R. v. Jackson, 2025 ONCJ 617

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

Toronto

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

MATTHEW JACKSON

CITATION: R. v. Jackson, 2025 ONCJ 617

DATE: November 25, 2025

For the Crown

M. Cuda, C. Sheppard and A. Kwan

For the Defendant

C. Zeeh

Heard:

January 8-10; June 11-12; August 6, 2025

REASONS for JUDGMENT

RUSSELL SILVERSTEIN, J.:

A. INTRODUCTION

1Mr. Jackson is charged with 25 firearm-related possession charges arising out of the execution of a search warrant at his home on May 7, 2024.

2Mr. Zeeh, counsel for the defendant, brought a Charter challenge to the admissibility of the evidence seized pursuant to the execution of the warrant. That challenge was dismissed with reasons to follow. The reasons for that decision are set out below.

3A trial followed the unsuccessful Charter challenge during which Mr. Jackson admitted to being in possession of the many contraband items found in his home on May 7, 2024, but testified that he possessed these items under duress and was thus not guilty of the alleged offences.

B. THE CHARTER APPLICATION

(a) Introduction

4On May 6, 2024, the police sought authorization to search the applicant’s “dwelling house (1007-80 Marine Parade Drive, Toronto), and Red Dodge Charger Hellcat Ontario license DBBY 174” for firearms and firearm-related items. A warrant to search was issued.

5On May 7, 2024, after a tense standoff with the police, the applicant was arrested during the execution of the search warrant. In the residence, the police located several firearms, several different firearm accessories, and a large amount of ammunition.

6The applicant/defendant brought a Charter application alleging that the police breached his ss. 7 and 8 Charter rights. He alleged that the affiant failed in his duty to be full, frank and fair, and the affidavit drafted (ITO) was purposely misleading. He also argued that the ITO did not provide a sufficient basis upon which the issuing justice could have found that reasonable grounds existed to issue the warrant. The applicant sought the exclusion of the evidence seized from 1007-80 Marine Parade Drive in Toronto.

7The applicant also sought to cross-examine the affiant on several alleged misstatements and misleading statements in the ITO.

8I permitted limited cross-examination of the affiant but dismissed the Charter application to exclude the fruits of the search for the reasons that follow.

(b) Cross-examination of the affiant

9The applicant pointed out that the evidence clearly supported the notion that the applicant’s car was a Dodge Charger “Scat Pack” and not a “Hellcat”. Yet, as the applicant pointed out, the affiant refers to the applicant’s car as a Hellcat on many occasions in the ITO. The applicant argued that this mischaracterization was significant and nefarious and might support an argument that the affiant had knowingly misled the issuing justice. Evidence that the applicant owned a Hellcat would have gone some distance in associating the applicant with a photo that the police had obtained of someone holding a Hellcat pistol. I ruled that the test set out in R. v. Pires (2005), 2005 SCC 66, 201 C.C.C. (3d) 449 (S.C.C.) had been met and allowed cross-examination of the affiant, detective Constable Jorge Lee, only regarding this discrepancy.

10DC Lee admitted that he had made several errors in the ITO where he swore that the applicant drove a Hellcat and swore that Ministry of Transportation records said as much. He testified that he was not overly familiar with the distinction between a Hellcat and a Scat Pack and that he had erroneously assumed the applicant’s car was a Hellcat. DC Lee denied that he intentionally sought to mislead the issuing justice into believing that the applicant drove a Hellcat.

(c) Step 6

11The ITO as presented to the issuing justice of the peace contained information supplied by a confidential source (CS). The ITO supplied to the applicant was redacted. As is common, with a view to protecting the identity of the CS, much of the information supplied by the CS was blacked out in the copy of the ITO supplied to the defence.

12The Crown, relying on Step 6 as explained in R. v. Garofoli (1990), 1990 CanLII 52 (SCC), 60 C.C.C. (3d) 161 (S.C.C.), and following the procedure mandated in R. v. Crevier, 2015 ONCA 619, supplied the court with an unredacted copy of the ITO and a proposed judicial summary for the applicant.

(d) Analysis

13The applicant argued that DC Lee had resorted to deliberate deception and that I should find that he had acted in a fashion intended to subvert the process and then exercise my discretion to quash the warrant in its entirety pursuant to R. v. Paryniuk, (2017), 2017 ONCA 87, 347 C.C.C. (3d) 82 (Ont. C.A.) where, at paragraph 69 the Court of Appeal for Ontario confirmed the power of a trial court to quash a warrant where the affiant had acted in a fashion subversive of the process.

14I accepted DC Lee’s testimony. I found that his references to the applicant owning and driving a Hellcat were innocent errors for which excision is the appropriate remedy. This case is distinguishable from those relied on by the applicant, such as R. v. Nyadu, 2024 ONSC 4092, R. v. Majeed, 2017 ONSC 2963 and R. v. MacKenzie, 2024 ONCJ 472.

15The Respondent conceded that the ITO as redacted to protect the CS privilege did not disclose reasonable and probable grounds for the issuance of the warrant.

16The CS privilege prevents me from going into detail but, upon consideration of the unredacted ITO pursuant to Step 6, I am satisfied that the information supplied by the CS predicting the commission of a criminal offence was sufficiently detailed and current to be compelling and credible. This information was, to a significant degree, corroborated by police investigation prior to making the decision to conduct the search. R. v. Debot (1989), 1989 CanLII 13 (SCC), 52 C.C.C. (3d) 193 (S.C.C.) at p. 215.

17After excision, the unredacted ITO provided an ample basis upon which the issuing justice could have found that reasonable grounds existed to issue the warrant. R. v. Vu, 2013 SCC 60

(e) Conclusion

18The Charter application was dismissed. The evidence found upon execution of the warrant was admitted.

C. THE TRIAL

(a) Introduction

19The Crown’s case consisted of a lengthy agreed statement of fact with several photo and video attachments.

20The defendant testified but called no further evidence.

(b) The agreed statement of fact and exhibits filed

21The critical portions of the text of the agreed statement of fact read as follows, with minor editorial alterations:

On May 7, 2024, at about 6:10am the TPS Emergency Task Force (“ETF”) attended the 10th floor of 80 Marine Parade Drive, Toronto, to execute a search warrant on unit 1007. They announced “police search warrant” three times when they arrived at the door to unit 1007.

Police Constable (“PC”) Harding #5467 defeated the lock on the front door of the unit. He tried to open the door and observed JACKSON pushing on the door from inside. PC Harding forced the door open and saw JACKSON run down the hallway to the room on the left side of the unit. When PC Harding observed JACKSON, he voiced out “contact”.

The room JACKSON entered was his bedroom. The entrance to the balcony of the unit was off his bedroom.

JACKSON refused to exit his bedroom and demanded a negotiator.

PC Allawaneh #11019 was a member of the ETF team and a negotiator. He began communicating with JACKSON and instructed him to surrender. JACKSON refused. He indicated he was armed. At this time police were not able to visually observe JACKSON.

Police advised JACKSON they had a Criminal Code search warrant authorizing a search of his residence. JACKSON said he had a gun to protect himself and that he wasn’t going back to jail. JACKSON indicated the gun he had was an AR-15 rifle.

Between 6:10am and 6:25am Detective (“Det”) Storey received information that JACKSON was posting videos on Instagram. JACKSON’s cat and a firearm were depicted in the video, and he could be heard talking to ETF members in it.

At about 6:33am a police drone began making some observations of JACKSON in his room.

PC Allawaneh and JACKSON continued to negotiate. JACKSON indicated his sister was messaging him. JACKSON spoke about his cat being safe and requested his sister be permitted to retrieve the cat. JACKSON indicated he was going to call his lawyer.

At about 6:40am the neighbours in the units on the left and right side of JACKSON’s unit were evacuated by police.

DC Pak #8574 checked JACKSON’s Instagram account of @krucifix_14. It was an open account, so anyone with Instagram could access it. He observed two stories in the new/unviewed section of JACKSON’s Instagram. The first story depicted a rifle type firearm on the bed next to a set of legs and a hairless cat. The second story appeared to be the same with a caption “police stand off great” and a thumbs up emoji.

At about 6:54am DC Lee #9146 viewed JACKSON’s Instagram account Krucifix_14 (formerly bxnd_master). He made notes respecting the contents of the two videos and contacted the TPS C3 unit to capture the evidence associated to JACKSON’s account.

At about 6:56am DC Pak took a screen shot of JACKSON’s Instagram video depicting the firearm to show the ETF. As indicated, during the standoff with police JACKSON posted videos on his Instagram account, @krucifix_14. He recorded a portion of the standoff. The video begins with a depiction of an AR-15. The safety was in the “fire” position.

In the video JACKSON can be heard saying, “… No, I’m not trying to contact my lawyer officer, I’m just waiting for him to text me back.” JACKSON then pointed the camera towards the partially open door of his room in the direction of the front door of his residence. A similar video was posted to the @krucifix_14 Instagram account.

During the standoff with police JACKSON said he had multiple guns. He said they included a Glock with a “switch”, another Glock with a red dot, an AR-15 with a drum magazine, and a thousand rounds of ammunition or more.

At about 7:00am Sergeant (“Sgt”) LeFort #8411, the officer in charge of the initial ETF team, attempted to call JACKSON’s sister. JACKSON indicated he wanted to say goodbye to her before surrendering himself.

At about 7:20am Sgt LeFort spoke to his colleague, Sgt Arulanandam #5414. He requested Sgt Arulanandam’s ETF team to attend to help.

At around 7:30am Det Storey was advised JACKSON continued to refuse to surrender. JACKSON told police he wanted to see or speak to his sister, and he would give her his cat.

Around this time JACKSON demanded his cat be turned over to his sister. He said this needed to occur before he would surrender. JACKSON provided his sister’s first name and phone number. At about 7:50am Sgt LeFort called the number JACKSON provided for his sister. She did not answer.

At about 8:02am a uniform officer, PC Ashkar #8819, attended the 10th floor of 80 Marine Parade Drive. He stood in the hallway outside of unit 1007 and recorded the negotiations on his body worn camera. He did this from about 8:02am to 8:13amand again from about 8:25am to 9:37am.

At about 8:07am a psychologist attended the 10thfloor to assist in negotiations.

At about 8:15am a female believed to be JACKSON’s sister attended the lobby of 80 Marine Parade Drive. At about 8:20am the female verbally identified as Samantha Bird.

At about 8:20am Sgt LeFort received information from ETF that JACKSON said he was feeling suicidal. JACKSON said he did not want to go back to jail. Police decided to stop making efforts to facilitate the transfer of JACKSON’s cat. JACKSON refused to speak to the psychologist.

Sgt LeFort obtained the first name and phone number of the lawyer JACKSON was requesting to speak to. At about 8:42am Det Storey attempted to contact the lawyer. He left a message. At about 8:44am he tried again and texted the lawyer’s number requesting the lawyer call him.

Det Storey received a call from JACKSON’s lawyer at about 8:50am. Det Storey advised the lawyer JACKSON would be arrested for possession of a firearm. He requested the lawyer speak to JACKSON and encourage him to surrender to police. The lawyer said he had already spoken to JACKSON. The call ended at about 8:55am.

At about 8:51am police deployed a robot into JACKSON’s condominium.

At about 9:00am JACKSON spoke on the phone with the woman in the lobby, Samantha. He spoke to her again around 9:13am. JACKSON indicated to police he was satisfied his sister would be able to leave with the cat after this conversation. At about 9:19am JACKSON said he was going to put the cat in a bag and slide it out to police.

At about 9:24am JACKSON advised police he was speaking to his lawyer again.

At about 9:29am JACKSON slid the bag with the cat in it towards police.

At about 9:31am ETF officers attended the lobby. They gave a backpack containing JACKSON’s cat to the woman self-identifying as Samantha. At about 9:44am the woman left with JACKSON’s cat in an Uber.

At about 10:33am officers were able to make observations of JACKSON. An AR style rifle was seen on the floor at the foot of JACKSON’s bed, within arms reach.

PC Allawaneh continued to negotiate with JACKSON until about 11:03am. By the end of PC Allawaneh’s negotiations with JACKSON, JACKSON was sitting at the threshold of his bedroom door and facing the front door of his unit.

80 Marine Parade Drive is a high-rise condominium. There are other high-rise condominiums situated close by. Officers were concerned about public and police safety during the stand-off.

At about 11:03am PC Harding took over negotiations with JACKSON. Eventually JACKSON exited his bedroom. At about 11:30am PC Harding entered JACKSON’s unit and took him into custody.

Det Storey took custody of JACKSON from PC Harding. He placed JACKSON under arrest for possession of a firearm and provided him rights to counsel. Det Storey escorted JACKSON to the lobby of 80 Marine Parade Drive and turned him over to PC Davey #9818 and PC Lacuna #10835 at about 11:41am. The exchange was recorded on a body worn camera.

The transporting officers turned on the in-car camera of their squad car before JACKSON entered. JACKSON advised the transporting officers of some medical issues he believed he was having. The transporting officers took JACKSON to paramedics where he was examined. Part of JACKSON’s interactions with paramedics was recorded on a body worn camera. At 11:55am the paramedics medically cleared JACKSON.

JACKSON was transported to TPS 22 Division. At about 12:35pm he was booked before the booking sergeant. At about 12:50pm JACKSON was escorted to his cell. He was mostly kept in the cell until after midnight on May 8, 2022.

At about 2:14pm two investigators attended 22 Division. They brought property located during the search warrant execution at unit 1007 and placed it in JACKSON’s general property. These items included JACKSON’s jewellery; a pocket watch, gold chain with a diamond encrusted “SNOB MOB” pendant, two gold diamond encrusted teeth grills, and four earrings. Another item was JACKSON’s keys and a couple of key fobs. The last item was $5,950 cash, consisting of 21 one-hundred-dollar bills, 39 fifty-dollar bills, and 95 twenty-dollar bills.

JACKSON and his property were transported to TPS 23 Division on May 8, 2022. At about 2:20am he was booked. Afterward, he was placed in a cell. He mostly stayed in the cell until about 8pm on May 8, 2022. He was then transported with his property to the Toronto South Detention Centre.

Search Warrant Execution

At about 11:30am investigators executed the search warrant on JACKSON’s unit. Det Storey took entry videos of the apartment before police began searching. The unit was a one-bedroom condominium. Upon entering the unit there was an arcade machine to the immediate left and straight ahead a hallway to the remainder of the unit.

The hallway opens into the living room and kitchen areas.

At the end of the entrance hallway immediately to the right is the kitchen area.

At the bottom of the unit on the righthand side is the living room area with a table, couch, and television.

The bedroom is on the lefthand side of the unit across from the living room.

On the bed in JACKSON’s bedroom investigators located an AR15 rifle loaded with a 40-round magazine. This is a prohibited firearm.

The bedroom closet is on the left side of the bedroom if facing into the room. The closet door opens into the bedroom.

Inside a canvas bag hanging from the door handle of the closet was a loaded Glock 43X firearm with a laser sight. It is a prohibited firearm.

Inside the bedroom closet investigators located firearm paraphernalia and ammunition. Inside a green Gucci box in a red Shoppers Drug Mart bag investigators located a Glock magazine loaded with 17 rounds of 9mm ammunition, and a Glock magazine loaded with 31 rounds of 9mm ammunition.

In a pink plastic rolling cabinet officers located a Glock magazine loaded with 10 rounds of 9mm ammunition.

In a camouflage colour “BAPE” backpack officers located a firearm holster, handgun rail flashlight, and a selector switch to convert a firearm into an automatic firearm.

In a beige canvas bag located next to the camouflage “BAPE” backpack officers located 2 over capacity magazines, 7 magazines, and a loader assist. Specifically, the seven magazines were as follows: four (4) magazines were 9mm calibre handgun magazines pinned at 10 rounds, and two (2) magazines were 9mm calibre handgun magazines pinned at 6 rounds. One magazine was not analyzed. The two overcapacity magazines were as follows: one (1) blue 9mm ETS magazine with capacity for twelve (12) 9mm calibre rounds, and one (1) clear ETS magazine with capacity for nineteen (19) 9mm calibre rounds. The pins were removed from both.

Inside a green Dollarama bag in a red gym bag officers located a drum magazine loaded with 60 rounds of .223 calibre ammunition. The gym bag also contained a rifle strap and a plastic bag with 30 rounds of .223 ammunition.

Underneath the bed officers located a black leather Gucci bag. It contained nine-hundred and fifteen (915) rounds of 9 mm ammunition and a plastic bag with another nineteen (19) rounds of 9mm ammunition.

Officers searched the couch in the living room and located a loaded Glock 26 Gen 5 firearm. It is a prohibited firearm. The Glock had an auto-select switch on the rear of the slide, which allowed it to function as a fully automatic firearm. An additional magazine was located in the couch. It was loaded with 10 rounds of ammunition.

In the kitchen in the top left cupboard on the lower shelf officers located a laser sight firearm attachment. In the cupboard above the kitchen sink officers located two clear plastic bags with loose ammunition. One bag contained fifty (50) rounds of 9mm ammunition and the other ninety-nine (99) rounds of 9mm ammunition.

On the lower shelf of the cupboard on the right side of the dishwasher officers located firearm holsters and firearm tools.

1007-80 Marine Parade Drive

Matthew JACKSON was the sole tenant on the standard form Lease associated to unit 1007, 80 Marine Parade Drive, Toronto. His tenancy began on August 12, 2023, and was scheduled to end on August 31, 2024. The parking spot associated to the unit was P4-29. JACKSON’s email listed on the agreement was krucifix14@hotmail.com

Firearms and associated paraphernalia

JACKSON had knowledge of and control over the three firearms outlined in this agreed statement of fact.

JACKSON had knowledge of and control over the firearms paraphernalia detailed in this agreed statement of fact. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, this included firearm magazines, ammunition, attachments, holsters, auto-select switches, straps, ammunition loaders, and tools.

All ammunition, magazines, and prohibited devices seized at the search warrant were tested by TPS. They all functioned as designed and meet the section 84 Criminal Code definitions of ammunition, cartridge magazine, and prohibited device.

The AR-15 rifle of unknown make and model loaded with 40 rounds of ammunition is a prohibited firearm.It did not have a serial number. It was test fired with ammunition located in unit 1007 and fired properly. This item was located on the bed in the bedroom.

The 40 round magazine attached to the AR-15 is a prohibited device.

The Glock 43x, 9mm firearm loaded with 19 rounds of ammunition is a prohibited firearm.It was test fired with ammunition located in unit 1007 and fired properly.This item was located in a beige canvas bag hanging from the bedroom closet door handle.

The 19 round detachable box cartridge magazine attached to the Glock 43x is a prohibited device.

The Glock 26 Gen 5, 9mm firearm loaded with 10 rounds of ammunition is a prohibited firearm. It was test fired with ammunition located in unit 1007 and fired properly. This item was located in the couch cushions in the living room. Another magazine loaded with 10 rounds of ammunition was located in the couch cushions.

The auto-selector switch attached to the Glock 26 Gen 5 is a prohibited device.

The detachable box cartridge magazine capable of holding 31 cartridges of 9mm Luger ammunition is a prohibited device. It was located in the bedroom closet in a green Gucci Box inside a Shoppers bag.

The detachable box cartridge magazine capable of holding 17 cartridges of 9mm Luger ammunition is a prohibited device. It was also located in the bedroom closet in a green Gucci Box inside a Shoppers bag.

The detachable drum magazine capable of holding 60 cartridges of .223 REM ammunition is a prohibited device. It was located in the bedroom closet in a green Dollarama bag inside a red gym bag.

The detachable box cartridge magazine capable of holding 12 cartridges of 9mm Luger ammunition is a prohibited device. It was located in the bedroom closet in a beige cloth bag.

The detachable box cartridge magazine capable of holding 19 cartridges of 9mm Luger ammunition is a prohibited device. It was located in the bedroom closet in a beige clothe bag.

Another detachable box cartridge magazine was located in the beige cloth bag in the closet. It was not included on the certificate of analyst.

The machine gun conversion device capable of converting a semi-automatic firearm into an automatic firearm is a prohibited device. It was located in the bedroom closet in a camouflage green “BAPE” backpack.

Pursuant to a s. 109 Order JACKSON was prohibited from possessing any prohibited devices, which includes the over-capacity magazines seized by police.

Pursuant to a s. 109 Order JACKSON was prohibited from possessing any ammunition, which includes the ammunition seized by police.

Officers located the following ammunition (not including the ammunition found in firearms and magazines):

i. In the bedroom closet in a green Dollarama bag with a drum magazine – a clear Ziploc baggie with thirty (30) .223 calibre rounds of ammunition.

ii In a black Shoppers canvas bag inside the Gucci bag under the bed – nine hundred and fifteen (915) rounds of 9mm ammunition. In addition, there was a clear Ziploc baggie with nineteen (19) rounds of 9mm ammunition. (total: 934 rounds of 9mm calibre ammunition)

iii. One loose round of .380 calibre ammunition in the dishwasher.

iv. One loose round of .40 calibre ammunition in a Scarface glass.

v. In two clear Ziploc baggies in a cupboard above the kitchen sink – fifty (50) rounds of 9mm calibre ammunition and ninety-nine (99) rounds of 9mm calibre ammunition. (total: 149 rounds of 9mm calibre ammunition).

JACKSON possessed the ammunition for the purpose of transferring it to another.

Authorization / Licence and Certificates

On May 7, 2024, JACKSON was not the holder of an authorization or licence to possess a firearm in any place, and he knew this.

On May 7, 2024, JACKSON did not have registration certificates for any firearm he possessed, and he knew this.

Summary

The TPS ETF executed a search warrant at Unit 1007, 80 Marine Parade Drive, at about 6:10am. A stand-off between police and Jackson ensued until his arrest at about 11:30am.

After the standoff was over JACKSON cooperated with police.

An itemized list of other evidence outlined in this agreed statement (without limiting the generality above and not including the firearms paraphernalia) is as follows:

i. AR15 Rifle loaded with 40 rounds of .223 calibre ammunition (bed)

ii. Glock 43x handgun loaded with 19 rounds of 9mm ammunition (canvas bag hanging on door handle of bedroom closet)

iii. Glock 26 Gen5 handgun loaded with 10 rounds of 9mm calibre ammunition with an installed attachment permitting fully automatic capabilities (couch)

iv. One (1) 9mm magazine loaded with 10 rounds of 9mm calibre ammunition (couch)

v. Two (2) loaded overcapacity 9mm magazines, one loaded with 17 rounds of 9mm ammunition and the other with 31 rounds of 9mm ammunition (bedroom closet, in Shoppers bag inside a green Gucci box)

vi. One (1) 9mm magazine loaded with 10 rounds of ammunition (bedroom closet in a pink plastic rolling cabinet)

vii. Seven (7) 9mm magazines not loaded (bedroom closet, beige cloth bag)

viii. Two (2) overcapacity 9mm magazines not loaded (bedroom closet, beige cloth bag – one 12 capacity and the other 19 capacity)

ix. One (1) drum magazine loaded with 60 rounds of .223 ammunition (bedroom closet, in green Dollarama bag inside gym bag)

x. One (1) selector switch capable of converting a semi-automatic handgun into a fully automatic handgun (bedroom closet, camouflage BAPE backpack).

22The agreed statement of fact is accompanied by many photos taken at the time of the execution of the search warrant, one of which shows a Glock poster hanging on a closet door in the defendant’s bedroom.

(c) Mr. Jackson’s testimony in chief

23Mr. Jackson testified over the course of two days. A transcript of his testimony is available. I shall set out the salient aspects of his testimony with emphasis on those that pertain to his defence of duress.

24Mr. Jackson was 38 years old when he testified. He is the father of one child. His criminal record begins with a theft conviction in 2005 and contains convictions in 2009 for drug trafficking and unlawful possession of firearms as well as convictions in 2018 for firearms possession and trafficking in firearms. Both the 2009 and 2018 convictions resulted in significant custodial sentences.

25After ultimately being released on parole in 2021 the defendant found work as a jewelry designer for a company known as Sam and Tony’s. He took up residence in an apartment on Yonge Street, close to his work. He was earning between $10,000 and $15,000 per month.

26Around February 2022, the defendant allowed a man named John Cruz-Barros, whom he had met at the Toronto South Detention Centre between 2014 and 2017, to come and stay at his apartment for a night. The next morning the defendant woke up to Mr. Cruz-Barros letting two other men armed with guns into his apartment. The guns had large, conspicuous 30-round magazines. The defendant knew who they were. One of them went by the name of Big 13. They assaulted him until he bled.

27The men searched his residence and stole $3,000 in cash and $50,000 worth of jewelry as well as the defendant’s bank card and cell phone. After approximately 40 minutes, they escorted him out of his building past the concierge, into a waiting car that had been left running on Yonge Street with no occupant. There was no one else in the lobby. Once outside the building the defendant did not cry out for help, although he would have had he seen any police officers.

28The men asked for the defendant’s banking credentials and he told them he had no money in the bank. They threatened him and told him he would have to find someone who could give him money, or they would kill him.

29The defendant was given back his phone so he could contact such people. He found someone named Stacks from whom he had often bought marijuana who agreed to lend the defendant $3,000 and they went to Stacks’ residence to pick up the money. The men wanted a further $15,000. The defendant then called a man he knew as Bizzy Benz for more money. Bizzy Benz used to sell marijuana to the defendant and the mother of the defendant’s son. The defendant had met him in or around 2010. Around the time of the kidnapping Benz would sometimes come by and purchase items at the jewelry store where the defendant was working. They would sometimes smoke marijuana together on the sidewalk. According to the defendant, Benz’s real name was Tyson or Tyshon.

30He told Benz he urgently needed $15,000. They argued a bit but eventually the defendant convinced him to lend him some money and Benz offered $13,800. The kidnappers then drove to Mississauga with the defendant to meet Benz.

31Benz gave the defendant some money which he then gave to the kidnappers who counted it and said it was $13,000.

32The kidnappers then drove back to Toronto with the defendant. The men stopped the car, abandoned it and walked away with the money and property from the defendant’s apartment. The defendant ran off and got on the subway and returned home. He never saw the kidnappers again although they continued to threaten and taunt him online. They were also threatening his boss. The next day the defendant packed his things and moved to a motel near Highway 427 and Dundas. He did not return to work. He did not think about calling the police.

33In August of 2022 he paid $2,000 to Benz. Benz came to where the defendant was living to pick up the money. Benz was unhappy and produced a firearm. He told the defendant that he should sell his car to satisfy the debt. Later that month the defendant sold his car to a company called Leccos but had to wait a year for payment and only received $4,800. The defendant did not call police. He gave this money to Benz as soon as he received it in July of 2023. Benz was still upset with the delay in repayment and told the defendant he was lucky to be alive and that Benz had once slashed someone’s throat over a pound of weed. He also told the defendant that if he didn’t pay his debt or went to the police he would “pop off on” (use a gun on) the mother of the defendant’s child.

34Benz then convinced the defendant to rent a storage container and store items for Benz. This would be a way to work off his debt to Benz. The defendant then helped Benz transfer four large cardboard boxes into the defendant’s unit along with a pink gym bag. The defendant believed the pink bag contained firearms. The defendant told Benz that it was a bad idea for the defendant to store guns in his space given that the defendant had a criminal record. Benz told the defendant that it was better to store firearms than be killed by one. Samantha helped the defendant pay for his storage unit.

35The defendant, with Benz’s permission, cancelled the storage unit within a month, sometime in August 2023. The defendant had recently been accepted to rent a new condo unit at 80 Marine Parade. He was getting financial assistance from his friend, Samantha. He also accepted a new job at Complete Jewelry. His boss was named Zereh.

36At this juncture the defendant believed he still owed Benz just over $4,000. He had been making small periodic payments to him. The defendant’s life was returning to normal.

37In February or March 2024, the defendant next met with Benz in a car to pay him a further $2,800. Benz had a gun with him. When the defendant asked if they would be “good” once the debt was paid off Benz got angry and told the defendant that he, Benz, was the boss. Benz punched the defendant several times and told him to hand over his house keys and building entry fob. The defendant complied. Benz said he would be storing some things at the defendant’s apartment until the debt was paid off.

38The defendant then returned on foot to his building and got the security guard to let him in. He then changed the lock on his apartment door. He arranged to give Benz a copy of the new key.

39Thereafter, Benz was accessing the defendant’s unit often. He would often message the defendant on Snapchat and tell him to leave the apartment. Sometimes the defendant helped Benz with the items he was bringing to the apartment. The pink bag was one of those items and the defendant again assumed it contained firearms.

40On one occasion in mid-March the defendant saw Benz remove a handgun from the pink bag and then leave. He assumed Benz left to sell the gun.

41On one accession in late April Benz instructed the defendant to meet him downstairs. Benz gave the defendant a bag full of bullets. The defendant put this bag under his bed. He felt compelled to cooperate since Benz was an armed gang member and had threatened him and his son’s mother. Benz knew where they lived.

42The defendant thought about going to the police, but he feared they would charge him with possession of the guns in his apartment. He didn’t tell his son’s mother for fear she would be defiant and not take his advice on how to protect herself, such as leaving the city.

43The $4,000 that was seized by police at the time of the execution of the search warrant was earmarked for Benz and, in the defendant’s opinion, would have extinguished the debt to Benz. The defendant had only recently received it, and he had told Benz that he had it but the raid on his apartment took place before payment had been arranged.

44The defendant was hopeful that Benz would remove the contraband after being paid but he nonetheless feared that Benz would continue to threaten and extort him.

(d) The text message

45The defendant identified as a screenshot from his phone of part of one of several text message conversations between who he says are him and Benz. The screenshot shows the date of “April 13, 2024” displayed under only one of the messages. One of the accounts is labeled at the top of the page as “B”. The other participant is unnamed. The defendant said that he had saved Benz’s contact as “B”.

46According to the defendant, the text conversation is between him and Benz and reads as follows:

Jackson: Alright yo. I really can’t stay here much longer

April 13, 2024 at 8:03 pm

Jackson: I’ll have $2,000 owed next 3 weeks tops, can you please take your stuff out of my spot?

Benz: When will you have the 2k?

Jackson: Soon as I finish the customers pendant 2-3 weeks, so can you plz be ready to take your stuff?

Benz: 4k and we can chat about all that shit! I’ll be at your place in a few days make sure you’re home

Jackson: Bro plz don’t add to my debt this situation is ruining my life. I’m sorry it took so long to pay you

Benz: Run me my fucking 4k lucky I only want 4kc cause I should do a lot worse to you kid

Jackson: Okay I’ll get it but please I need this stuff out of my place asap

Read 2:39 pm

Benz: lol don’t message me here hit me on snap

(e) Cross-examination of Mr. Jackson

47About a week before the execution of the search warrant Benz instructed the defendant to take a Glock 26 out of the pink bag he was storing in the apartment and to put it and some bullets into a cupboard in the kitchen. He did so and while doing so noticed that the bag contained other firearms.

48The Glock poster that the defendant hung in his room came from among Benz’s items. He “foolishly” hung it up in his room because he “enjoyed it”.

49The rent at 80 Marine Parade Drive was $2,395 per month plus utilities. The defendant paid $3,600 at around the time he moved in in August 2023. He relied on his friend Samantha to help him with his expenses at the time.

50In 2019, upon his initial release from the penitentiary, the defendant had $120,000 from an inheritance, $48,000 of which he invested in the jewelry business. He also had other expenses including child support of about $15,000, lawyer fees of about $7,000 and $4,000 he paid on old parking infractions. He was earning about $2,400 per month at Premier Auto. He then transitioned to his jewelry design job at Sam and Tony’s in the summer of 2019.

51The defendant lost his parole in March of 2020 and was re-incarcerated for approximately 12 months.

52The defendant admitted that he could have got in Benz’s car when he came with money for the kidnappers but at the time he felt it was too dangerous and he had been warned by the kidnappers not to do so.

53On February 9, 2024, the defendant purchased a 2021 Dodge Charger Scat Pack for $82,893 after taxes. He put $9,999 down in cash and, along with Samantha, financed the rest. He and Samantha undertook to pay $584.19 every two weeks. He made most of his half of the payments. The car was still in the defendant’s possession on the day of his arrest.

54The day before his arrest the defendant had purchased a $250 fireplace. He didn’t put that money towards his debt to Benz because he had enough cash to cover that. He was hoping to pay Benz within the next day or two.

55The defendant had received a “Snob Mob” pendant worth $3,000 - $6,000 many months prior to his arrest. He never sold it to finance his debt to Benz because the only person who was in a position to buy it was the person who had gifted it to him and the defendant did not want to appear unappreciative and disrespectful.

56The defendant identified an image from his Instagram account that showed him posing on his car with a large amount of cash. He testified that this photo was from 2019.

57He also identified an Instagram photo of himself in his Marine Parade Drive apartment holding approximately $1,000 in cash which he testified was probably his rent money.

58He identified other photos of him posing with his car and $6,300 in cash that he testified was the same money seized from his apartment by the police.

59According to the defendant he tried to project an image on social media that exaggerated his wealth.

60During the police standoff the defendant posted videos of the encounter on social media. He was in shock and expected to be killed.

61The defendant testified that much of the handgun paraphernalia found by police in the defendant’s bedroom on the day of the raid originated in Benz’s pink bag which the defendant emptied during the police standoff.

62Other handgun paraphernalia were found in the kitchen. They were never mentioned by the defendant earlier in his testimony as items he had earlier transferred to the kitchen at the request of Benz. He denied placing those items in the kitchen and surmised that Benz must have come to his apartment when he wasn’t there and put them there himself.

63A handgun was found by police in a canvas bag hanging on the door of the defendant’s bedroom closet. The defendant testified that it was not his and that he removed it from the pink bag and put it there to hide it from police during the standoff. The gun had been fitted with a laser sight, the empty box for which was found in the kitchen. The defendant denied having installed the laser sight.

(f) The law concerning the defence of duress

64The defence of duress, whether it arises at common law or as of statutory right, consists of the following elements, as set out in R. v. Ryan:

a. There must be an explicit or implicit threat of present or future death or bodily harm. The threat may be directed at the accused or at a third party.

b. The accused must reasonably believe that the threat will be carried out.

c. There must be no safe avenue of escape. This is assessed on a modified objective standard, taking into account what a reasonable person in the accused’s circumstances would perceive and do.

d. There must be a close temporal connection between the threat and the harm threatened.

e. There must be proportionality between the harm threatened and the harm inflicted by the accused. The harm caused must be equal to or no greater than the harm threatened. This element is also assessed on a modified objective standard.

f. The accused must not be a party to a conspiracy or association whereby they were subject to compulsion and actually knew that threats or coercion to commit offences were a possible consequence of their involvement.

R. v. Ryan, 2013 SCC 3 at paras. 81-84

65If the defence is available at law and there is an air of reality to all the essential elements on the evidence, the accused is entitled to an acquittal unless the Crown disproves one or more of the essential elements of the defence beyond a reasonable doubt. The air of reality test requires there be evidence which, if believed, a properly instructed jury acting reasonably could acquit R. v. Richer, 2025 ONCA 439.

66For no safe avenue of escape, one of the main issues in the present case, it is to be determined on an objective standard and adjusted for subjective circumstances. The accused’s asserted belief that they lacked a reasonable alternative is not sufficient, standing alone, to give an air of reality to the defence. The question is whether a reasonable person, with a similar personal history, background, abilities, capacities, and human frailties, would reasonably believe, in the particular circumstances, that there was no safe avenue of escape. R. v. M. (D.B.), 2016 ONCA 264.

(g) Is there an air of reality to the defence of duress?

67When determining whether the air of reality test is met, and thus whether the defence of duress can be asserted, I must proceed on the basis that the testimony of the defendant is true.

68There were two principal avenues of escape available to the defendant. He could have paid off his debt to Benz or go to the police.

69The evidence makes clear that both avenues were available to the defendant, yet he availed himself of neither one. Over the year that the defendant stored guns on behalf of Benz the defendant had access to funds that he could have used to extinguish his debt. Instead, he rented an expensive condo and purchased an expensive car. Nor did the defendant contact the authorities or seek any advice on his predicament.

70The defendant’s situation is not materially different from that of the accused in R. v M. (D.B.), 2016 ONCA 264 where the accused was indebted to a “Mr. X” for about $40,000 he had borrowed. He was unable to repay the debt. Mr. X threatened the accused and his family if he was unable to pay. Mr. X proposed the accused work off the debt by making deliveries and pick-ups of drugs. The accused agreed. He was apprehended by police on about his ninth pick-up/delivery with seven pounds of cannabis in his vehicle. The trial judge found there was no air of reality to duress. The judge was not satisfied the accused could not pay the debt, and, he could have gone to the police. The trial judge found the accused could have liquidated his RRSPs to repay the debt or could have gone to police. Thus, duress had no air of reality. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s decision. See too R. v. Keller, [1998] A.J. No. 1257 (Alta. C.A.).

71Mr. Jackson has not met the air of reality threshold.

(h) If there were an air of reality to the defence, would it succeed?

72Even if the defendant had met the air of reality threshold, I would nonetheless have found that the Crown had disproved duress beyond a reasonable doubt.

73The defendant’s testimony to the effect that he was storing Benz’s weaponry against his will is belied by the degree to which the firearms and paraphernalia were distributed throughout the apartment when the police searched the premises. Guns, the details of which the defendant said he knew nothing about, were found outside the pink bag the defendant said he’d been given by Benz. Two of them had been altered and the empty boxes for the alteration kits were in the defendant’s kitchen.

74Most tellingly, there was a “Glock” poster hanging on the defendant’s bedroom closet door. The defendant testified that he removed this from Benz’s pink bag, thought it looked good, and hung it up.

75I find that whether or not the defendant received the various firearms in his apartment from Benz, the defendant was proudly and enthusiastically in possession of them, not under duress as he testified.

76That the defendant did not extinguish the debt when he could have belies his assertion that he was afraid of Benz.

77The defendant referred to many third parties in his testimony. Yet, no witnesses were called who could have corroborated many aspects of his testimony, such as Samantha, who the defendant said helped him out financially, and his employers who he said had received communications from his kidnappers. The mother of his son could have testified as to the existence of Bizzy Benz. Documents generated by the various transactions the defendant referred to were not tendered. While there is no onus on the defendant to prove duress, after an air of reality is established, the absence of supporting evidence renders his account even less plausible.

78As concerns the text message fragment that the defendant testified was one of several text conversations with Benz, without the other text messages between them, the unsupported testimony of the defendant as to the meaning, timing and provenance of the text fragment does not affect my finding regarding the defendant’s failure to make out the necessary air of reality to the duress defence, nor would it have, in the context of all the evidence raised a reasonable doubt as to duress.

79Ultimately, I do not accept the defendant’s testimony to the effect that he was coerced by Benz to possess the firearms, ammunition and other contraband. Nor does his testimony along with the other evidence create a reasonable doubt concerning the defence of duress.

D. CONCLUSION

80Mr. Jackson is guilty on all counts.