Court of Appeal for Ontario

CITATION: R. v. Ajiroba, 2025 ONCA 181

DATE: 20250310

DOCKET: COA-24-CR-0579

Lauwers, Roberts, and Zarnett JJ.A.

BETWEEN

His Majesty the King

Respondent

and

Ismael Ajiroba

Appellant

Ismael Ajiroba, acting in person

Jeffrey Couse, appearing as duty counsel

Kevin Rawluk, for the respondent

Heard: March 5, 2025

On appeal from the convictions entered on August 17, 2023 by Justice Stephen Bernstein of the Ontario Court of Justice.

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] The appellant’s sole ground of appeal from his convictions for possession of a firearm and other offences is that the trial judge erred in not excluding evidence of the firearm found in the appellant’s home, despite finding that his rights under s. 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been breached by a police search pursuant to a facially invalid search warrant.

[2] We are not persuaded that the trial judge erred in his s. 24(2) Charter analysis. The trial judge carefully weighed the factors outlined in R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353 and concluded that the evidence should not be excluded.

[3] The trial judge accepted the Crown’s concession on the second Grant factor that the breach had a serious impact on the appellant’s rights. The trial judge also considered the third Grant factor, society’s interest in the adjudication of the case on its merits, and the fact that the firearm was reliable evidence that was important to the Crown’s case. The defence conceded that this prong favoured the inclusion of the evidence.

[4] The appellant’s overarching argument is that the trial judge underemphasized the seriousness of the breach. We do not accept this argument. On the first factor, it was open to the trial judge to determine that the breach was “in the middle of the spectrum” in terms of seriousness and was the product of sloppiness, not bad faith. Having regard to all the factors, the trial judge was entitled to conclude that admission of the firearm would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

[5] We see no basis to intervene. It is well-established that the trial judge’s balancing of the Grant factors is subject to appellate deference. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

“P. Lauwers J.A.”

“L.B. Roberts J.A.”

“B. Zarnett J.A.”