ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
CITATION: R. v. Jasaraj, 2021 ONCJ 491
DATE: 2021 09 20
COURT FILE No.: Toronto – 20-223136
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
— AND —
ZAIM JASARAJ
Before Justice John McInnes
Heard on July 15 and August 30, 2021
Reasons for Judgment released on September 20, 2021
S.Pearl............................................................................ counsel for the Crown
A.Harnett......................................... counsel for the respondent, Zaim Jasaraj
McINNES J.:
[1] On July 15, 2021, I heard the Crown’s application for a forfeiture order in respect of a Beretta handgun [“the gun”] police seized from the respondent, Zaim Jasaraj. On August 30, I dismissed the application with reasons to follow. These are those reasons.
[2] Based on “reasonable grounds to believe that it is not desirable, in the interests of the safety of the person or any other person, for the person to possess any weapon…”, police seized the respondent’s gun on February 1, 2020, pursuant to s.117.04(2). The grounds arose when the police responded to a complaint from the respondent’s wife, Heather Jasaraj, concerning enforcement of a family law restraining order. To be clear, it was never alleged the respondent committed any offence in relation to this incident. He did not assault or threaten his wife and there has never been any suggestion otherwise.
[3] Relying chiefly on a written statement of the facts prepared by the investigating police officer, the Crown now seeks an order under s.117.05(1) that the gun either be “forfeited to Her Majesty” and presumably destroyed, or that it be “otherwise disposed of” in the form of a transfer to a licensed third party willing to assume lawful possession of it on the respondent’s behalf.
[4] The respondent resists the application and submits the gun, as well as a long-barelled airgun [“the airgun”] that was seized at the same time, should be returned to him, pursuant to s.117.06(1).[^1]
[5] The respondent relies on his and Ms Jasaraj’s testimony before me. That testimony materially confirms the police officer’s statement. The latter is, for that and other reasons, credible and trustworthy and as such admissible despite its hearsay form: R. v. Zeolkowski, 1989 72 (SCC), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1378, para. 18. The testimony also amplifies and updates the factual record. Both witnesses were plainly credible and reliable.
[6] Section 1