Court of Appeal for Ontario
Date: 2025-09-05 Docket: COA-24-CR-0598
Justices: Zarnett, George and Gomery JJ.A.
Between
His Majesty the King Respondent
and
Janson Jeyakanthan Appellant
Counsel
Hedieh Kashani, for the appellant
Joanne Stuart, for the respondent
Heard: August 19, 2025
On appeal from the convictions entered by Justice Anne M. Molloy of the Superior Court of Justice on September 29, 2023, with reasons reported at 2023 ONSC 5370.
Reasons for Decision
[1] Introduction
The appellant and his brother were charged with several firearm related offences. The appellant was also charged with assault. At trial, the appellant was found guilty of possessing a firearm, carrying a concealed firearm, and carelessly storing a firearm. The Crown's case against the appellant was entirely circumstantial. The appellant did not testify.
Background Facts
[2] The Incident at McDonald's
On September 8, 2019 the appellant's brother became involved in a verbal altercation with Mr. Edwards, a patron waiting for his food at a McDonald's on Spadina Avenue in Toronto. During the altercation, the appellant's brother lifted his shirt to show Mr. Edwards that he had a firearm. After seeing the firearm, Mr. Edwards lunged at the appellant's brother. The appellant responded by punching Mr. Edwards in the head. Mr. Edwards ran out of the McDonald's, calling 911 as he left. The appellant and his brother pursued Mr. Edwards. They then re-entered the restaurant where video surveillance captured the appellant pushing his brother back towards the exit.
[3] Police Pursuit and Discovery of Firearms
The appellant and his brother appeared on video surveillance again as they walked along Spadina Avenue. Two police officers on patrol recognized them from the description Mr. Edwards provided to 911. The officers observed the two duck into a dead-end alley. They arrested them after they emerged from the alley. The officers then searched that alley and discovered two loaded handguns under a parked car. As mentioned, the appellant and his brother were jointly charged with various firearm offences, and the appellant was charged with assaulting Mr. Edwards.
Decision Below
[4] Trial Judge's Findings on Joint Possession
The trial judge found that the appellant had joint possession of the firearm his brother displayed in McDonald's. Based on where the appellant was standing and looking when his brother lifted his shirt, the trial judge found that he saw the firearm prior to the altercation with Mr. Edwards. From that point on, the appellant had both knowledge of his brother's gun and some degree of control over it, demonstrated in particular by how the appellant "[took] charge" by pushing his brother towards the McDonald's exit. The trial judge found further that the appellant was a party to carrying the gun in a concealed manner and carelessly storing it by discarding it in the alley.
[5] Second Firearm and Careless Storage
The trial judge could not determine who was carrying the second firearm the police found in the alley, but found that it originated from the appellant or his brother and that they acted in concert when they went into the alley and discarded both guns under the car. The trial judge found that, at a minimum, the appellant was a party to the careless storage count.
[6] Acquittals
The trial judge was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant did not act in self-defence when he struck Mr. Edwards, and therefore acquitted him of assault. She was also not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant knew the firearms were loaded and therefore acquitted him of the counts that alleged he did.
Issues
[7] Ground of Appeal
The appellant argues that the trial judge erred in finding that his guilt was the only reasonable inference available on the evidence, and that his convictions are therefore unreasonable.
Applicable Legal Principles
[8] Circumstantial Evidence Standard
Where, as here, the Crown's case depends on circumstantial evidence, the question is whether a trier of fact, acting judicially, could reasonably be satisfied that the accused's guilt was the only reasonable conclusion on the totality of the evidence: R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 1000, at paras. 55-56. The Crown is not required to negative every possible conjecture that might be consistent with an accused's innocence, nor is a trial judge to speculate on what an accused's evidence would have been had they testified: Villaroman, at para. 37.
[9] Unreasonable Verdict Standard
As this court stated in R. v. Juggernauth, 2025 ONCA 579, at para. 72: "A verdict will be unreasonable when no properly instructed trier of fact, acting judicially, could have rendered it": R. v. Yebes, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168, at p. 185; R. v. Biniaris, 2000 SCC 15, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 381, at para. 36. When the Crown's case is circumstantial, a verdict is reasonable if the trier of fact "was entitled to find that the circumstantial evidence in light of human experience, when considered as a whole, and the absence of evidence, could exclude all reasonable inferences other than guilt": R. v. Anderson, 2020 ONCA 780, at para. 30, leave to appeal refused, [2021] S.C.C.A. No. 103; see also Villaroman, at paras. 30, 36 and 69. Thus, where it is argued that the trier of fact reached an unreasonable verdict of guilt, an appellate court's role is limited to determining whether the decision to convict is supportable on any reasonable view of the evidence. It is not for an appellate court to determine whether guilt was the only reasonable inference available on the evidence; it is to assess whether the trial judge could be reasonably satisfied that it was.
Discussion
[10] Application of Circumstantial Evidence Principles
We are not persuaded by the appellant's arguments. The trial judge accurately cited and properly applied the relevant principles concerning circumstantial evidence, carefully observing its permissible uses and limitations. She then made findings and drew inferences that were reasonably available on the evidence.
[11] Joint Possession Finding
After examining the video footage from McDonald's the trial judge held that it was "an inescapable inference that [the appellant] would have seen what Mr. Edwards saw" when his brother lifted his sweater to reveal a firearm. The trial judge then carefully reviewed what the appellant did after learning his brother had a gun, including punching Mr. Edwards, joining his brother in chasing Mr. Edwards out of McDonald's, and pushing his brother towards the exit in a "take charge manner". The trial judge's finding that the appellant and his brother were in joint possession of the gun is well supported by the evidence.
[12] Careless Storage Finding
Furthermore, it was open to the trial judge to find that the appellant was at least a party to the careless storage of the two firearms under the vehicle in the alley. Video surveillance from Spadina Avenue captured the moment the appellant and his brother were spotted by the police, which led them to "pick up their pace" and enter the dead-end alley together (where the firearms were found just moments later).
[13] No Reversible Error
The trial judge did not commit a reversible error in finding that the only reasonable inference available on the evidence was that both firearms had been in the possession of the appellant and his brother, and that they disposed of them together.
Conclusion
[14] Appeal Dismissed
For these reasons the appeal is dismissed.
"B. Zarnett J.A."
"J. George J.A."
"S. Gomery J.A."