Lesley Pasquino

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.

An applicant sought judicial review of a firearms officer's refusal to issue a Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL) under the Firearms Act.

The officer based the refusal on twelve occurrence reports spanning 2004 to 2015, demonstrating a pattern of violent and unpredictable behaviour, despite only one criminal conviction.

The applicant argued the refusal was unreasonable, but the court found the officer's decision was based on a reasonable assessment of the applicant's propensity for violence and lack of judgment in escalating situations to violence.

The court upheld the refusal, finding it was desirable in the interests of public safety that the applicant not possess firearms.

The Crown applied under s. 521 of the Criminal Code to vacate a Justice of the Peace's decision granting bail to the accused, Miguel Nash.

The accused was facing new charges including impaired driving, assault police, and breach of recognizance, while already on bail for previous impaired driving offences and awaiting sentencing.

The Crown argued the Justice of the Peace failed to properly apply reverse onus provisions and public safety concerns.

The court found the Justice of the Peace's decision "clearly inappropriate" for failing to adequately weigh public safety and the accused's history of non-compliance and reoffending.

The court ordered the accused detained on both secondary and tertiary grounds.

The Crown applied for forfeiture of firearms seized on consent from the respondent and for a prohibition order preventing the respondent from possessing firearms for five years under section 117.05 of the Criminal Code.

The respondent surrendered his firearms following a mental health crisis triggered by public exposure of false claims about his military service.

While the respondent had no criminal record and acted responsibly by admitting himself to hospital, the court found that his ongoing psychiatric concerns and significant physical impairments—including tremors and loss of motor control in his hands and arms—rendered him unsafe to possess or operate firearms.

The court granted the forfeiture and prohibition orders, but provided a six-month period for the respondent to sell the firearms to a licensed purchaser before they would be destroyed.

The applicant, Leon McIntyre, challenged the constitutionality of two Criminal Code provisions during his sentencing hearing: the mandatory minimum sentence for robbery with a restricted firearm (s. 344(1)) and the pre-sentence custody credit limit (s. 719(3.1)).

He argued these provisions violated sections 7 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court dismissed both constitutional challenges, finding that s. 344(1) was not grossly disproportionate to the applicant or reasonable hypothetical offenders, and that s. 719(3.1) was not a "punishment" under s. 12 and did not result in cruel and unusual punishment or arbitrary limitation of liberty.

The offender pleaded guilty to robbery with a restricted firearm, assault causing bodily harm, and related offences after attacking a victim in his driveway and stealing his vehicle.

The Crown sought a 6-year sentence, while the offender sought 2-3 years with enhanced pre-sentence credit for harsh jail conditions.

The court imposed a global sentence of 6 years, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for a violent home invasion.

The court declined to grant enhanced pre-sentence credit beyond the 1.5:1 ratio, noting the offender's multiple institutional misconducts involving violence against other inmates.