Court File and Parties

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE DATE: 2023 06 21 Newmarket, Ontario

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

LUIGI CARUSO

Before: Justice R.M. Robinson

Heard on: 18 April 2023 Reasons for Judgment released on: 21 June 2023

Counsel: Jeremy Mutton, counsel for the respondent Crown Scott Hutchison, for the applicant

ROBINSON J.:

Overview

[1] Mr. Caruso legally possessed a Possession and Acquisition Licence (“PAL”) for non-restricted firearms from a young age. He is now 31 years old.

[2] On 25 September 2020, Mr. Caruso was charged with a number of drug and firearm-related offences as part of an RCMP investigation dubbed Project Ovenus. The charges resulted in an automatic suspension of Mr. Caruso’s PAL.

[3] On 1 June 2022, a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice found that Mr. Caruso’s section 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time had been violated. As a result, all charges against Mr. Caruso were stayed.

[4] In January 2023, P.C. Matthew Blurton, Designate of the Chief Firearms Officer of Ontario, (“CFO”) conducted an investigation in response to Mr. Caruso’s request to have his PAL reinstated. On 31 January 2023, Mr. Caruso was advised that his PAL was revoked pursuant to section 70(1) of the Firearms Act.

[5] Mr. Caruso has applied to have the CFO’s decision referred before me, pursuant to s. 74(1)(a) of the Firearms Act.

[6] Mr. Caruso contends that the CFO improperly and exclusively considered his stayed criminal charges, which resulted in a decision that was not justified.

[7] In response, the Crown contends that the CFO properly considered all relevant factors and properly applied them when concluding that Mr. Caruso did not meet the eligibility requirements.

The Legislation

[8] The Firearms Act, S.C. 1995, c.39, governs the issuance of licences to possess a large range of firearms. The Act delegates responsibility of licensing decisions to the CFO based on criteria set out in s. 5.

Public safety

5 (1) A person is not eligible to hold a licence if it is desirable, in the interests of the safety of that or any other person, that the person not possess a firearm, a cross-bow, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, ammunition or prohibited ammunition.

Criteria

(2) In determining whether a person is eligible to hold a licence under subsection (1), a chief firearms officer or, on a reference under section 74, a provincial court judge shall have regard to whether the person

(a) has been convicted or discharged under section 730 of the Criminal Code of

(i) an offence in the commission of which violence against another person was used, threatened or attempted,

(ii) an offence under this Act or Part III of the Criminal Code,

(iii) an offence under section 264 of the Criminal Code (criminal harassment),

(iv) an offence relating to the contravention of subsection 5(1) or (2), 6(1) or (2) or 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, or

(v) an offence relating to the contravention of subsection 9(1) or (2), 10(1) or (2), 11(1) or (2), 12(1), (4), (5), (6) or (7), 13(1) or 14(1) of the Cannabis Act;

(b) has been treated for a mental illness, whether in a hospital, mental institute, psychiatric clinic or otherwise and whether or not the person was confined to such a hospital, institute or clinic, that was associated with violence or threatened or attempted violence on the part of the person against any person;

(c) has a history of behaviour that includes violence or threatened or attempted violence or threatening conduct on the part of the person against any person;

(d) is or was previously prohibited by an order — made in the interests of the safety and security of any person — from communicating with an identified person or from being at a specified place or within a specified distance of that place, and presently poses a threat or risk to the safety and security of any person;

(e) in respect of an offence in the commission of which violence was used, threatened or attempted against the person’s intimate partner or former intimate partner, was previously prohibited by a prohibition order from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device or prohibited ammunition; or

(f) for any other reason, poses a risk of harm to any person.

[9] S.55 addresses information to be considered by the CFO in assessing an applicant’s eligibility:

55 (1) A chief firearms officer or the Registrar may require an applicant for a licence or authorization to submit such information, in addition to that included in the application, as may reasonably be regarded as relevant for the purpose of determining whether the applicant is eligible to hold the licence or authorization.

Investigation

(2) Without restricting the scope of the inquiries that may be made with respect to an application for a licence, a chief firearms officer may conduct an investigation of the applicant, which may consist of interviews with neighbours, community workers, social workers, individuals who work or live with the applicant, spouse or common-law partner, former spouse or former common-law partner, dependants or whomever in the opinion of the chief firearms officer may provide information pertaining to whether the applicant is eligible under section 5 to hold a licence.

[10] S.74 provides that the CFO’s refusal may be referred by the applicant to a provincial court judge:

Reference to judge of refusal to issue or revocation, etc.

74 (1) Subject to subsection (2), where

(a) a chief firearms officer or the Registrar refuses to issue or revokes a licence, registration certificate, authorization to transport, authorization to export or authorization to import,

(b) a chief firearms officer decides under section 67 that a firearm possessed by an individual who holds a licence is not being used for a purpose described in section 28, or

(c) a provincial minister refuses to approve or revokes the approval of a shooting club or shooting range for the purposes of this Act,

the applicant for or holder of the licence, registration certificate, authorization or approval may refer the matter to a provincial court judge in the territorial division in which the applicant or holder resides.

[11] The hearing of the reference by a provincial court judge is governed by s.75:

Hearing of reference

75 (1) On receipt of a reference under section 74, the provincial court judge shall fix a date for the hearing of the reference and direct that notice of the hearing be given to the chief firearms officer, Registrar or provincial minister and to the applicant for or holder of the licence, registration certificate, authorization or approval, in such manner as the provincial court judge may specify.

Evidence

(2) At the hearing of the reference, the provincial court judge shall hear all relevant evidence presented by or on behalf of the chief firearms officer, Registrar or provincial minister and the applicant or holder.

Burden of proof

(3) At the hearing of the reference, the burden of proof is on the applicant or holder to satisfy the provincial court judge that the refusal to issue or revocation of the licence, registration certificate or authorization, the decision or the refusal to approve or revocation of the approval was not justified.

Jurisprudence

[12] The animating principle in the relevant Firearms Act provisions is one of public safety. Indeed, the Supreme Court of Canada has noted that the possession of firearms is a highly regulated activity for good reason; that it is not a right but a privilege R. v. Wiles, 2005 SCC 84, at para 9.

[13] Evidence of actual misuse of firearms is not required. The refusal and revocation provision of the Firearms Act captures situations in which there are legitimate concerns that the applicant lacks the responsibility and discipline required of firearms owners. R. v. Spadidakis, 2008 ONCJ 5, at para 72; R. v. D.L.B., at para 48.

[14] I have been referred to a number of cases dealing with the standard of review of a provincial court judge on a firearms reference hearing. The applicant and respondent agree on the relevant principles that can be drawn from those cases, summarized as follows:

1. The standard of review is reasonableness R. v. Vivares, 2016 ONCA 1, at para 24; R. v. Henderson, 2011 ONCA 696, at paras 20, 38; Canada (Attorney General) v. Methot, 2022 BCCA 283, at para 41.

2. The provincial court judge must consider the evidentiary record that was before the firearms officer, as amplified by evidence introduced at the reference hearing. R. v. Vivares, 2016 ONCA 1, at para 25; R. v. Henderson, 2011 ONCA 696, at para 34; Canada (Attorney General) v. Methot, 2022 BCCA 283, at paras 35, 41.

3. The provincial court judge is obliged to make his own findings of fact. While this exercise does not call for deference to facts found by the firearms officer R. v. Henderson, 2011 ONCA 696, at para 34, it should be undertaken “under the umbrella of deference.” R. v. Vivares, 2016 ONCA 1, at para 25.

4. The strict rules of evidence are relaxed in that evidence that is inadmissible at a criminal trial may be considered by the provincial court judge depending on the context. R. v. Zeolkowski, at paras 18, 19; R. v. Karatopis, 2014 ONCJ 687, at para 23; R. v. Davidson, 2011 ONSC 249, at para 73; R. v. Corrigan, 2010 ONCJ 333, at paras 42-51; Alberta (Chief Firearms Officer) v. Rolls, 2004 ABQB 582, at paras 32-39; R. v. D.L.B., at para 52.

5. The applicant bears the onus of establishing on a balance of probabilities that the facts found by the provincial court judge could not justify the CFO’s decision. [Firearms Act, S.C. 1995, c.39, s.75(3)]; R. v. Zeolkowski, at para 17; R. v. Desormeaux, 2009 ONCJ 600, at para 11(6).

6. Justification is assessed by determining if the firearms officer’s decision falls within the range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law.” R. v. Henderson, 2011 ONCA 696, at para 38, quoting from R. v. Dunsmuir, 2008 SCC 9, at para 47.

Complete Evidentiary Record

Project Ovenus Detailed Narrative [Exhibit 2]

[15] P.C. Matthew Blurton, designate of the Chief Firearms Officer of Ontario, relied upon the RCMP’s Project Ovenus Detailed Narrative when conducting his investigation into Mr. Caruso’s suitability to possess a PAL.

[16] Project Ovenus began as a drug importing and exporting investigation into Cristian Giaman in March of 2020. The investigation ended in October of 2020 following a number of arrests and the execution of a number of search warrants.

[17] Throughout the investigation, surveillance officers observed a number of parties attending at a residence located at 3010 17th Side Road, King City. The parties observed attending the address, the frequency and duration of the visits and the actions of the parties observed all combined to lead the police to conclude that drug trafficking was occurring. Indeed, the officers’ belief in that regard satisfied issuing judges of the requirements to issue a number of search warrants.

[18] On 23 September 2020, police observed Mr. Giaman meet with an unidentified male at 3010 17th Side Road, enter the residence and then return to his vehicle carrying a red shopping bag.

[19] Mr. Giaman was observed attending at 206-6760 Davand Drive, Mississauga, carrying the red shopping bag inside the address and then leaving without the red shopping bag.

[20] Mr. Giaman was then seen meeting with Kevin Medeiros and placing a black tote bag in Mr. Medeiros’ vehicle.

[21] Police subsequently stopped Mr. Medeiros and located the black tote bag. The bag contained approximately $140,000 CAD in $10,000 bundles.

[22] Mr. Giaman was also arrested and a search warrant was executed on 206 – 6760 Davand Drive. The red shopping bag was located and within it a restricted Lucznik semi-automatic firearm with serial number removed, a magazine cartridge and a box of 9 mm ammunition.

[23] On 24 September 2020, a search warrant was executed at 3010 17th Side Road, King City. Frank, Keely and Nicolas Caruso were located within the residence and arrested. While the search warrant was being executed, Luigi Caruso (“Mr. Caruso”) arrived at the residence at 03:30 and was also arrested.

[24] Mr. Caruso stated to the police that his parents (Frank and Keely) have nothing to do with anything and everything in the house was his.

[25] Later on, during a warned, cautioned interview at the police station, Mr. Caruso stated that he would be willing to talk if charges against his family were dropped. He stated that he resides at 3010 17th Side Road in the basement while his parents live on the main floor. He further stated that his brother (Nicolas) was staying with them while estranged from his girlfriend.

[26] Located within the residence at 3010 17th Side Road were the following items:

• 30 non-restricted long guns, 2 of which were loaded without trigger locks. The majority of the long guns were unsecured;
• 20,000 rounds of ammunition;
• Magazines for firearms;
• 1.5 kg of cannabis;
• 18 grams of cocaine;
• 800 grams of what was at that time thought to be methamphetamine;
• $18,000 CAD;
• A pill press;
• Cocaine test kits
• Scales; and
• Packaging materials.

[27] In the main room of the basement (“room #1”), police located the following:

• A sawed off loaded shotgun strapped under a table.

[28] In the adjacent bedroom in the basement (“room #2”), police located:

• Mr. Caruso’s passport;
• A magazine cartridge still sealed in its pack, compatible with the Lucznik firearm and other long guns;
• 9 mm barrel assembly for the Lucznik firearm;
• 9 mm barrel assembly for the Lucznik firearm that had been cut in two places; and
• Boxes of ammunition, Sellier & Bellot, 9 mm, 50 rounds. The same brand and packaging located at 6760 Davand Drive.

[29] In an adjacent room in the basement (“room #3”), the police located:

• Scales with white residue;
• Packaging materials; and
• The controlled substances and paraphernalia referred to above in paragraphs 26 (d)-(f) and (h)-(k).

[30] In an adjacent utility room in the basement (“room #4”), the police located:

• A table top with tools and long guns throughout the room.

[31] In an adjacent furnace and laundry room in the basement (“room #5”), the police located:

• A long gun behind the furnace;
• Attached to the long gun was a magazine loaded with ammunition.

[32] On the main floor in the front foyer (“room #7), police located:

• A long gun with a trigger lock in a case behind the front door.

[33] On the main floor in Nicolas’ bedroom (“room #9”), police located:

• Nicolas’ identification;
• $10,000 CAD in a bedside table drawer; and
• One box of ammunition in the bedside table drawer.

[34] On the main floor in Frank and Keely’s bedroom (“room #10), police located:

• Frank’s passport; and
• A small amount of cocaine on a bedside table.

[35] The only occupants of the residence who, at that time, possessed a valid PAL were Mr. Caruso and his father, Frank.

[36] Police were able to restore the serial number of the Lucznik firearm located at 6760 Davand Drive, “ML0902”. The cut barrel located in room #2 of 3010 17th Side Road displayed the last 4 digits of its serial number, “0902”.

P.C. Blurton’s Notice of Revocation

[37] P.C. Blurton, designate of the CFO, provided Mr. Caruso with a Notice of Revocation, effective 31 January 2023, pursuant to s.70 of the Firearms Act.

[38] P.C. Blurton referred to a York Regional Police investigation in September 2005 involving Mr. Caruso allegedly selling an unknown amount of cannabis to a high school student. No charges were laid.

[39] It is clear to me that this incident did not form (and should not have formed) part of P.C. Blurton’s reasons for revocation. Mr. Caruso was fourteen years old at the time. Further, the incident preceded Mr. Caruso receiving his minor’s firearms licence in June 2006.

[40] P.C. Blurton also referred to the withdrawal of one count of possession of a schedule 1 substance (s.5(2) Controlled Drugs and Substances Act) and one count of Careless Storage (s.86(1) of the Criminal Code) on 9 June 2021.

[41] It appears to me that these withdrawn charges did not form (and should not have formed) part of P.C. Blurton’s reasons for revocation. No underlying facts were included in P.C. Blurton’s reasons and do not appear to have been considered by him.

[42] P.C. Blurton recited the evidence in the Project Ovenus Detailed Narrative that related to 3010 17th Side Road, drug trafficking, firearm trafficking and Luigi Caruso. He noted that the criminal charges were stayed.

[43] In his reasons for revocation, P.C. Blurton explained his decision that it is not in the interest of public safety that Mr. Caruso continue to hold a firearms licence as follows (at pp.6-7):

At the conclusion of a 7-month investigation in September 2020, officers conducted a series of search warrants. They found that you had altered a Non-Restricted firearm by putting a shortened barrel on it, which would then classify it as a Restricted firearm. They observed a male obtain a bag from your residence and take it to his office. During the search warrant of that office this firearm was located with the serial number removed. It was located in the bag that officers observed him leaving your residence with. This provides reasonable grounds to believe that you had trafficked a firearm to someone who did not have a firearms licence. Officers also found parts for the same firearm located in your residence including a barrel with a matching number. Twenty-nine firearms were located in your residence stored improperly and two of these were loaded. One of those firearms was found loaded and strapped to the underside of a table in the common area of the basement where you advised officers you reside. Evidence of gunsmithing was located in the basement providing officers reasonable grounds to believe that you were altering and trafficking firearms.

Surveillance on your residence also provided reasonable grounds to believe that you were trafficking controlled substances. During the execution of the search warrant at your residence officers located packaging and manufacturing tools commonly used for the purpose of trafficking. Dangerous quantities of Cocaine and Methamphetamines [The substance was subsequently analyzed and determined to be 800 grams of cutting agent.] were seized from your residence along with a large quantity of Cannabis believed to be used for trafficking.

As a result of this investigation, you, your brother and your parents were arrested. You told police that your family was not involved and everything in the residence belonged to you. In a sworn statement you agreed to cooperate with police if the charges against your family were dropped.

In court, your charges resulted in a stay of proceedings due to the trial not being held within a reasonable amount of time. Therefore, your case and the evidence against you was never heard in court.

Case law supports that a criminal conviction is not necessary to prove the public safety risk required to revoke or refuse a firearms licence…

It is not the role of the CFO to adjudicate the Criminal charges but rather to determine if it is in the interest of public safety that you continue to hold a valid firearms licence…

I believe that if your case had made it to trial there is a strong possibility that you would have been convicted due to the overwhelming evidence of your involvement in trafficking a firearm, trafficking controlled substances and illicit Cannabis. A conviction in a case like this would likely result in a firearms prohibition for life. The most concerning element in this investigation is the nature in which you had loaded firearms in your residence stored unsafely and that you were removing and altering serial numbers to traffic them. It is my belief that your actions pose a serious risk to public safety and the safety of others around you.

Based on all of the above, it is my opinion that it is not desirable in the interest of individual or public safety that you be the holder of a valid firearms licence. Accordingly, your Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL) is hereby revoked.

Supplementary Information – by Agreement

[44] At the reference hearing before me, all parties agreed that the following information, not before the CFO at the time of his decision, was accurate:

(a) All charges were withdrawn against Frank, Keely and Nicolas Caruso;

(b) The suspected methamphetamine located in room #3 tested as cutting agent; and

(c) Frank, Keely and Nicolas were located on the main floor of the residence when the police entered to execute the search warrant.

Supplementary Information – P.C. Blurton’s testimony

[45] The only additional evidence of any consequence that was elicited through examination of P.C. Blurton on 18 April 2023 was that Mr. Caruso was still listed as living at 3010 17th Side Road, King City, with the Ministry of Transportation.

Supplementary Evidence – Affidavit of Luigi Caruso

[46] In Mr. Caruso’s affidavit, he outlines his work history and the fact that he is an ordinary, law-abiding citizen. He has no criminal record, nor is he facing any outstanding criminal charges.

[47] Further, Mr. Caruso explains that he received his minor’s firearms licence in 2003 when he was twelve years old. He was approved for his PAL for non-restricted firearms when he turned eighteen in 2009 and has subsequently renewed it on multiple occasions, most recently in April 2020.

[48] At paragraph 9 of his affidavit, Mr. Caruso advises that 3010 17th Side Road is his family address and that, at the time of Project Ovenus, he was residing there with his parents.

[49] Mr. Caruso explains how hunting with firearms has been an important tradition and hobby within his family. He further explains how he has missed out on bonding with his family members, particularly his father, since his PAL was revoked by the CFO.

[50] Mr. Caruso advises that he moved down the street to his grandfather’s ten acre farm at 3305 17th Side Road since the end of summer 2022. This appears to be at odds with P.C. Blurton’s information that Mr. Caruso’s address with the Ministry of Transportation was still listed as 3010 17th Side Road, King City.

[51] Mr. Caruso advises that having a firearm will assist him in protecting himself, his two dogs and farm animals from coyotes.

[52] The Crown did not cross-examine Mr. Caruso on his affidavit.

The Effect of the Stay of Proceedings

[53] The applicant submits that a stay of proceedings is, in law, tantamount to an acquittal and that there are no categories of acquittals. In support of this proposition, the applicant relies on the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R. v. Jewitt, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 128.

[54] In my view, Jewitt does not support the implications of the proposition suggested by the applicant for a number of reasons:

(1) The precise question to be determined in Jewitt was whether the Crown’s statutory right of appeal, found in s.605 of the Criminal Code, applied to stays of proceedings, given s.605(1)(a)’s specific reference to “against a judgment or verdict of acquittal.” R. v. Jewitt, at paras 1 and 28.

(2) On this specific question, the Supreme Court concluded that “the administration of criminal justice would be better served by a determination that a stay of proceedings is tantamount to a judgment or verdict of acquittal and subject to appeal by the Crown pursuant to s.605(1)(a).” R. v. Jewitt, at para 51.

(3) Speaking for the Court, Dickson C.J. specifically noted that, for other purposes, stays and acquittals are distinct:

While a stay of proceedings…will have the same result as an acquittal and will be such a final determination of the issues…, its assimilation to an acquittal should only be for purposes of enabling an appeal by the Crown. Otherwise, the two concepts are not equated. The stay of proceedings for abuse of process is given as a substitute for an acquittal because, while on the merits the accused may not deserve an acquittal, the Crown by its abuse of process is disentitled to a conviction. No consideration of the merits – that is whether the accused is guilty independently of a consideration of the conduct of the Crown – is required to justify a stay. In the case at bar the accused admitted that he had sold a pound of marijuana to an undercover officer. A consideration of the merits would necessarily have led to his conviction. The stay in this case intervenes to prevent consideration of the merits lest a conviction occur in circumstances which would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. R. v. Jewitt, at para 56.

[55] The distinction between a stay of proceedings and an acquittal was recently highlighted by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in R. v. Bouvette, 2023 BCCA 152, at para 122.

[56] I note that Jewitt as well as many of the cases referred to therein involved stays granted as a result of a finding of entrapment. By definition, the findings of entrapment suggested that the actus reus of the offences occurred as a direct result of the state misconduct.

[57] In the present case, it was unreasonable delay that resulted in the stay of proceedings. In other words, the actus reus and the gathering of evidence were both complete prior to and independent from the state misconduct.

[58] For very good reason, the Firearms Act’s mandate is the promotion of public safety. Accordingly, eligibility to possess a PAL requires an evaluation of “if it is desirable, in the interests of the safety of that or any other person, that the person not possess a firearm.” [Firearms Act, s.5(1)].

[59] Further, the Firearms Act specifically requires the CFO to consider whether the person poses a risk of harm to any person. [Firearms Act, s.5(2)(f)].

[60] Given the nature of and reason for the stay of Mr. Caruso’s criminal charges, the CFO was obliged to consider the evidence in relation to said charges.

The Incriminating Statements

[61] There were four utterances made by Mr. Caruso that P.C. Blurton considered in his reasons for revocation:

(1) When Mr. Caruso arrived home at 03:30 while the search warrant was being executed, he was arrested. He stated to the police that his “parents have nothing to do with anything and that everything in the house is his.”

(2) At the police station, after being provided his rights to counsel and after speaking to counsel, Mr. Caruso participated in a warned, cautioned interview with the police. During that interview, Mr. Caruso refused to elaborate on his prior utterance but stated that he would be willing to talk if the charges against his family were dropped.

(3) During that same interview, Mr. Caruso confirmed that he resides in the basement of 3010 17th Side Road while his parents reside on the main floor.

(4) During that same interview, Mr. Caruso stated that his brother, Nicolas, is only staying with them while estranged from his girlfriend.

[62] The applicant submits that the statements are of questionable voluntariness and either should have not been considered by the CFO or should have been given very little weight by him. The applicant invites me to approach the statements in this fashion.

[63] The function of the CFO is administrative. The presumption of innocence and the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that are the cornerstones of the criminal justice system are not applicable in this forum.

[64] In Zeolkowski, Sopinka J held that “all relevant evidence” in the legislation governing a firearms prohibition hearing “means all facts which are logically probative of the issue” R. v. Zeolkowski, at para 18. Sopinka J further concluded that “clearly the firearms officer must consider information that may not be admissible under the ordinary rules of evidence.” R. v. Zeolkowski, at para 19.

[65] In Karatopis, Harris J echoed that such evidence is admissible but that the CFO and the provincial court judge on a reference should consider the particular frailties associated with the evidence when determining the weight it should be afforded. R. v. Karatopis, 2014 ONCJ 687, at para 23.

[66] Although the presumptive inadmissibility of self-incriminating statements in a criminal proceeding is not applicable in this forum, I remind myself of the rationale behind said presumption.

[67] I note that three of the four utterances were made by Mr. Caruso after he was provided with his right to counsel, after he had spoken to counsel and after he was cautioned. In the circumstances, I find that the frailties associated with self-incriminating statements are considerably lessened in relation to those three statements.

[68] The three statements provide compelling evidence that Mr. Caruso had knowledge of the illegal activities in the home and that he was the only person residing in the basement of the residence.

[69] The discovery of Mr. Caruso’s passport in bedroom #2 of the basement suggests that Mr. Caruso’s utterance was truthful.

[70] The discovery of Mr. Caruso’s parents and brother on the main floor when the police entered the residence further suggests that Mr. Caruso’s utterance was truthful.

Reasonableness of P.C. Blurton’s Conclusion

[71] The evidence before P.C. Blurton clearly established serious criminality associated with 3010 17th Side Road.

[72] The applicant’s argument, in a nutshell, is that there was no evidence tying Mr. Caruso to the serious criminality.

[73] The evidence supports Mr. Caruso’s connection to the basement. His passport was found there and he admitted to being the sole person living in the basement.

[74] All evidence of drug possession and trafficking, firearm possession, improper storage of firearms and firearm gunsmithing was connected to the basement.

[75] On this evidence, I find P.C. Blurton’s conclusion that Mr. Caruso was involved in the serious criminality on display in the basement to be eminently reasonable. So, too, was P.C. Blurton’s conclusion that it was not in the interests of public safety for Mr. Caruso to possess a firearms licence.

[76] At the very least, the evidence suggested that Mr. Caruso was residing in the basement where drugs and drug paraphernalia, improperly stored firearms and indicia of illegal gunsmithing were in plain view. This interpretation, alone, would reasonably support the conclusion that Mr. Caruso had knowledge of and the ability to exercise control over the contraband.

[77] In my view, the revocation was based on evidence that P.C. Blurton was entitled to consider and the revocation was, therefore, reasonable.

[78] The onus on this reference lies with the applicant. It was open to him to provide evidence that called into question his connection to the basement and the reliability of his utterances. He did not do so.

[79] I have considered the amplified evidentiary record that was before me. It was substantially the same as what was before P.C. Blurton.

[80] With some exceptions [For example, I have disregarded P.C. Blurton’s opinion, at p.8 that “I believe that if your case had made it to trial there is a strong possibility that you would have been convicted due to the overwhelming evidence of your involvement in trafficking a firearm, trafficking controlled substances and illicit cannabis.”], I have concluded that the facts found by P.C. Blurton overall were supported by the evidence and justified his serious safety concerns.

[81] Whether or not I would have come to the same conclusion as P.C. Blurton, I have concluded that the decision of P.C. Blurton “falls within the range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law.” [R. v. Henderson, 2011 ONCA 696, at para 38].

Disposition

[82] The reference to this court pursuant to s.74(1)(a) of the Firearms Act is dismissed.

Released: 21 June 2023 Signed: Justice R.M. Robinson