Michael A. Wilson

The applicant, charged with attempted murder and various firearm offences, sought release on bail pending trial.

The applicant allegedly shot the complainant in the neck, resulting in paralysis, while on bail for previous gun and drug charges.

The court found that while detention was not justified on the primary ground, it was justified on the secondary ground due to the strong Crown case and the applicant's previous breach of bail conditions.

The court also found detention justified on the tertiary ground to maintain confidence in the administration of justice given the gravity of the offence and the circumstances.

The bail review application was dismissed.

The Crown brought a K.G.B. application seeking to admit two prior out‑of‑court statements made by an alleged accomplice who recanted at trial.

The statements included an audio‑recorded confession describing multiple robberies and a subsequent identification of the accused as a participant.

The court applied the principled approach to hearsay, considering necessity and threshold reliability under the framework articulated in Khelawon and related authorities.

Although the statements were unsworn and not fully video‑recorded, the declarant testified and was available for cross‑examination, and comparator evidence allowed the trier of fact to assess accuracy.

The court held that these factors sufficiently addressed the hearsay dangers and granted the Crown’s application to admit both statements for the truth of their contents.

During a criminal jury trial, the accused brought a motion for a non-suit arguing there was no evidence upon which a jury could find that an object used during a confrontation was a real firearm rather than an imitation.

The defence contended that witness belief and the accused’s conduct were equally consistent with an imitation firearm and therefore could not support proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court held that the proper test on a directed verdict motion is whether there is some evidence upon which a reasonable jury could convict, not whether alternative explanations exist.

Evidence including witness descriptions of the gun, the accused’s threat to shoot, and the circumstances of the confrontation could support an inference that the firearm was real.

The motion for non-suit was therefore dismissed and the issue left for determination by the jury.

During a criminal trial for robbery, extortion, and firearms offences, the Crown sought to introduce a firearm seized during a search warrant executed nine months after the alleged robbery.

The Crown argued the firearm constituted circumstantial evidence permitting the jury to infer it was the same weapon used in the offence.

The defence opposed admission, arguing the firearm’s generic description and the passage of time rendered the evidence minimally probative and highly prejudicial.

The court held that although the firearm had some probative value, it was significantly weakened by the time gap and the generic description provided by witnesses.

The prejudicial risk—particularly the likelihood of propensity reasoning by the jury—outweighed its probative value, and the evidence was excluded.