ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
Ali Suleiman
Before Justice Maylor
Heard on October 20-21, 2025
Reasons for Judgment released on November 18, 2025
S. Dosanjh................................................................................................ counsel for the Crown
J. Schiller....................................................................... counsel for the accused Ali Suleiman
Maylor J.:
Introduction
1The accused, Ali Suleiman, faces charges of knowingly possessing an unlicensed, loaded restricted firearm while prohibited. He argues that the police actions were unconstitutional and claims he was unaware of the nature of his possession.
2The accused argues that the police actions were motivated solely by racial profiling, in violation of s. 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He also maintains that he was unaware that the satchel he was carrying contained a loaded handgun.
3For the reasons that follow, the Charter challenge is dismissed. The defence account of inadvertent possession of the gun is also rejected as not credible.
Analysis
Evidence
4Police Constable (PC) Angus Li was part of the primary response unit for the summer safety program on July 18, 2024. He responded to what was believed to be a possible gunshots call. Dispatch reported three loud pops on the north side of a residential area near a greenbelt. He arrived on scene at 3:40 am, about three minutes after being dispatched. PC Li was in uniform and operating a marked police vehicle. He described driving through the residential area toward the complainant’s address and encountering the accused and another individual walking along the roadside. They were the only people he observed in the area. He described the accused as a Black male wearing a grey sweater and a dark satchel across his body. The other person was a Black male in dark clothing, wearing a baseball cap and a dark surgical mask. PC Li drove nearby and asked, "Are you guys good?" The accused responded, “Yes, I am okay.” The officer said, “Stop for a second, I need to speak to you guys." Before he could speak further, they continued walking and then sprinted away. PC Li watched them run in tandem.
5PC Li testified that he wanted to speak with them to verify the complaint made to the police. They were the only pedestrians. He arrived near the green belt within three minutes of being dispatched. He explained that the noise could have been gunshots, fireworks, or a vehicle backfire and wanted to determine whether they had heard the noise and could be witnesses. He needed to assess the seriousness of the investigation.
6After informing dispatch of what happened, PC Li pursued the accused and the other individual while driving his vehicle. As another officer, PC Abiodan, arrived, the accused and his associate changed direction. The accused ran in the opposite direction, past Li’s car. PC Abiodan pursued the accused, while Li pursued the associate.
7PC Abiodan’s pursuit of the accused along a dark, deserted residential street was captured on the officer’s Body Worn Camera (BWC). During the chase, PC Abiodan initially testified that he saw what he believed to be the accused reach across his body, remove a black firearm, and drop it. At that point, the officer drew his police-issued gun. PC Abiodan insisted that he clearly recalled the accused holding something black that made a loud clank when it hit the ground. The officer jumped over the firearm during the pursuit. The accused also removed and discarded his sweater. The officer could not recall whether anything else was removed and dropped by the accused.
8When the court reviewed the BWC video of the chase, it was of low quality, and the action was blurred at times. However, it appears that the accused removed the satchel containing a gun from around his body and threw it on the ground while being pursued. As the officer passed over the gun and satchel on the road, he drew his firearm during the chase. The accused was ultimately apprehended by the officer and arrested for possession of the firearm. When asked to identify himself inside the police cruiser, the accused initially provided a false name. After being cautioned, he eventually disclosed his correct identification to the police officer.
9The BWC video of PC Li retrieving the firearm shows that the firearm was near the satchel in the middle of the road, indicating that the items were likely dropped at the same time.
10The accused testified about his initial interaction with the police. He said that PC Li drove by and asked whether he and his associate were okay. The accused replied affirmatively. He believed the officer would try to harass him because of past negative encounters. The accused admitted to having a significant criminal record. He asked his associate, whom he described as a cannabis dealer, if he was okay; the associate did not respond. The accused maintained that he ran only because his associate ran. He also said that his PTSD caused him to run, although he did not explain how his past trauma was linked to his associate's running.
The Law: Section 9 of the Charter.
11Section 9 of the Charter affirms that everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. The timing of a detention is significant because it triggers other rights. Determining whether an individual has been detained is an objective process based on the circumstances of the encounter.
12The deprivation of an individual’s right to walk away from state authorities can occur in two ways: either by physical detention or by psychological detention. Psychological detention occurs when the individual is legally required to comply with a restrictive request or demand, or, in the absence of a legal obligation, when a reasonable person would feel they have no choice but to comply. When assessing psychological detention, courts may consider: (a) how a reasonable person would perceive the circumstances of the encounter; (b) the nature of police conduct, including language used, physical contact, location, presence of others, and the duration of the encounter; and (c) relevant characteristics or circumstances of the person, such as age, physical size, minority status, or level of understanding: R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32 at paras 43-44.
13It is important to note that not every interaction with the police qualifies as a detention under the Charter, even if a person is under investigation for a crime, questioned, or physically delayed during police contact: R. v. Suberu, 2009 SCC 33 at para. 23.
Racial Profiling
14When P.C. Li encountered the accused and his associate, they were not detained. The officer was about to begin questioning to assess the seriousness of the investigation when they fled. There is no evidence from the accused to support the claim that he felt detained. His only evidence was that he believed the police would harass him. He was not physically or psychologically detained before he fled from the police: see R v Nesbeth 2008 ONCA 579 paras 13-14.
15Regarding the defence argument about racial profiling, there is no evidence to support that bias. PC Li arrived at the scene of the complaint within three minutes of being dispatched. During the early hours of the morning, the only people visible in the area were the accused and his associate. It was entirely reasonable for the officer to determine whether they had any knowledge of the sound of possible gunshots. When they decided to flee, it was reasonable for the police officer to pursue them, given the genuine possibility that he was responding to a gun call. The combination of factors was sufficient to give the police reasonable grounds to believe the accused was involved in criminal activity at the time of arrest. The factors included the following:
(i) The police were investigating a report of possible gunshots in the area where the complaint was made.
(ii) The accused immediately ran when the officer indicated he wanted to ask further questions.
(iii) While being pursued, the accused discarded his satchel containing a loaded firearm.
(iv) The accused ran at full speed early in the morning, in the dark, along a deserted street, while a police officer chased him, yelling at him.
(v) When he was tackled, the accused continued to struggle, attempting to escape the officer’s grasp until he was finally subdued.
[16] When the police officer began his investigation and spoke to the accused, the accused was not detained, and his s. 9 Charter rights were not engaged. When the police finally detained the accused after an active pursuit, there were reasonable grounds for that detention: R v Nesbeth, supra, paras 21 and 25.
Possession of the loaded firearm
17Notwithstanding PC Abiodan's evidence that he saw the accused discard a firearm, it is more probable that the officer observed the firearm as it fell from the satchel the accused dropped.
18The accused testified that, unbeknownst to him, his associate—a cannabis dealer—was carrying a satchel containing a loaded handgun. The accused stated that the associate asked him to hold the satchel while the associate adjusted his belt and shoes. The accused explained that he wore the satchel across his body rather than holding it briefly and then returning it because he thought it looked “cool.” He maintained that he did not look inside the open satchel because that would be disrespectful.
19To establish possession, the prosecution must prove the accused had knowledge of the loaded gun and control over it. In the court’s view, the accused’s defence lacks credibility based on ordinary life experiences, common sense, and logic: R v Kruk 2024 SCC 7, 2024 SCJ No. 7, paras 71-73, 81, and 92.
20The accused’s defence is fundamentally unbelievable, with each detail becoming increasingly unlikely. The accused claims that the owner of the loaded gun was his associate, a drug dealer, who was with him during the initial police encounter. He alleges that the dealer asked him to hold the satchel containing the gun because the dealer needed to adjust his belt and shoes. However, there is no evidence explaining how or why a cross-body satchel worn close to the body would interfere with the dealer adjusting his own belt and shoes. The main purpose of a cross-body satchel is to store items while keeping one’s arms and hands free. Therefore, the accused’s version of events lacks credibility. Additionally, there are no details about what specific adjustments necessitated the handoff of the satchel. Again, there would have been no reason to remove the satchel to simply adjust one’s belt and shoes.
21The accused’s account of events raises further questions about his credibility and the implausibility of his answers.
22The accused would have the court believe that the drug dealer did not immediately want the return of his open bag containing a loaded gun, but instead allowed the accused to wear it because the accused thought it was “cool.” This was a drug dealer the accused had dealt with on at least two previous occasions. The court does not believe that a drug dealer would ask a customer to hold an open satchel containing the dealer’s weapon.
23Moreover, the accused’s position that looking inside the satchel would be disrespectful is inconsistent with wearing the satchel without asking for permission, which is, in fact, more disrespectful.
24The accused claims he ran because his PTSD was triggered when he saw his associate dealer run. However, he provides no explanation of the origin of this PTSD, assuming he meant Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, which he alleges influenced his actions. The lack of detail in the accused's account does not help his defence; it increases suspicion and disbelief. Additionally, he said the associate ran first, and he followed, but PC Li observed them fleeing together. Given the accused’s lack of credibility and reliability, the court accepts PC Li’s evidence over the accused’s conflicting version.
25While fleeing the police, the accused claimed he believed the satchel contained as much as two pounds of marijuana, which is not considered heavy, yet he stated he threw it off his body because it was too heavy. The video shows him as an able-bodied young man running from the police at full speed, not hindered by the weight of the satchel. It was shortly after he decided to discard the dangerous contraband he was carrying that the police officer was able to catch him. Logic indicates he discarded the gun inside the satchel because of its illegality and because he was subject to a firearms prohibition order. The accused’s alternative explanation is incredulous.
26The accused has no burden to prove anything in this trial. The responsibility always lies with the Crown to prove the elements of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt. However, when the accused presents a story that contradicts reason, logic, and common sense, the weaknesses in his story must be considered to determine whether his evidence raises a reasonable doubt. This court finds that the satchel and loaded handgun belonged to the accused, not to his associate. The accused had the requisite knowledge and control of the loaded firearm.
27The accused’s implausible story failed to raise a doubt. It is difficult to believe that a drug dealer, even a cannabis dealer in the era of legalized marijuana, would casually hand over his loaded gun with nine rounds of ammunition to a customer so that the dealer could make minor, unexplained adjustments to his attire. Furthermore, the accused’s actions after the arrest—initially lying about his identity—only reinforce his efforts to avoid responsibility.
Conclusion
28The prosecution's burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. It is a heavy burden; it is insufficient to believe a defendant is probably guilty—there must be certainty of guilt. A reasonable doubt is a doubt grounded in reason and common sense, based on the evidence or the absence of evidence in the record before the court: R v Lifchus 1997 CanLII 319 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320 at para. 39.
29Having reviewed all the evidence, this court finds that the accused, Ali Suleiman, is guilty of the following Criminal Code offences set out in the Information before the court: Count 1, knowingly being in unauthorized possession of a restricted firearm, contrary to s. 92(1); Count 2, unauthorized possession of a restricted firearm with ammunition, contrary to s. 95(2); and Count 3, possession of a firearm contrary to a prohibition order, s. 117.01.
30Given that Counts 1 and 2 are firearms possession offences arising from the same transaction, there will be a conditional stay of Count 1, the s.92(1) offence, pursuant to R v Kienapple 1974 CanLII 14 (SCC), [1975] 1 SCR 729. Therefore, convictions should be registered only for Counts 2 and 3.
Released: November 18, 2025
Signed: Justice D. Maylor