Michael Newell

The applicant sought a reference hearing under section 74 of the Firearms Act to review the Chief Firearms Officer's refusal to issue a firearms license.

The applicant lived on a farm and sought a license to protect livestock from coyotes.

At the time of application, the applicant was in a common law relationship with a member of the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club, a designated criminal organization.

The firearms officer refused the application citing public safety concerns under section 5(1) of the Act.

The court upheld the refusal, finding that the officer was entitled to consider the applicant's association with a member of a criminal organization when assessing public safety, and that the applicant's continued association with the member after the refusal demonstrated a lack of judgment regarding the gravity of the public safety concerns.

The defendant was sentenced for multiple counts of residential break and enter.

The court imposed a 21-month custodial sentence (net 15 months and 10 days after pre-sentence custody credit) followed by three years probation.

The sentence balanced denunciation and public protection with the defendant's personal circumstances, including her late-onset criminal activity (beginning at age 49-50), underlying heroin addiction, and lack of prior record before 2007.

The court rejected a conditional sentence as inappropriate given the number of residences involved and the serious impact on victims.

Probation conditions included non-association orders, geographic restrictions, mandatory substance abuse and counselling programs, restitution obligations, weapons prohibition, and DNA sampling.

Victim surcharges of $1,000 were imposed with five years to pay.

The offender was convicted of multiple firearms-related offences including firearm trafficking, knowing unauthorized possession, possession contrary to a prohibition order, and breach of recognizance.

The court considered constitutional challenges to the mandatory minimum sentence under s. 99(2) of the Criminal Code and to s. 719(3.1), which restricts enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

Relying in part on the reasoning in R. v. Nur, the court held that the three‑year mandatory minimum for firearm trafficking under s. 99(2) violated s. 12 of the Charter because the provision could capture licensing-type conduct with minimal moral culpability and impose a grossly disproportionate sentence.

The court rejected the challenge to s. 719(3.1) and applied limited enhanced credit for pre‑sentence custody.

The offender received a global sentence of four years and six months' imprisonment, subject to credit for time served.

The defendant was charged with assaulting his spouse during a domestic dispute.

The complainant alleged the defendant entered their home without permission and assaulted her, causing visible injuries.

The defendant claimed he entered the home to see his children and acted in self-defence when the complainant attacked him over a cell phone.

The court found credibility issues with both parties but determined that the defendant's evidence, while not entirely persuasive, could not be rejected and entitled him to the benefit of reasonable doubt.

The charge was dismissed.

The appellant appealed convictions for public nudity offences under s. 174(1)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code, raising numerous grounds including alleged judicial bias, improper admission of evidence, lack of Attorney General authorization under s. 174(3), and failure to establish the required actus reus and mens rea.

The Superior Court rejected each ground, finding that defence counsel had consented to the trial judge remaining seized of the matter and that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court held that the trial judge properly evaluated the evidence and provided sufficient reasons supporting the convictions.

It also confirmed that s. 174(2) is a deeming provision extending the definition of nudity and does not constitute a separate offence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and multiple firearms and ammunition offences following the execution of a search warrant at an apartment in Oshawa.

Cocaine, two loaded handguns, and ammunition were found hidden under a desk drawer in the bedroom normally occupied by the accused's mother.

The Crown argued the accused had knowledge and control of the contraband.

The defence contended there was no direct evidence linking the accused to the items and that other residents and visitors had access to the bedroom.

The court found that while the accused or his brother likely brought the contraband into the apartment, the evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt which brother was responsible.

The realistic possibility that the brother hid the items without the accused's knowledge was fatal to the prosecution's case.

The defendant brought a Garofoli motion to exclude evidence obtained pursuant to the execution of a search warrant at his mother's residence, alleging a violation of section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The defendant challenged both his standing to bring the motion and the sufficiency of grounds in the Information to Obtain the warrant.

The court found that the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the residence and therefore had standing.

The court also found that while the Information contained some deficiencies in disclosure, there was sufficient reliable evidence to support the issuance of the warrant.

Even if the warrant was issued without reasonable and probable grounds, the court would have admitted the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, as the administration of justice would not be brought into disrepute.