R. v. Ogbomo, 2026 ONCJ 312

Ontario Court of Justice

Citation: R. v. Ogbomo, 2026 ONCJ 312 Date: 2026-06-02 Court File No.: Toronto 4810 998 25 50004785-02

Between:

His Majesty the King

— and —

Melvin Ogbomo

Before: Justice Seth Weinstein Heard on: February 26, 27, March 4, April 4 and May 4, 2026 Reasons for Judgment released on: June 2, 2026

Counsel: Christina Sibian, counsel for the Crown Jeff Hershberg and Jo-Anne Schneeweiss, counsel for Melvin Ogbomo

WEINSTEIN J.:

INTRODUCTION

1Mr. Ogbomo is charged on a 19‑count information with firearms and drug offences arising from the execution of a search warrant in Unit 601 at 510 Curran Place. The search yielded four loaded handguns, ammunition, 240.46 grams of cocaine, and approximately $50,000 in cash.

2At the close of the Crown’s case, Mr. Ogbomo brought an application for a directed verdict. I granted the application with respect to two of the firearms and their related counts. As such, acquittals were entered on Counts 3, 4, 7, and 8. On the remaining counts, there was sufficient evidence on which a trier of fact could infer that Mr. Ogbomo possessed the items in question. The defence then called one witness, A.W., a young person who had been arrested in the condominium when the search warrant was executed.

3At the outset of submissions, the Crown invited me to dismiss Counts 2, 6 and 9 which related to a firearm located in between the cushions of the living room sofa. Accordingly, the only counts that remain relate to a Glock 29 firearm, cash, drugs and ammunition located in the main bedroom of the unit.

4Identity, date and jurisdiction are admitted. The issues for me to determine are whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Ogbomo was in possession of the items found in the bedroom and if so, whether the drugs were possessed for the purpose of trafficking. If possession is established, the defence concedes that the cash constitutes proceeds of crime. It was also admitted that Mr. Ogbomo was bound by three weapons prohibitions at the time.

5The Crown submits that the only reasonable inference available on the totality of the evidence is that Mr. Ogbomo had knowledge of, and control over, the firearm, ammunition, cash, and drugs in the bedroom. The Crown relies on a constellation of evidence said to link Mr. Ogbomo to the bedroom, including his passport and other personal effects attributed to him that were found in the bedroom as well as surveillance evidence showing his access to the unit over several months. The Crown also argues that Mr. Ogbomo’s flight when the police executed the search warrant was after the fact conduct consistent with his guilt.

6The Crown submits that A.W.’s evidence claiming ownership of the items in the bedroom is internally inconsistent, implausible, and motivated by a desire to protect Mr. Ogbomo. Relying on the totality of the circumstantial evidence, the Crown submits that guilt is the only rational conclusion available on the evidence.

7The defence submits that the Crown has failed to prove that Mr. Ogbomo possessed the firearm, ammunition, cash, or drugs found in the bedroom. The defence argues that I should accept A.W.’s evidence, submitting that it is credible and consistent with objective features of the case. In the alternative, the defence argues that A.W.’s evidence cannot be wholly rejected as untrue and provides a rational explanation for how the seized items came to be in the bedroom.

8The defence also points to significant gaps in the Crown’s case, including the absence of evidence establishing that Mr. Ogbomo was a tenant or regular occupant of the unit, the lack of evidence placing him in or near the bedroom on the day of the search, and the absence of forensic evidence linking him to the seized items. In the defence’s submission, the presence of Mr. Ogbomo’s passport or clothing similar to that which he had previously been seen wearing does not support an inference of possession. Applying the principles set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, the defence submits that guilt is not the only reasonable inference available on the totality of the evidence.

Overview of the Relevant Facts

9I will begin with an overview of the facts relevant to determining the issues in this case.

10Unit 601 was leased to Carlton Carter and Sabrina Panuccio. Although the property was not registered to Mr. Ogbomo, surveillance showed him accessing the unit on three occasions prior to the execution of the warrant: November 10, 2023, as well as March 17 and 20, 2024.

11There were four people inside the unit when the search warrant was executed: Mr. Ogbomo, an unidentified male, and two youths, E.A. and A.W.

12After the door was breached, Mr. Ogbomo and the unidentified male ran onto the balcony, jumped to an adjacent balcony and fled through the building. As they ran away, the unidentified male was seen holding a firearm, which he then threw onto the adjacent balcony. That firearm was later confirmed to be a Glock handgun loaded with nine rounds of ammunition. Mr. Ogbomo was not seen carrying a firearm.

13The police conducted a search of Unit 601 and located the following items in the main bedroom:

a) A Glock 29 handgun loaded with 10 rounds of ammunition behind the night table.

b) $50,985 in cash on top of the night table, bundled mainly in $20 and $50 bills.

c) Two Ziploc bags containing a white substance on the night table.

d) Two large bags of cocaine near the bedroom door.

e) A bag of .45 calibre ammunition.

f) Gold grill plates. and

g) A diamond Rolex watch.

14The following items were found in or around the living room of the unit:

a) A Glock 23 handgun loaded with 13 rounds of ammunition wedged between the cushions of the sofa;

b) A closed ‘Amiri’ satchel containing a loaded 9 mm handgun laying in plain view on the sofa;

c) A .45 calibre magazine located on the kitchen counter;

d) A diamond watch on the kitchen counter; and

e) A scale press, a digital scale, and a vacuum sealer.

15Mr. Ogbomo’s passport was found inside the top drawer of the night table in the bedroom. Beside the passport was a wallet containing identification in the name of Frank Ogbomo. The drawer also contained several pill bottles. The search officers could not identify to whom the pill bottles belonged, but acknowledged they were not Mr. Ogbomo’s.

16There was conflicting evidence with respect to where the ammunition had been located. One of the search officers, Constable Simas recorded that the ammunition was found in the closet. In contrast, Detective Constable Randhawa testified that the ammunition was located in the bottom drawer of the night table. Officer Randhawa conceded, however, that he did not make contemporaneous notes of the precise location in which the ammunition was found.

17Police also located a Supreme hat and a pair of black Gallery Department pants that resembled clothing Mr. Ogbomo had been wearing on November 10, 2023. However, no DNA analysis was performed on the clothing, and no steps were taken to determine ownership of the items. Other clothing was also present in the bedroom, but police did not investigate who it belonged to, whether Mr. Ogbomo had worn it, or whether it was connected to any other occupant of the unit.

18The seized firearms and ammunition were submitted for DNA and fingerprint analysis. No fingerprints were recovered. Although DNA was detected on the grips of several firearms, the samples were a complex mixture and were not further analysed. The remaining items seized from the unit were not examined for DNA and were not tested for fingerprints.

19There were several images and videos extracted from a cell phone seized from A.E. at the time of his arrest. These included photographs and videos depicting stacks of cash, a firearm as well as a diamond watch similar to the items recovered during the search. The metadata from these images revealed that they were taken on January 29 and March 20, 2024.

Evidence of A.W.

20At the time the search warrant was executed, A.W. was on bail for firearm‑related offences. He was staying in Unit 601 in breach of his house arrest condition. A.W. testified that E.A. had rented the unit and slept primarily in the main bedroom. A.W. said that he slept on the sofa in the living room.

21According to A.W., he and E.A. both had keys to the unit as well as a fob for the building. Surveillance footage showed A.W. and E.A. accessing the unit with a key the day prior to the execution of the warrant. E.A. was also found in possession of the fob when he was arrested on March 20th. There was a third set of keys which E.A. sometimes lent out. A.W. did not believe that Mr. Ogbomo had a key.

22A.W. testified that he and E.A. jointly sold drugs and stored their drugs, firearms, ammunition, and cash in the unit. A.W. stated that the 9-millimetre handgun found in the Amiri satchel and the Glock 29 behind the night table belonged to him. He said that Mr. Ogbomo was not involved in drug dealing and that he had never seen him in possession of any of the firearms found in the unit. A.W. pleaded guilty to possession of the 9‑millimetre handgun. He testified that he also tried to plead guilty to possession of the Glock 29, but that he was not permitted to do so.

23A.W. testified that before the warrant was executed, he and E.A had been out selling drugs. They returned home at approximately 1:30 a.m., entered the main bedroom, counted the cash from their sales, and placed it in stacks on the table beside the bed. He stated that the bedroom door was then closed and that they went into the living room. At that time, Mr. Ogbomo was in the unit, seated in a chair near the counter and playing video games.

24A.W. said that he then fell asleep on the living room couch with the Amiri satchel beside him and the Glock 29 placed between the cushions of the couch. When A.W. woke up in the morning, he retrieved the Glock 29, placed it in his waistband and went into the main bedroom to take a shower. He put his clothes on the bed and closed the bedroom door. A.W. testified that the Glock 29 was on the bed while he was changing.

25While in the bedroom, A.W. said that he heard a loud bang at the door. He did not initially recognize it as the police and picked up the Glock 29 to possibly use for self‑defence. However, after a second bang, he realized that it was the police. At that point, he tried hiding the Glock 29 by tossing it behind the nightstand. A.W. also removed drugs from his pockets and threw them in the bedroom. He testified that he was not thinking clearly, was in a rush, and simply wanted to get out of the apartment.

26A.W. testified about photographs and videos extracted from E.A.’s cellphone and Snapchat. A.W. identified his Amiri bag and a Louis Vuitton bag as belonging to E.A. He also said that the firearms depicted in videos were his Glock 29 and E.A’s Glock 23.

27According to A.W., the Gallery Department pants found in the bedroom either belonged to him or to E.A. He identified E.A. wearing similar pants in the surveillance videos from a day earlier.

Applicable Legal Principles

28There are several fundamental principles which guide decision making in any criminal trial. The first is that Mr. Ogbomo is presumed to be innocent. He has no obligation to do anything to establish his innocence. The presumption of innocence remains in place unless and until the Crown has proven each essential element of these offences beyond reasonable doubt.

29Reasonable doubt is based upon reason and common sense. It is logically connected to the evidence, or the lack of evidence. Reasonable doubt requires more than mere probability. Although it cannot be described with mathematical precision, reasonable doubt is a high standard consistent with its role as a safeguard against wrongful convictions. At the same time, reasonable doubt does not require proof beyond all doubt nor is it proof to an absolute certainty. Based on the totality of the evidence, I must be sure of guilt before I convict. Anything less must result in an acquittal.

30In this case, possession is an essential element that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Possession includes personal possession, constructive possession and joint possession: s. 2(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and s. 4 (3) of the Criminal Code, R. v. Morelli, 2010 SCC 8 at paras. 15-17. Each form of possession requires proof of knowledge, consent and some measure of control: R. v. Terrence, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 357.

31To constitute constructive possession, there must be knowledge which extends beyond mere quiescent knowledge and discloses some measure of control over the item. Constructive possession is established where the Crown proves beyond a reasonable doubt that an accused:

i. has knowledge of the character of the thing.

ii. knowingly puts or keeps the thing in a particular place, irrespective of whether the place belongs to or is occupied by the accused; and

iii. intends to have the thing in the place for the use or benefit of the accused or of another person. R. v. Morelli, at para. 17.

32For joint possession, there must be knowledge, consent, and a measure of control on the part of the person deemed to be in possession: R. v. Pham at para 15.

33Even when items are found in a place occupied by an accused, no presumption of knowledge and control arises from proof of occupancy. Put simply, occupancy does not create a presumption of possession: R. v. Lights 2020 ONCA 128, at para. 50.

34Resolving the issue of possession will, in part, require me to assess the credibility and reliability of the witnesses. Credibility can be impacted by several factors, such as whether the witness’ evidence is internally consistent, whether it is consistent with other witnesses or exhibits, whether the witness has a motive to fabricate or give evidence that is more favourable to one side than another and whether there are inconsistencies in the witnesses’ evidence.

35Where credibility is to be assessed, I must apply the relevant direction from the Supreme Court in W.(D.). This paradigm is to be applied even when the accused does not testify, but where, like here, other exculpatory evidence is adduced that requires a credibility assessment.

36Although the W.(D.) analysis refers to three steps, the overriding consideration is whether the evidence as a whole leaves me in any reasonable doubt about the accused’s guilt. The W.(D.) analysis ensures that my verdict is not based on a choice between the Crown evidence and the defence evidence: see R. v. A.J.K., 2022 ONCA 487, at para. 22.

37The Crown’s case in proving possession is entirely circumstantial. There is no forensic evidence linking Mr. Ogbomo to the firearms, ammunition, drugs or cash. Accordingly, the principles in Villaroman apply.

38In applying these principles, I must be satisfied that the only reasonable inference that can be drawn from the circumstantial evidence is that Mr. Ogbomo is guilty. When assessing the circumstantial evidence, I must consider other plausible theories and other reasonable possibilities which are inconsistent with guilt. However, the Crown does not need to "negative every possible conjecture, no matter how irrational or fanciful, which might be consistent with the innocence of the accused": Villaroman, at para. 37. The basic question is whether the circumstantial evidence, viewed logically, is reasonably capable of supporting an inference other than that the accused is guilty: Villaroman, at para. 38 and R. v. Megill, 2021 ONCA 253, at para. 42.

39In R. v. Kruk, 2024 SCC 7, at para. 68, the Supreme Court held that it is an error of law for a trier of fact to fail to distinguish between a rational conclusion as to reasonable doubt based on evidence, and an unsupported conclusion based on conjecture. In determining whether the Crown has met that burden in a circumstantial evidence case, I must apply logic and common sense to the totality of the evidentiary picture, including gaps, and consider whether other reasonable possibilities not only exist, but preclude a finding that an inference of guilt is the only reasonable inference available: R. v. Ali, 2021 ONCA 362, at para. 97.

Analysis

40I will begin with my analysis of A.W.’s evidence because if accepted, it is dispositive of the issue of possession and Mr. Ogbomo is entitled to an acquittal.

41I do not accept A.W.’s evidence. A.W. had a clear motive to minimize Mr. Ogbomo’s involvement. He had already resolved his own liability in relation to one firearm and faced no realistic jeopardy in attributing further possession to himself. In those circumstances, his willingness to assume responsibility for an additional firearm is not a reliable indicator of truth.

42A.W.’s account was also undermined by several implausibilities. For example, his assertion that he required two firearms for protection, while at the same time saying he was attempting to sell one of them, is inherently contradictory. His suggestion that tens of thousands of dollars would be left unattended on a bedside table in a unit accessed by multiple individuals, is difficult to accept. Moreover, A.W.’s account of the events immediately preceding the police entry is implausible. It would require me to accept that, within a matter of seconds, he retrieved a firearm, attempted to conceal it, discarded drugs, and moved through the unit before the police breached the door. Given the evidence of the speed and force of the police entry, this sequence of actions is unlikely.

43My rejection of A.W.’s evidence does not, of course, end the matter. I still must assess whether it raises a reasonable doubt and whether guilt is the only reasonable inference to draw from the totality of the evidence.

44There is certainly evidence capable of supporting the inference that Mr. Ogbomo was residing in Unit 601 and therefore had knowledge and control of the items located there. He was observed accessing the units in the months preceding the execution of the search warrant. Clothing resembling items he had previously worn was found in the unit. Most significantly, his passport was in the night table where the cash was sitting in plain view, and immediately in front of where one of the firearms was found. This constellation of evidence creates a strong suspicion that he had been living in the bedroom.

45The presence of Mr. Ogbomo’s passport, however, does not necessarily mean he was living in the unit. Identification documents are often misplaced or inadvertently left behind. There was no evidence as to when the passport was placed there. The presence of his personal identification establishes, at most, that Mr. Ogbomo had been in the room at some point in time. It does not, without more, necessarily support the inference that he had knowledge of or control over the items located in that room.

46Moreover, the evidence is clear that the room was being used by more than one person. Indeed, the drawer contained personal items belonging to others, including a bank card in the name of Frank Ogbomo and pill bottles issued to unknown individuals which suggests many people were accessing this room. The police, however, made no effort to determine who else had access to the room, nor did they submit and of these items for DNA or fingerprint analysis that might have identified other occupants.

47The clothing relied upon by the Crown also cannot be reliably attributed to Mr. Ogbomo. Although they resembled clothing worn by Mr. Ogbomo several months earlier, they are also similar to clothing worn by E.A. only days before the execution of the search warrant. In these circumstances, it would be speculative to conclude that the clothing found in the unit belonged to Mr. Ogbomo rather than E.A.

48I also consider the Crown’s reliance on the ring found on the bedside table. There is no evidence that this was the same ring Mr. Ogbomo was previously seen wearing. There is no forensic evidence linking the seized ring to Mr. Ogbomo. No DNA testing was conducted and no evidence was led to establish any unique characteristics of the ring. Even if it is the same ring, its presence in the room, like the passport, simply supports the inference that Mr. Ogbomo may have been in the bedroom at some prior time. It does not establish that he was living there or that he had knowledge of, or control over, the firearm, ammunition cash or drugs found in the bedroom. To elevate this evidence further would amount to impermissible speculation.

49The unit was not leased to Mr. Ogbomo. Three other people were present when the warrant was executed. Any of them could have been using the bedroom. More importantly, there was evidence that others exercised control over some of the items. A.W. and E.A. not only were present at the time of the search but they also possessed the unit’s key fob and were seen using it to access the unit the day before.

50There was other evidence suggesting that others owned and controlled the firearms and cash. In particular, the Instagram and Snapchat accounts depicting the cash, were associated with E.A. and A.W. These posts, including images of large amounts of cash and firearms, were made in close temporal proximity to the execution of the search warrant. Notably, the image of the cash posted mere hours before police entry showed it arranged in a manner consistent with how it was later found on the bedside table.

51By contrast, there is no evidence that Mr. Ogbomo was observed handling large sums of cash, no forensic evidence linking him to the money, and no social media evidence suggesting he exercised ownership or control over it. The Crown’s position requires me to draw the speculative inference that, despite the youths’ possession of substantial cash in the days leading up to the execution of the search warrant, control of the money somehow shifted to Mr. Ogbomo. When considered in context, the Instagram posts, particularly their temporal proximity to the search, support a reasonable inference that the cash found in the unit were possessed and controlled by the youths.

52Finally, the Crown relies on Mr. Ogbomo’s flight as evidence of after the fact conduct consistent with guilt. I give this evidence limited weight. The entry was loud, violent, and chaotic. There are multiple reasonable explanations for Mr. Ogbomo’s flight that are unrelated to possession of the firearms and drugs, including fear and confusion. The evidence does not support the conclusion that his flight was more consistent with guilt than with any other explanation.

53While Mr. Ogbomo was in the apartment, his presence alone is not sufficient to establish possession. There is no evidence Mr. Ogbomo was in the bedroom, nor is there evidence that he observed the cash or drugs, even if some items were in plain view within that room. Similarly, the firearm behind the nightstand would not necessarily have been visible to someone who did not occupy the space. In the absence of evidence establishing how long Mr. Ogbomo had been in the unit, whether he entered the bedroom, or evidence linking him forensically to any of the items, it remains reasonably possible that he was unaware of their presence.

54On this record, knowledge of the firearms, ammunition, drugs, and cash is not the only reasonable inference available. It would be speculative to assume that each of the individuals who were present in the unit possessed a firearm. The mere fact that multiple people were present does not logically lead to the conclusion that each possessed their own gun. In a context where several firearms were found within a shared space, it remains a reasonable possibility that one or more individuals exercised control over more than one firearm.

55It certainly is very possible that the firearm, ammunition, drugs and cash belonged to Mr. Ogbomo. However, there are a number of reasonable alternative inferences available. Viewed cumulatively, these alternative explanations cannot be dismissed as speculative. Rather, they raise a reasonable doubt that Mr. Ogbomo had knowledge of and control over the impugned items. Accordingly, Mr. Ogbomo is entitled to acquittals on the remaining Counts.