Margo MacKinnon

The accused, a young man with no prior criminal record, was found guilty of possession of a prohibited firearm (a sawed-off semi-automatic rifle) with readily accessible ammunition, and possession of cocaine and marijuana.

The firearm and drugs were found hidden in his bedroom during a police search.

The court considered the sentencing principles, including the paramountcy of denunciation and general deterrence for serious firearm offences, while also giving significant weight to the accused's youth, disadvantaged background, and rehabilitative potential.

The court applied Gladue principles by analogy, acknowledging the impact of systemic racism on the accused's life.

A total sentence of 27 months imprisonment was imposed (24 months for the firearm offence, 3 months consecutive for cocaine possession, and 3 months concurrent for marijuana possession), reduced to an effective 18 months after 9 months credit for stringent pre-trial house arrest.

Ancillary orders included a 10-year/life weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The defendant challenged a telewarrant used to search his residence, alleging a Section 8 Charter violation due to an incorrect address on the warrant and a missing appendix.

The court found the warrant facially invalid due to the address error, constituting a Section 8 breach.

However, applying the R. v. Grant test, the court declined to exclude the seized evidence under Section 24(2) of the Charter, finding the police acted in good faith and the evidence was reliable and critical to the Crown's case.

The sub-facial attack on the warrant was rejected, and a judicial summary of redacted ITO portions was deemed adequate.

The accused, Anthony McCalla, sought to exclude evidence obtained during his arrest and apartment search, alleging breaches of ss. 8, 9, and 10(a) of the Charter.

The court found that police had reasonable grounds for arrest and that the search warrants were validly issued.

While the initial warrantless entry to secure the apartment was justified by exigent circumstances, the police's subsequent five-hour occupation of the apartment while awaiting the warrant constituted a breach of the accused's s. 8 Charter rights.

However, the court found no breach of s. 9 (arbitrary detention) or s. 10(a) (right to be promptly informed of reasons for arrest).

Applying the Grant factors under s. 24(2) of the Charter, the court determined that admitting the evidence, despite the s. 8 breach, would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, given the good faith of the officers, the reliability of the evidence, and its importance to the Crown's case.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The respondent, Jah-Kiyo Desmond-Robinson, brought a Garofoli application challenging the legality of a search warrant under section 8 of the Charter and seeking to exclude evidence (a firearm, ammunition, and drugs) under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The defence argued that the Information to Obtain (ITO) the search warrant, which relied heavily on two confidential informants (CIs), was deficient.

The court considered the un-redacted ITO and a judicial summary, and allowed limited cross-examination of the affiant.

Applying the Debot "3Cs" criteria (compelling, credible, and confirmed), the court found that the CI information provided a reasonable basis for the authorizing justice to issue the warrant.

Consequently, the search was deemed lawful, and no section 8 Charter violation occurred.

In the alternative, had there been a breach, the court determined the evidence would still be admissible under section 24(2) due to the good faith of the police, the high reliability of the evidence, and society's strong interest in prosecuting serious offences involving illegal firearms and drugs.

The accused was charged with possession of a prohibited firearm, ammunition, cocaine, and marijuana following a search of his bedroom.

He admitted possession of the drugs and some ammunition but denied knowledge of a sawed-off rifle found in a knapsack in his closet.

The court rejected the accused's testimony, finding it riddled with coincidences and contradicted by his mother's evidence.

Applying the test for constructive possession and circumstantial evidence, the court concluded the only reasonable inference was that the accused knew about the valuable firearm hidden in his closet.

The accused was convicted on all counts.

Accused persons charged following a large police investigation sought disclosure of source materials underlying wiretap authorizations to support anticipated Garofoli and Dawson applications.

The defence argued that all investigative materials, including pre‑Part VI materials referenced or relied upon by the affiant, were presumptively relevant and disclosable under Stinchcombe principles.

The Attorney General of Ontario argued that disclosure should be limited to materials relevant to the accused’s ability to make full answer and defence at trial unless the defence first demonstrated a reasonable possibility that additional materials would assist in challenging the authorization.

The court acknowledged conceptual difficulties with the Crown’s narrower approach but held that existing authorities required an accused to meet a minimal relevance threshold before obtaining additional disclosure beyond what was before the authorizing judge.

Applying principles of judicial comity and following prior decisions adopting that approach, the court dismissed the disclosure applications.