimony as contrived.

The court concluded the defendant had knowingly possessed the firearm and stored it in the vehicle while he was inside a bar.

The defendant was convicted of careless storage of a firearm, careless storage of ammunition, possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm, and possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm in a motor vehicle.

The defendant was acquitted of possession of a firearm for a dangerous purpose and possession of a firearm with readily accessible ammunition.

The accused was charged with possessing a firearm without a licence under sections 91(1), 92(2), and 95(1) of the Criminal Code.

He was arrested following execution of a search warrant at his residence, though the warrant was originally directed at his son.

The accused brought a Garofoli application to set aside the search warrant and exclude the firearms seized from his home, arguing there was insufficient evidentiary basis in the Information to Obtain to support reasonable grounds that his son was in unlawful possession of a firearm and that the residence was his son's dwelling house.

The Crown conceded the redacted ITO was insufficient and requested a step-six procedure involving judicial summary review of unredacted portions.

The court found that on the available information, including unredacted paragraphs and the judicial summary, it was open to the issuing justice to find reasonable grounds that the son was in unlawful possession of a firearm and had sufficient residential attachment to the address to justify the warrant.

The application was dismissed.

The accused pleaded guilty to possessing a restricted firearm without a licence contrary to s. 92(1) of the Criminal Code.

The firearm, a loaded semi-automatic assault rifle with a defaced serial number, was discovered by the accused's mother in a knapsack in the accused's home.

The accused had agreed to hold the knapsack for a former neighbour approximately one month prior to discovery.

Upon discovering the firearm, the accused took no action to remove it from her possession.

The court rejected the defence submission for a conditional discharge and imposed a conditional sentence of two years less one day with strict house arrest conditions and 150 hours of community service, followed by two years of probation.

The court also imposed a DNA order, a lifetime firearms prohibition, and a forfeiture order.

The accused, Damion Lewis, faced charges including uttering threats, using a firearm while threatening, theft of mail, and various firearm possession offences.

The trial proceeded in two phases, with the Crown reopening its case to prove the accused's date of birth for firearm authorization purposes.

The court assessed the complainant's credibility, finding her evidence generally unreliable due to inconsistencies and fear.

Consequently, Lewis was acquitted of the threat and firearm-related threat charges (Counts 1, 2, 3).

However, he was found guilty of theft of mail (Count 4), possession of a loaded prohibited firearm (Count 5), possession of a prohibited firearm without a license and registration certificate (Count 6), and carrying a concealed weapon (Count 8).

Count 7, which was a lesser included offence of Count 6, was found guilty but stayed under the Kineapple principle.

The court also ruled on the admissibility of the accused's statement regarding his date of birth, finding it voluntary and not in violation of his Charter rights.