Maxime Jean Simon Roberge Bédard

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the Crown's appeal from acquittals entered after a trial judge excluded evidence of narcotics seized from Prince Asante's vehicle, finding the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds for arrest.

The appellate court held that the trial judge erred in law by misapplying the standard for reasonable and probable grounds, improperly discounting circumstantial and pattern evidence, and requiring proof of the accused's identity beyond what the law demands for a lawful arrest.

The acquittals were set aside and a new trial ordered.

The court granted a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Charter after finding that the delay in bringing Christopher Vaughan to trial, while technically under the 30-month ceiling set by R. v. Jordan, was markedly longer than it reasonably should have been.

The delay was caused by a major disclosure failure by the Crown and chronic institutional delays in Brampton, as well as the Crown’s decision to prefer a direct indictment, which further prolonged the proceedings.

The court found that the Applicant had acted reasonably throughout and that the Crown was responsible for the delay.

The indictment was stayed.

On a criminal appeal as of right, the central issue was whether a handgun found in the appellant’s car met the Criminal Code definition of “firearm” under s. 2.

The trial judge had acquitted on several firearms counts after concluding operability required special expertise, considerable time, and parts not readily available.

The appellate court set aside acquittals, entered convictions on two firearms offences, and ordered a new trial on remaining firearms counts.

The Court held the handgun was a firearm and substantially agreed with the appellate reasons, including that the trial judge failed to assess all evidence on the ultimate issue of guilt or innocence.

The appeal was dismissed and the convictions and new trial order were upheld.

The appellant, Krishan Arora, appealed his sentence of seven years and two months for four counts of forcible confinement and one count of extortion.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the sentencing judge’s approach to aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court held that the sentencing judge did not double count aggravating circumstances and properly considered the appellant’s guilty plea, remorse, and gambling debts.

The sentence was found to be fit given the seriousness of the offences and their impact on the victims.

The Crown appealed the acquittals of the respondent on various firearm offences.

The central issue was whether the handgun found in the respondent's possession was a "firearm" as defined in s. 2 of the Criminal Code.

The trial judge had found it was not, reasoning that making it operational required special expertise, considerable time, and parts not readily available.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by failing to consider all evidence, including the presence of a magazine in the handgun and the respondent's admission of having previously fired it.

The court affirmed that a handgun capable of firing when loaded, even if a magazine is required, is a firearm.

The appeal was allowed, acquittals set aside, convictions entered for some counts, and a new trial ordered for others.