Nancy L. Backhouse

The accused was charged with multiple firearms offences after police executing a search warrant located a loaded prohibited firearm with ammunition hidden between a mattress and boxspring in his bedroom.

The accused argued the firearm belonged to another individual and sought exclusion of the evidence based on a s. 8 Charter violation.

The court had previously ruled the firearm and ammunition admissible.

After assessing the credibility of the accused and other witnesses, the court rejected the defence explanation and found the accused knowingly possessed the firearm in his bedroom while subject to a lifetime firearms prohibition and a probation order.

The Crown proved the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

Condominium unit owners sought removal of a certificate of lien and correction of a status certificate after the condominium corporation claimed additional legal costs under s.134(5) of the Condominium Act, 1998 following a compliance order.

The corporation asserted it could add substantial additional legal fees as common expenses beyond the court-ordered costs.

The court held that s.134(5) permits recovery only of reasonable legal costs incurred in obtaining the compliance order, not costs incurred afterwards in attempting to enforce or escalate the dispute.

Finding the corporation’s claimed $41,599.45 unreasonable for a simple application largely resolved by consent, the court assessed the recoverable costs at $6,500 inclusive of prior awards.

The lien was ordered vacated and the corporation ordered to pay costs of the motion.

The accused was charged with trafficking in cocaine and possession of proceeds of crime following an undercover police drug purchase.

An undercover officer testified that she purchased cocaine from a man matching the accused’s description using pre-recorded marked money, and surveillance officers identified the accused as the person involved in the transaction.

The defence called multiple civilian witnesses who stated the accused did not engage in a drug transaction and remained with them on the way to purchase pizza.

The court found that although the accused matched the description of the person observed by police, the marked $20 bill allegedly recovered from him was neither photographed nor preserved as evidence.

In the absence of this best evidence and given the competing testimony, the court concluded the Crown had not proven identity and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.