His Majesty The King v. Jordan Lazore and Brandon Laffin, 2024 ONCJ 644

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

DATE: 2024 12 09 COURT FILE No.: 23-39100156

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

JORDAN LAZORE and BRANDON LAFFIN

Before: Justice Julien R. Lalande

Heard on: May 15-17, 29-30, Aug 9, 30 & Oct 7 2024 Reasons for Judgment released on: December 9th 2024

Counsel: Andre White......................................................................................... counsel for the Crown Jeff Langevin...............………………………. counsel for the accused, Jordan Lazore Ryan Langevin………………………...……… counsel for the accused, Brandon Laffin

Lalande J.:

Overview

[1] This is a judgment in the trial of the co-accused, Messrs. Lazore and Laffin. They are jointly charged with four offences in relation to firearms trafficking and importation alleged to have occurred between the 5th and 7th of September 2022. Mr. Lazore is also charged with careless storage of ammunition contrary 86(1).

[2] The allegations involve the two accused transporting guns into Canada and transferring them to Messrs. Rezaie and Amirdad. Those individuals are arrested shortly afterwards in possession of the firearms.

[3] The trial proceeded over various days beginning in mid-May 2024. At the conclusion of the evidence, the parties prepared written submissions which were filed in staggered fashion. The evidence and submissions focussed on issues relating to the circumstantial nature of the Crown’s case and identification.

Facts

[4] I have summarized the facts below in chronological order. For ease of reference, I have divided them into two sections. The first relates to the evidence with respect to the importation offences and the second reviews the evidence regarding the transfer of the firearms.

The Importation Offences

[5] To appreciate the Crown’s theory and the evidence relating to the alleged importation of the guns, it is important that the unique geography surrounding the international border crossing at Cornwall be understood.

[6] The Cornwall Port of Entry into Canada is on the north shore of the St. Lawrence River. A motorist travelling north from the United States into Canada would drive on International Road and pass over the first portion of the Three Nations Bridge. The bridge crosses from the U.S. mainland over the south channel of the river onto Cornwall Island. After then crossing the island, International Road continues on a second section of the Three Nations Bridge over the north channel of the river onto the Canadian mainland. At the end of the north bridge is a toll booth managed by the Seaway International Bridge Corporation. After passing through the toll, motorists proceed to the Canadian government’s checkpoint.

[7] Of note, although the Cornwall Port of Entry is on the mainland, Cornwall Island itself forms part of the Akwesasne Mohawk reserve and is Canadian territory. The international border runs along the south channel between the island and the south shore of the river.

[8] Under the Customs Act, RSC 1985, C.1 (2nd Supp), the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has designated the corridor between the Ports of Entry in Massena, New York and Cornwall, Ontario as one of mixed traffic as it accommodates both international and domestic travellers. Residents of the island travelling into the city of Cornwall are expected to proceed through the Port of Entry using a marked domestic traveller lane. Any person entering from the United States is expected to comply with section 11 of the Customs Act and proceed across the island directly to the Port of Entry’s international lane.

[9] The government officers at the Port of Entry approach domestic and international travellers with different standards of scrutiny. As CBSA Officer Barkley explained in his testimony, incoming international travellers can be subject to a referral and random search without any requirements or indicators necessary. The authority to subject incoming travellers to random searches is found in section 99(1)(a) of the Customs Act and has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Simmons. In contrast, domestic travellers are not subject to a search without specific indicators amounting to reasonable grounds to suspect that they may be in possession of contraband. This authority is found in section 99(1)(f) of the Customs Act.

[10] As a result of its unique geography and configuration as a mixed-use corridor, the border crossing at Cornwall is recognized as a particularly high-risk location for the smuggling of contraband and persons (see for example Swamp, 2019 ONSC 7196 at paras 29-30). According to Officer Barkley, the location of the Cornwall Port of Entry on the mainland also poses an ongoing concern with respect to smuggling. Ill-meaning persons can bring contraband into Canada and potentially stop to transfer or deposit it on Cornwall Island before checking in as international travellers. These same bad actors can then return and retrieve the contraband before proceeding into the Port of Entry again, this time as domestic travellers, to avoid detection and randomized searches.

[11] In this case, US Customs and Border Protection Officer Murtaugh confirmed that on September 6th, 2022 at 4:34pm, a Chrysler 200 with Ontario marker CRWN 307 crossed into the United States from Canada at the Massena Port of Entry. The occupants of the vehicle were identified and recorded as the co-accused, Jordan Lazore and Brandon Laffin. The vehicle was later identified by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation as belonging to Mr. Laffin and a certified plate history from the Transportation Safety Division was filed as an exhibit.

[12] At 4:52pm, security footage for the Seaway Bridge shows the vehicle returning on to Cornwall Island via International Road. Rather than report at the Cornwall Port of Entry as required by the Customs Act, the Chrysler turned off at 235 International Road and is no longer visible on camera. The evidence at trial was that 235 International Road has a dispensary and some apartments. Mr. Lazore was living in one of the apartments at the time.

[13] Of note, at 4:53pm, just before the Chrysler turns off at 235 International, a Cadillac is seen on the security footage turning on to International Road and following it into the lot at 235 International. This vehicle is distinct in that it is a light colour with a black roof. It arrives at 235 International Road one minute after the Chrysler at 4:56pm.

[14] At 4:57pm, the Chrysler emerges from the turn off at 235 International and proceeds to the toll booth and then to the Cornwall Port of Entry to report as an international traveller. At this point, the driver appears to be alone in the vehicle. He strongly resembles Mr. Laffin. The driver presents an identification card which is scanned at the toll booth confirms and confirms Mr. Laffin’s identity. In fact, his photo appears on the security video when the agent scans his card.

[15] Once cleared by the federal authorities at the Port of Entry at 4:59pm, the Chrysler immediately turns back towards Cornwall Island. At this point, it is exactly 5:00pm. The Chrysler arrives again at 235 International at 5:01pm.

[16] At 5:12pm, the Chrysler re-emerges from 235 International, followed closely by the Cadillac. The vehicles travel north in tandem and pass through the Seaway Bridge toll at 5:13pm. The footage from the Seaway Bridge authority shows that Mr. Laffin is, once again, alone in the Chrysler. The Cadillac has a female driver and female front passenger. A male is in the back of the car on the driver’s side with the window down. He has a large tattoo on his left forearm, which is positioned on the windowsill as the car drives out of the toll booth. [1]

[17] After the toll booth, the cars proceed through the Cornwall Port of Entry at 5:15pm as domestic travellers. The Crown theorizes that this is the moment when the guns were illegally imported into Canada.

[18] The vehicles emerge northbound on Brookdale from the Port of Entry. At that time, the plate of the Cadillac is recorded as a New York marker KPV2893.

The Trafficking Offences

[19] Between 5:15pm and 6:38pm, the whereabouts of the Chrysler and Cadillac are unknown. At 6:38pm, Mr. Lazore is captured on the security footage of the Ramada Inn on Brookdale. He is dropped off by the Chrysler. Mr. Laffin is clearly visible as the driver, wearing the same t-shirt visible from the various video clips around the Three Nations Bridge.

[20] Mr. Lazore exits the front passenger seat of the Chrysler and attends the lobby of the Ramada where he speaks to the attendant at the front desk and appears to be checking in. Mr. Laffin pulls the Chrysler into a parking spot near the entrance and waits for Mr. Lazore to return. At 7:00pm, the Cadillac arrives in the lot. The Chrysler drives a short loop, pulls into a row of empty parking spaces and the Cadillac then pulls in next to it. The same two women are in the Cadillac. They leave towards the lobby, while Mr. Lazore stands at the rear of the Chrysler. Mr. Laffin is seen struggling with an object that he removes from the rear driver’s side door of the Chrysler and places on the ground. Mr. Laffin closes the rear driver’s side door of the Chrysler and appears to lift the heavy object into the rear passenger side of the adjacent Cadillac. The two then linger at the vehicles, smoking, for several more minutes until the two women return to the vehicles. The four re-enter the vehicles at this point. This time, Mr. Lazore drives the Cadillac and Mr. Laffin drives his Chrysler. Each vehicle has one of the women in the passenger seat.

[21] Mr. Laffin’s vehicle leaves the motel parking lot and Mr. Lazore drives the Cadillac from its parking spot near the entrance to a spot in the far end of the parking lot. At 7:18pm, he enters the motel with one of the women using a secure entrance at the side of the building. He appears to use a key card to unlock it.

[22] Detective Constable Langlois testified that he attended the Ramada and viewed the security footage of the Cadillac on fast-forward from this point until the alleged transaction the next day. Although that footage was not captured and disclosed, the officer testified that he satisfied himself that no events or activity were observed in relation to the Cadillac on the video.

[23] The next day, on the 7th of September 2022, officers at the Ontario Provincial Police’s Provincial Weapons Enforcement Unit (OPP) were contacted by the Ottawa Police Service (OPS). The OPS had information that Kyanoush Rezaie was operating a black Range Rover with Ontario marker CEPL 976 in tandem with a red Ford F150 pulling a trailer. According to OPS intelligence, the vehicles were on their way to Cornwall to pick up firearms. The OPP were informed that OPS had eyes on the vehicles until they were southbound on Highway 138 towards Cornwall.

[24] The OPP hastily set up surveillance and located the two vehicles southbound on Brookdale, presumably having just entered the city of Cornwall. Just before 4:30pm, the Range Rover and red Ford F150, which was pulling a white trailer, entered the parking lot of the Elect Inn motel on Brookdale.

[25] Security camera footage from the Elect Inn was later seized by the police and provided at trial. It shows the Range Rover entering the lot first and backing into a parking spot, while the F150 pulls in and idles near the lot’s entrance next to the marquee sign. An individual later identified as Mr. Rezaie exits the driver’s door of the Range Rover and walks towards the F150, entering the front passenger door. The F150 then exits the parking lot. Detective Constable Canham was able to confirm in his evidence that the F150 went south on Brookdale, which is to say, towards to Ramada Inn.

[26] The OPP were able to follow the F150 as it pulled into the Ramada Inn parking lot, a couple of hundred meters south from the Elect Inn. Security footage from the Ramada shows that the F150 drives to far end of the parking lot at 4:31pm. That portion of the lot is largely empty except for Mr. Lazore’s Cadillac and another pickup. The F150 positions itself perpendicular to the Cadillac and remains there for about 90 seconds. At that point, the person alleged to be Mr. Lazore approaches the F150 from the direction of the Ramada Inn. Mr. Rezaie exits the from passenger seat of the F150. He hugs the person alleged to be Mr. Lazore and the two congregate for a couple of minutes near the Cadillac. For some of their discussion, they appear to be facing the rear passenger side of the vehicle together.

[27] At 4:34pm, the F150 drives forward, still perpendicular to the Cadillac, and parks just behind it across a row of parking spaces. The passenger doors of the F150 are positioned close to the rear passenger side of the Cadillac, largely obscuring Mr. Rezaie and the person alleged to be Mr. Lazore from view. The F150 stays parked there for approximately three minutes.

[28] Detective Constable Canham testified at trial that, when the F150 was behind the Cadillac, he observed one of the males take something from the Cadillac and put it into the back of the F150. The officer estimates being about 100 feet away at the time. From his vantage point, it appeared to Detective Constable Canham that the item was heavy, based on how the male leaned in and appeared to require some force to pull the item from the Cadillac. The item was dark but the officer could not give any details as to the colour.

[29] Detective Constable Langlois of the OPP, who was part of the surveillance team, testified that, although his view was partially obscured by the vehicles, he could see that the rear passenger door of the Cadillac was ajar during the interaction.

[30] Security footage filed at trial shows that the F150 returned to the Elect Inn, coming from the direction of the Ramada. Once again, the F150 stopped near the parking lot entrance next to the marquee sign. Mr. Rezaie exits the front passenger door of the F150 and walks across the parking lot to the Range Rover. The two vehicles left the Elect Inn in tandem, heading north towards the 401.

[31] The OPP were able to follow the F150 and Range Rover. The vehicles turned on to the 401 westbound after leaving the Elect Inn. At one point, Detective Constable Sadler saw the Range Rover pull over and wait 5-15 seconds on the roadside for the F150 to catch up before continuing.

[32] At 5:06pm, the vehicles briefly exited the 401 at the ON Route stop near Ingleside. Detective Constable Burnet testified that he was able to observe the vehicles pull over after exiting the 401 and bearing right at the fork, which is towards the rest area reserved for trucks, buses and RVs. He could see “heads bobbing around” from his position near the gas pumps some 150 metres away. Detective Constable Jeaurond was able to observe the vehicles as he drove by on the 401. The Range Rover was pulled over in front of the F150 and two males were at the back of the Range Rover. One of the males was arranging or placing something in the trunk of the Range Rover.

[33] Officers stopped both vehicles simultaneously near mile marker 720 using what was described as a high-risk takedown. They identified the driver of the F150 as Morthaza Amirdad and the driver of the Range Rover as Kyanoush Rezaie. There were no other occupants in the vehicles.

[34] A suitcase of firearms was found in the trunk of the Range Rover. It contained 43 handguns, parts and some high-capacity magazines. Among them is a mixture of restricted and prohibited firearms: 26 Glock 9mm pistols, one .45 caliber Glock pistol, two .40 caliber Glock pistols, one 10mm Glock pistol, seven Mini Drago .762 long-barrelled pistols as well as six 9mm Hellcat handguns. Many of the firearms had high-capacity magazines attached to them. Those magazines are prohibited devices. A Glock barrel and slide was also recovered in the suitcase. The items were examined and certificates of analysis filed at trial confirming the guns to be firearms according to the Criminal Code. The magazines and other items were also categorized.

[35] The Crown filed some tracing reports at trial, revealing that the vast majority of the firearms were purchased between 2019 and 2022, with outliers bought in 2012 or between 2015 and 2017. The firearms were purchased in Texas except for three handguns from Utah, Florida and Illinois respectively. The reports are silent on the high-capacity magazines.

[36] I note that nothing large or heavy was in the F150 or the trailer it was pulling at the time it was stopped. Likewise, the police seized Mr. Lazore’s Cadillac at the Ramada. Mr. Lazore was identified at that time and captured on the officer’s bodycam when he attended to inquire what they were doing to his vehicle. No large or heavy items were in the Cadillac. No other large or heavy items were located in the Range Rover, which had a duffel bag in the backseat containing cologne and some personal effects.

Onus and Standard of Proof

[37] An accused person is presumed to be innocent. The onus is on the Crown to prove the charges against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. That onus never shifts. An accused person is not required to testify or to call any evidence, nor is an accused person obligated to explain anything.

[38] To succeed in gaining a conviction, the Crown must prove the specific charges beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a heavy standard, designed to prevent the conviction of innocent persons.

[39] A reasonable doubt has been defined as

• Not a doubt based on sympathy or prejudice but logically connected to the evidence or absence of evidence
• Is not imaginary or frivolous doubt

[40] It is not enough to convict, for a trial judge to conclude that accused persons are probably guilty. Nor is it necessary that their guilt be proved to an absolute certainty: R. v. Lifchus (1997), 9 C.R. (5th) 1 (S.C.C.). The standard beyond a reasonable doubt is much closer to a certainty, however, than it is to the balance of probabilities measure: R. v. Starr 2000 SCC 40, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144.

Issues

[41] There are three issues to be determined in this case. The first is an ID issue raised solely by Mr. Lazore. The second is whether the Crown has made out the trafficking charges based on the circumstantial evidence as to the alleged chain of possession of the guns from the Chrysler to the Cadillac to the F150 to the Range Rover. Finally, I must determine if the Crown has established that the guns were imported during the September 6th border crossing.

Issue #1 – Identity of Mr. Lazore

The Law

[42] Photographs, video recordings and other video images are real evidence, that is to say, evidence that conveys a relevant first-hand sense impression to the trier of fact. They are also, to a certain extent, testimonial evidence. Certain legal principles govern use by the trier of fact of this kind of real evidence when used to establish a person's identity (Nikolovski at para 28).

[43] A judge sitting without a jury, may identify a person, including the accused, depicted in a photographic image or a video as an individual who appears in the courtroom (Nikolovski, at para 30; R. v. Slater, 2010 ONCA 376, at para 3).

[44] Courts have recognized that witness identification based on video recordings can under certain circumstances be more reliable as it allows repeated and unhurried consideration (See M.B., 2017 ONCA 653 at para 32).

[45] A trial judge considering visual images or video as evidence of identification must be cautious, though, particularly when reaching a conclusion solely on photographic or video evidence. In certain cases, where the clarity and quality of the image are poor or of lesser quality, further caution is required (M.B, at para 32; Cuming).

Positions of the Parties

[46] Counsel for Mr. Lazore argues, at paragraph five of his written submissions, that there ought to be some doubt that the heavy-set male in the Ramada parking lot on September 7th is, in fact, Mr. Lazore. It is pointed out that the security video is unclear and there may be some disconnect as between the parking lot video and the footage of the heavy-set male exiting and entering the building before and after the alleged transfer of firearms in the parking lot.

[47] The Crown maintains that it was, in fact, Mr. Lazore.

Analysis and Findings

[48] I find that the person in the Ramada parking lot on September 7th who hugged Mr. Rezaie and dealt with the alleged transfer of the guns is Jordan Lazore. The evidence of this is, in my view, overwhelming.

[49] To begin, it is a known fact that Mr. Lazore was with Mr. Laffin on the 6th of September when he crossed into New York in the Chrysler. His identity was confirmed by the American border authorities.

[50] Mr. Lazore is also visible on several video clips from September 6th at the Ramada, including the very clear angles where he is dropped off by Mr. Laffin at the entrance, when he checks in at the front desk and when he enters the Ramada’s side entrance after parking the Cadillac. I also find as a fact that he crossed at the Port of Entry on the 6th in the rear of the Cadillac, based on the similarity of the tattoos described in footnote 1 as well as the fact that he is not in the Chrysler at that point.

[51] I note that, when comparing the various video clips, it is clear that Mr. Lazore is wearing the same clothes on the 6th and 7th of September, including a black t-shirt with some unique markings on it and the word “Legend” across the chest, along with dark grey patterned shorts and flip flops. The details with respect to the clothing are very clear in footage of him exiting the side door of the motel on September 7th as he heads to the parking lot to meet Mr. Rezaie. This is visible on Camera 3 at 4:32pm. In the same minute, he walks out to the F150 and Cadillac on Camera 14 in the far parking lot. At the end of that interaction, Mr. Lazore enters the driver’s seat of his Cadillac for several minutes. He then gets out, walks away from the vehicle towards the motel at 4:43pm after locking the car’s doors. At 4:44pm, he re-appears on Camera 3 entering the motel. It is clearly the same individual.

[52] Later, on the 7th of September, Mr. Lazore is also captured on a bodycam speaking to Detective Constable Langlois when the Cadillac is seized. He identifies himself to the officer at that point. Detective Constable Langlois also identified Mr. Lazore in Court during his testimony. I observe that while the bodycam footage filed at trial does not show Mr. Lazore’s face, it does show his distinct Legend t-shirt as well as his shorts and flip flops.

[53] Considering this evidence cumulatively, I find as a fact that the person who attends the alleged transfer in the Ramada parking lot is the same person in all of the video clips I’ve described from the Ramada and Detective Constable Langlois’ bodycam. Relying on Nikolovski, I recognize that individual to be Mr. Lazore, who I have observed for several days over the course of the trial. I note that Mr. Lazore is distinct in his appearance as he has a very large frame. I also rely on the other evidence described, namely his self-identification to Detective Constable Langlois, the in-dock ID during the officer’s testimony as well as the confirmation that Mr. Lazore was present with Mr. Laffin on the afternoon of the 6th at the American border.

[54] Counsel for Mr. Laffin has not argued identity and focused exclusively on undercutting the circumstantial case put forward by the Crown. This is a responsible approach as the evidence of Mr. Laffin’s ID is equally overwhelming. Mr. Laffin is also identified crossing into New York by the American border agency. He is the registered owner of the Chrysler that is captured on surveillance. Mr. Laffin is also plainly visible in many clips as the driver and his identity is further confirmed when he passes through the toll booth multiple times and his photo shows up on the computer terminal when the attendant scans his pass. If there remains any doubt, I find that he is recognizable on the Ramada footage after exiting what is clearly his vehicle. I would ground that finding in my knowledge of Mr. Laffin’s appearance generally and his appearance viewed amongst the various videos on the 6th of September 2022. That day he wore a distinct t-shirt that is dark in colour with yellow sleeves and a yellow collar and it is visible in all of the videos. The cumulative impact of this evidence leads to the inescapable conclusion that he is the person in the distinct t-shirt with Mr. Lazore at the Ramada on September 6th who lifts the apparently heavy object from the Chrysler into the Cadillac.

Issue #2 – Trafficking Offences

The Law

[55] The charge of possessing a weapon for the purpose of trafficking under section 100 of the Criminal Code requires the Crown to show that an accused possessed one of the following items: a prohibited, restricted or non-restricted firearm, a prohibited or restricted weapon, a prohibited device, a firearm part or any ammunition. At the time of possession, the accused must intend to transfer or offer to transfer the item knowing that they are unauthorized to do so.

[56] An issue in this case will be the accused’s possession of the firearms. I remind myself that before a person can be said to be in legal possession of an item, the Crown must show that they had both knowledge and control. Where necessary, the Crown must also show that the accused knew its criminal nature (Chalk, 2007 ONCA 815 at para 18).

[57] As is the case here, where the Crown seeks to prove a charge based on circumstantial evidence, a Court may only convict if guilt is the only reasonable inference from the evidence (R v Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33 at para. 30). Like all circumstantial evidence, inferences consistent with innocence or otherwise inconsistent with guilt do not have to arise from proven facts (see Villaroman and Khela, 2009 SCC 4).

[58] In this case, there is also an allegation of conspiracy to traffic firearms. The offence of conspiracy is complete upon the agreement of two or more persons to commit an offence. No overt act is required. The accused need not be aware of all the details of the conspiracy but must know the general nature of the criminal scheme and intend to adhere to it. The existence of an agreement may be inferred from knowledge of, and participation in, a crime (U.S.A. v. Dynar, R. v. Alexander).

Positions of the Parties

[59] With respect to the trafficking offences, counsel for Mr. Laffin argues that the Crown has failed to prove knowledge and control of the contents of the suitcase containing the firearms. Counsel submits that, at best, it has been shown that Mr. Laffin was simply in the vicinity of the suitcase. Counsel for Mr. Lazore adopts this argument and argues that the inferences in support of the Crown’s case are too weak to establish guilt.

[60] The Crown argues that, working backwards from the seizure of the firearms, that the only logical conclusion is that the suitcase or suitcase of firearms was supplied by Mr. Lazore and Mr. Laffin.

Analysis and Findings

[61] Essentially, to resolve this issue requires determinations as to whether the Crown has established that the firearms were possessed by the accused by showing that the accused had knowledge and control. If so, there is no issue that the accused were not authorized to transfer the firearms. Finally, if found to be in possession of the firearms as described, then a further determination is required on the accused’s intention in possessing them.

[62] To begin, in my view, the Crown has demonstrated that the suitcase of guns seized by the OPP is the heavy item transferred from the Chrysler to the Cadillac to the F150 and finally to the Range Rover. I draw this conclusion for the following reasons.

[63] First, Mr. Laffin is clearly exerting himself to hoist an obviously heavy item from the rear driver’s side of the Chrysler to the rear passenger side of the Cadillac at the Ramada on the 6th of September. The Cadillac is then parked. Detective Constable Langlois reviews the footage and notes that nothing happened with the vehicle from that point until late the next afternoon when Mr. Lazore greets Mr. Rezaie and the two are observed at the rear passenger side of the Cadillac. Mr. Amirdad purposefully pulled the F150 close to the Cadillac. This is when Detective Constable Canhan observes one of the individuals moving a heavy item into the F150. It is clear that the F150 was pulled forward to facilitate the transfer of the heavy item.

[64] The continuity of that heavy item seems clear on the evidence, and I note that nothing heavy or large is located in the Cadillac when the police seize it before it leaves the Ramada. I find that as a fact that the item transferred from Mr. Laffin’s Chrysler to Mr. Lazore’s Cadillac is the same item then transferred into the F150 operated by Mr. Amirdad.

[65] In doing so, I accept the evidence of Detective Constable Canham with respect to the heavy item moved from the Chrysler into the F150 at the Ramada. I find that officer Canham was fair and believable. He was careful in his descriptions and the limitations of his ability to observe the interaction. He was also firm on what information he could share. For example, he could tell that the item was dark in colour but not what colour it was. He would also not commit as to which individual moved the item.

[66] I also accept the evidence of Detective Constable Langlois that he viewed the footage of the Cadillac between the 6th and 7th of the September in fast-forward. This evidence, in my view, squares with the testimony of Mr. Power, then an employee at the Ramada, who assisted the officer with accessing the video system. Although Mr. Power could not recall the entirety of what was reviewed, he did communicate the gist of it, which was similar to what the police described. Mr. Power also allowed for the possibility that he reviewed footage with Detective Constable Langlois for up to two hours at various speeds of playback.

[67] This evidence, in my view, does not contradict Detective Constable Langlois as argued by defence. While Mr. Power did say in cross-examination that he did not review 22 hours of footage, it was clear to me that in answering that question that the witness was exclaiming that he did not speed that amount of time reviewing the footage. I accept that the time frame in which the officer reviewed video with Mr. Power would have allowed Detective Constable Langlois to inspect for any goings-on around the Cadillac if the video were played at high-speed.

[68] Returning to the evidence, the F150 left the Ramada and re-attended the Elect Inn briefly so that Mr. Rezaie can retrieve the Range Rover. After that, it does not stop, according to the extensive surveillance evidence called at trial, until it pulls into the Ingleside On Route. The evidence with respect to the On Route was from officers Burnet and Jeaurond, the former near the gas pumps and the latter driving on the highway. They made some observations from their cruisers at a distance of approximately 150 metres. Officer Jeaurond in particular described how he saw two males at the open trunk of the Range Rover and one appeared to be placing or rearranging an object. This evidence is key as the trunk of the Range Rover is the location of the recovered firearms.

[69] I accept the evidence of both officers. I note, as pointed out by defence, that the speed and the distance of their vehicles would limit the amount of detail that the officers could observe in addition to the fact that officer Jeaurond was making his observations from a moving vehicle. I have considered carefully the observations that the officers did make and find them reasonable and realistic in the circumstances described in the evidence.

[70] I find as a fact that this is the point in time in which the heavy item transferred into the F150 at the Ramada was then placed in the Range Rover. In making this finding, I note that no heavy or large item was found either in the F150 or in the trailer that it was pulling. Nor was any other large or heavy item located in the Range Rover. I also accept the Crown’s argument that it stands to reason that persons illegally transporting a large cache of firearms would tend to take measures such as moving the contraband from one vehicle to another to avoid detection. In this context, it also seems obvious that the vehicle ultimately transporting the firearms, the Range Rover, was deliberately left at the Elect Inn to not be observed at the scene of the initial transfer of the guns at the Ramada to further assist in avoiding detection.

[71] This leads me to the final factual finding for this section. That is, that the suitcase of firearms seized by the OPP from the Range Rover at is the same item that was transferred from the Chrysler into the Cadillac into the F150 and finally into the Range Rover. I rely on the same evidence in making this finding as well as the fact that the vehicles did not stop after the On Route until the high-risk takedown. I note as well that the bag of guns was so heavy that Detective Constable Burnet needed help to lift it. This is consistent with the obvious exertion of Mr. Laffin on the security footage and the observations of Detective Constable regarding the item being moved into the F150.

[72] Having made these determinations, I return to the key issue for the charge of trafficking, whether the accused knowingly possessed the firearms and their intentions in doing so. I find that the circumstantial evidence presented by the Crown shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew the suitcase they transferred contained firearms.

[73] With respect to Mr. Laffin and the initial transfer on September 6th 2022, his awareness is clear when reviewing the overall body of evidence. First, the suitcase of firearms in question is large and very heavy. It would defy common sense, in my view, that Mr. Laffin has a suitcase of 43 firearms and parts placed in his backseat while driving around a city without knowing what it was. While a motorist is not deemed in law to know the contents of their vehicle – especially when there have been passengers, here the item is so large and obvious that it would not possibly have escaped Mr. Laffin’s observation either when it was placed in the vehicle or when he was driving. Second, Mr. Laffin willingly moves the suitcase into the Cadillac. It would defy common sense that he moves an extremely heavy from his vehicle while completely unaware of what it was. Third, when the initial transfer occurs, the behaviour of the individuals shows an attempt to avoid detection. Just before the Cadillac arrives, the Chrysler pulls out of the parking space where it had been waiting, does a short loop and parks in an empty row of parking spaces, allowing the Cadillac to park next to it. This was very deliberate and obviously intended to facilitate the transfer of the guns suggesting some knowledge regarding the nature of the item and its weight. Next, the two women enter the Ramada and Mr. Lazore stands at the rear of the vehicles obviously acting as lookout while Mr. Laffin transfers the suitcase. Even when Mr. Laffin appears to be struggling, Mr. Lazore is so committed to this role that he does not leave his post to assist him.

[74] When considering this evidence cumulatively, it does not leave me with a reasonable doubt as to Mr. Laffin’s knowledge of the item which he transfers to Mr. Lazore’s sole possession. Although the issue was not argued, I am also prepared to infer that he possessed the item for that purpose. I would go on to make a similar finding based on Mr. Laffin’s intention with respect to the ultimate transfer to Mr. Rezaie and Mr. Amirdad. Although Mr. Laffin was not present on the 7th, the steps he took while in possession of the firearms were clearly done to aid Mr. Lazore in that transfer. Thus, by bringing Mr. Lazore and the guns to the Ramada, I would conclude that Mr. Laffin intended to aid in a further transfer of the weapons.

[75] I consider this same evidence for Mr. Lazore in addition to the following evidence after the firearms are place in the Chrysler on September 6th. The parties split up several minutes after the initial transfer, with Mr. Lazore moving his vehicle to the far end of the parking lot where there are less vehicles. I note that he does not take any of the empty parking spaces which appear closer to the door of the Ramada. This is, in my view, a deliberate decision to reduce the likelihood of any other vehicles parking close to him.

[76] As well, as the Crown points out, Mr. Lazore lives very close to the Ramada but remained there, with the firearms in his vehicles, instead of crossing the border to return home. The next day, Mr. Lazore exits the Ramada just after the F150 arrives at the Ramada, indicating that the meeting was obviously arranged. He hugs Mr. Rezaie which suggests that the two are familiar with one another. The parties appear to decide that the F150 ought to be pulled in very close. This has the effect of obstructing the view of any nearby persons or cameras. This is obviously intended to facilitate the transfer and to avoid detection. In my view, this evidence suggests knowledge on Mr. Lazore’s part of the nature of the items in the suitcase.

[77] Considering this evidence cumulatively, I conclude that Mr. Lazore knew of the criminal nature of the firearms which he possessed in his Cadillac and that he possessed the items for the purpose of transferring them as he did.

[78] In drawing these conclusions, I remain mindful that the Crown’s case on the trafficking is entirely circumstantial and that the inferences which I draw in support of a finding of guilt must be the only reasonable ones in the circumstances. After a careful consideration of the evidence, to my mind, they are. Put simply, there is a chain of continuity that is firmly established on the whole of the evidence and no other rational explanation for the firearms in the Range Rover.

[79] In particular, I have considered the possibility that Messrs. Rezaie and Amirdad brought the firearms with them prior to meeting Mr. Lazore. This theory simply does not line up with the evidence as there is not realistic explanation for the heavy item that was transferred from Mr. Lazore’s Cadillac to the F150. Likewise, if the item transferred from Mr. Lazore’s vehicle was something other than the suitcase of guns, there is no realistic explanation for what happened to it as none of the vehicles has a large or heavy item in it. Finally, it strikes me as unlikely that if Messrs. Amirdad and Rezaie were running a large volume of guns that they would drive them around Eastern Ontario and put themselves at risk of detection unnecessarily.

[80] In the result, findings of guilt will be made with respect to both accused on count one.

[81] There is also a charge for conspiring to traffic firearms on the information. I have not received specific submissions on that offence. While I have found that the accused possessed the firearms intending to traffic them at the Ramada, a conviction for conspiracy, as particularized, would require proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a prior agreement as between Mr. Lazore and Mr. Laffin to specifically engage in the trafficking. As I explain in the next section, I have a doubt as to when the two accused acquired the firearms and the goings-on prior to their arrival at the Ramada. Given this, I would not be prepared to infer the existence of a conspiracy between the accused to traffic the firearms prior to their acquisition of them at an unknown time for the transfer. An acquittal will be entered on Count 4.

Issue #3 – Importation Offences

The Law

[82] To succeed in gaining a conviction on the charges of illegal importation, the Crown must establish that the accused knowingly imported a specific item listed in paragraph (a) or (b) of section 103 or 104 of the Criminal Code, including a prohibited, restricted or non-restricted firearm. Section 103 requires knowledge on the part of the accused that they are not authorized to do so under the Firearms Act or any other legislation. Section 104 is similar but requires knowledge that the transfer is done in a manner other than what is authorized by the Firearms Act or other applicable legislation.

Positions of the Parties

[83] Here, counsel for both accused argue that the circumstantial nature of the evidence fails to conclusively establish that they imported the firearms at all.

[84] The Crown relies on the cumulative effect of the overall evidence and in particular the suspicious behaviour of the accused at the time they returned from New York in combination with the known origins of the guns from the US. The Crown submits that the accused must have picked up the guns in New York and brought them into Canada for transfer to Mr. Rezaie and Mr. Amirdad the next day.

Analysis and Findings

[85] There is no dispute that the accused lacked the appropriate authorization to possess or import any of the firearms in question. Therefore, the outcome for these charges essentially turns on whether the accused transferred the items into Canada from New York while knowing or being wilfully blind as to the fact that they were firearms. If so, the remaining elements of the offences set out in sections 103(1)(a) and 104(1)(a) of the Criminal Code would appear to be made out.

[86] The Crown makes a persuasive argument as to the suspicious circumstances leading up to the parties’ crossing at the Cornwall Port of Entry. The short trip to New York, coupled with the brief but illegal stop on Cornwall Island, suggests that there were deliberate efforts to avoid detection at the border. Moreover, the guns originate from the U.S. and were purchased relatively recently. Considering this, it would stand to reason that, having found that the accused transferred the guns in the city of Cornwall on the 6th and 7th of September 2022 that they imported them on the 6th when crossing into Canada late in the afternoon in a suspicious manner.

[87] What stands in the way of that otherwise compelling conclusion is the specific timing of things. After the accused crossed into the City of Cornwall at 5:13pm on September 6th, there is a gap in the evidence of nearly 90 minutes during which their whereabouts are unknown. They resurface at 6:38pm at the Ramada, just north of the Port of Entry. [2] Mr. Lazore is back in the Chrysler at this point, indicating that the Cadillac and Chrysler stopped somewhere after crossing the border but before arriving at the Ramada.

[88] In assessing the evidence, I remind myself that the inference of guilt must be the only inference reasonably available on the evidence. Based on my findings so far, the accused attended the Ramada with the guns in Mr. Laffin’s Chrysler. It is an open question of when the guns were put in the Chrysler.

[89] While the most probable inference on the evidence is that the accused brought the guns in from New York, given the gap I’ve highlighted, I cannot conclude that it is the only inference reasonably available on the evidence. Having reflected on the issue, I am of the view that it is reasonably possible that the accused obtained the guns during the 82-minute period after entering the City of Cornwall but before attending the Ramada. In saying this, I consider the evidence cumulatively and not piecemeal as required by law and I recognize that the Crown presents a persuasive circumstantial case. In fact, I have no difficulty concluding that the accused probably smuggled the guns across the border. However, to be faithful to the law regarding circumstantial evidence, I must acknowledge that the evidence is reasonably capable of supporting alternative inferences and therefore, the accused are entitled to an acquittal on the charges of important firearms in Counts 2 and 3.

Conclusion

[90] In the result, Mr. Laffin and Mr. Lazore will be found guilty of Count 1 and acquitted of Counts 2, 3 and 4. An acquittal will be entered in respect of Count 5 at the Crown’s request.

Released: December 9, 2024 Signed: Justice Lalande

Footnotes:

[1] Later, when Mr. Lazore exits the passenger seat of Mr. Laffin’s Chrysler at the Ramada at 6:38pm, a tattoo is visible on his left forearm when viewing ‘Camera26’. It is the same shape and location as the tattoo visible on the left arm of the male in the rear seat of the Cadillac.

[2] Mr. Power testified that he suspects that the time of the Ramada footage might be off by some minutes but was unable to confirm. It does not alter my conclusion is the time marker is off by the time described by Mr. Power.