Court Information

Court: Ontario Court of Justice

Date: September 4, 2025

Court File No.: Peel Region 3111-998-24-31103237-00

Parties

Between:

His Majesty the King

— And —

Prabhjot Mann

Judicial Officer and Counsel

Before: Justice S. Robichaud

Heard on: August 19, 21, 2025

Reasons for Judgment released on: September 4, 2025

Counsel:

• J. White — counsel for the Crown
• L. Sandhu — counsel for the accused Prabhjot Mann

Table of Contents

• A. Overview
• B. Police Observations of Prabhjot Mann and the blue duffel bag where the firearm was found
  • a) The Evidence of Constable O'Connor
  • b) The Evidence of Constable Elford
  • c) The Evidence of Constable Beccario
  • d) The Evidence of Constable Angevine
  • e) The Officers' Evidence Combined
  • f) The Unchallenged Identification of Mr. Mann
• C. The Case for the Defence
  • a) The Evidence of Amarjit Kaur
  • b) The Assessment of Amarjit Kaur's Evidence
• D. The Burden of Proof, Knowledge and Control, and Circumstantial Evidence
  • a) Inference vs. Speculation
  • b) Inferential and Direct Conclusions Based Upon the Evidence
  • c) The Defence Theory of Evidence Planting by a Third Party
  • d) The Rejection of a Third-party Suspect Theory
  • e) The Analysis of the Defence Evidence and Position
• E. Application of the Law of Constructive Possession
• F. Findings of Fact Supporting Possession
• G. Conclusion

Reasons for Judgment

ROBICHAUD J.:

A. Overview

[1] This case concerns whether Prabhjot Mann knowingly possessed a loaded, prohibited firearm and magazine found in a duffel bag in the kitchen of his home on March 20, 2024, upon the execution of a search warrant by police.

[2] It is admitted that this handgun was:

(1) An operable, loaded, prohibited firearm as defined by the Criminal Code of Canada and related regulations.

(2) Loaded with 17 cartridges of 9mm calibre ammunition, contained in an over-capacity magazine that is a "prohibited device" as defined by law; and

(3) A "weapon" as defined by law.

[3] It is further admitted that the accused:

(1) Did not have any legal authority to possess such a firearm, ammunition, or magazine. More specifically, he was not a holder of a firearm licence, authorization, or registration certificate.

(2) Was subject to the terms of a valid and active common law peace bond on the date and time of the allegations where he is alleged to have possessed the firearm, ammunition, and prohibited device.

[4] There were no Charter of Rights and Freedoms applications before this court seeking an exclusion of evidence, or a stay of proceedings. This was confirmed at the commencement of the proceedings.

[5] Accordingly, the sole issue at trial for this Court to decide is whether Mr. Mann had possession of the firearm, ammunition, and prohibited device found inside the residence. All other elements of the offences are admitted through the Agreed Statement of Facts.

B. Police Observations of Prabhjot Mann and the Blue Duffel Bag Where the Firearm Was Found

[6] The Crown called four police witnesses in support of its case: Constables O'Connor, Elford, Beccario, and Angevine. Each officer provided testimony regarding their respective roles in the surveillance and search operation that culminated in the recovery of the firearm and related items.

a) The Evidence of Constable O'Connor

[7] Constable O'Connor was assigned to conduct surveillance on Mr. Mann beginning on March 16, 2024, as part of a coordinated investigation led by the narcotics team and briefed by Constable Angevine. His duties included locating Mr. Mann, identifying any associated addresses, vehicles, or individuals, and, if grounds were established, drafting a Criminal Code search warrant.

[8] On March 16, O'Connor began his shift at 2:00 p.m. and proceeded to the area of 30 Henry Maracle Street in Ayr, Ontario. This was one of the known addresses linked to Mr. Mann. That evening, he personally observed Mr. Mann at GoodLife Fitness in Kitchener, exiting the facility and entering a grey 2011 BMW 5 Series sedan bearing the personalized plate "6INVADER." Constable O'Connor assumed the vehicle's driver-side door was damaged as both Mr. Mann and another male entered via the passenger side.

[9] Mr. Mann was carrying a blue duffel bag with a shoulder strap and a water bottle affixed to it. O'Connor described the bag as navy in colour and approximately 24 inches in length, though he noted that his observations were made from a distance.

[10] Following this, Mr. Mann was observed attending the residence at 30 Henry Maracle Street, though O'Connor did not personally witness Mr. Mann entering the home. He was present at the location but relied on radio communications from other officers for updates. His role at that time was to maintain surveillance and, if grounds were established, act as the affiant for the warrant.

[11] On March 18, 2024, O'Connor authored a Criminal Code search warrant, which was signed by Justice of the Peace Michael Perrault at 12:40 p.m. The warrant was not executed on March 19 due to Mr. Mann's absence from the residence.

[12] On March 20, O'Connor participated in the execution of the warrant as a search officer. He entered the residence at 3:50 p.m., searched the upper closet, basement, and the BMW parked outside, but found no (material) property in any of those locations. His involvement concluded at 4:39 p.m., after interviewing one of the suspected residents, Mandeep Singh.

[13] During cross-examination, O'Connor adopted a suggestion by defence counsel that a CPIC check conducted on March 17, 2024, showed the BMW was registered to Abhishek Jain, not Mr. Mann. He conceded that the registered owner of the vehicle based on the VIN, was "Jain Abhishek", born […], 1998.

b) The Evidence of Constable Elford

[14] Constable Elford was a member of the specialized Guns and Drugs unit and became involved in the investigation on March 15, 2024, following a briefing regarding Mr. Mann's suspected possession of a firearm. That evening, Elford deployed a covert "drop camera" outside the residence at 30 Henry Maracle Street. He explained that the camera was motion-triggered, faced a public area, and was used to safely capture video evidence without intruding into private spaces.

[15] On March 16, 2024, Elford participated in surveillance operations from 1:51 p.m. to 7:52 p.m. At approximately 3:15 p.m., he observed a grey BMW sedan pull into the driveway of the residence. A male exited the vehicle carrying a duffel bag, followed by a female. The same female later returned to the vehicle. Elford identified the licence plate as "6INVADER." These observations were buttressed by photographic evidence entered as Exhibits 5 and 6.

[16] Later that evening, at 7:47 p.m., Elford observed Mr. Mann exit the passenger side of the BMW, retrieve a blue duffel bag from the rear driver-side door, and use a key to enter the residence.

[17] He described the bag as blue, slightly larger than a backpack, with a single strap and measuring 18 to 24 inches in length and 12 inches in width. These observations were supported by similar photographic evidence entered as Exhibits 7, 8, and 9.

[18] Elford confirmed that Mr. Mann left the residence overnight on March 18–19. He based this from his knowledge of the home's monitoring via the drop camera footage. As noted above, this absence would postpone the plan to execute the warrant upon the residence and vehicle until March 20, 2024.

[19] On March 20, 2024, Elford was present during the execution of the search warrant and was assigned to search the master bedroom. There, he located a BMW ownership that listed the accused, Mr. Mann, as the registered owner of the BMW and connected to another residence located at 32 Fenton Way in Brampton, Ontario. These documents were entered as Exhibits 10 and 11. The licence plate, manufacturer (BMW), and model (550) listed in the ownership match that of the vehicle Mr. Mann was driving at all relevant times of police observations.

[20] I am aware that Constable O'Connor admitted under cross-examination that CPIC and other police checks noted another person, Abhishek Jain as the registered owner of the BMW vehicle. I find the actual owner immaterial to the relevant issues in this file. What is more important is the personal documents of the accused in the residence located at 30 Henry Maracle. Whether the MTO records show the BMW in another person's name has no bearing on the outcome of this case. It is also clear, as set out in greater detail below, the accused Mr. Mann was operating the motor vehicle regardless of who the registered owner may have been at the time.

c) The Evidence of Constable Beccario

[21] Constable Beccario, also with the Guns and Gangs unit, was assigned to search the kitchen area of the residence during the execution of the search warrant on March 20, 2024. He located a blue gym bag on the kitchen floor near the island. Inside the bag, he found gym clothes, supplements, Mr. Mann's driver's licence, and a black and silver handgun with a magazine seated in the firearm.

[22] The driver's licence and firearm were found in separate internal compartments of the bag.

[23] Beccario immediately notified the exhibits officer, Detective Andrews, who photographed the items and proved the firearm safe. Beccario remained present during this process. The relevant photographs were entered as Exhibits 12 through 17, showing the bag in situ, the firearm, the driver's licence, and the process of rendering the firearm safe.

[24] Photographs of this blue duffel bag and items found within it were entered as Exhibits 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17. Those photos may be described in general terms as follows:

• Wide shot of the blue gym bag found in the kitchen.
• Close-up of the gym bag.
• The firearm in situ inside the bag.
• Mr. Mann's driver's licence found in a separate compartment of the bag.
• The firearm removed from the bag.
• The firearm being proved safe, with the magazine removed and placed on the tile floor.

[25] Beccario confirmed that he did not see anyone move the bag prior to his search and did not observe any other individuals entering or exiting the residence apart from tactical officers. He later attended 22 Division to interview Mr. Mann but had no further involvement in the investigation.

d) The Evidence of Constable Angevine

[26] Constable Cole Angevine was the officer in charge of the investigation and coordinated both the surveillance and execution of the search warrant. He has been a member of the Peel Regional Police since August 2011 and was the primary investigator in this matter.

[27] The investigation commenced in March 2024 following information received that Mr. Mann may be in possession of a firearm. Angevine conducted background checks, including CPIC, MTO, and local inquiries, which linked Mr. Mann to the residence at 30 Henry Maracle Street in Ayr and a grey BMW sedan. Surveillance was initiated, and a covert drop camera was deployed on March 15, 2024, with Angevine present during its installation.

[28] On March 16, Angevine conducted physical surveillance and personally confirmed Mr. Mann's identity at a GoodLife Fitness location in the Waterloo region. He identified Mr. Mann based on a neck tattoo and descriptors provided in a briefing "run sheet."

[29] On March 19, the team attended the residence at approximately 5:20 a.m. intending to execute the search warrant but postponed it after observing Mr. Mann and his vehicle had left earlier that day. Surveillance resumed the following morning, and Angevine monitored the covert camera from 5:30 a.m. until 3:10 p.m., when the warrant was executed.

[30] At 1:48 p.m., Angevine observed Mr. Mann arrive at the residence in a dark grey BMW, exit the driver's side, and carry a dark blue gym bag with two black handles into the home. A female occupant also exited the vehicle and entered the residence with a separate bag. These observations were made via live feed from the covert camera.

[31] During the execution of the warrant at approximately 3:10 p.m., Angevine remained outside until the scene was secured.

[32] Three individuals were detained:

(1) The accused, Mr. Prabhjot Mann

(2) A female believed to be in a relationship with the accused; and,

(3) An unknown male had left the residence in a white Dodge Charger just prior to the Waterloo Regional Police Services Tactical Team entering the residence to execute the warrant.

[33] No charges were laid against anyone other than the accused.

[34] Angevine was assigned to search several rooms, including bedrooms and the garage, but did not seize any items personally. Angevine was later advised by Andrews that a loaded Glock 9mm handgun, nine rounds of ammunition, a 16-round magazine, and Mr. Mann's driver's licence were found within the blue gym bag located in the kitchen.

[35] Angevine confirmed that the bag where the firearm was located was the same one, he saw Mr. Mann carrying earlier via the covert camera. He expressed confidence that it was the same bag.

[36] Following the search, Angevine was briefed on the seized property and later advised Constable Beccario of the charges to be laid against Mr. Mann.

e) The Officers' Evidence Combined

[37] I found each of the police witnesses to be credible and forthright. Their testimony was consistent with the physical and photographic evidence, with no material contradictions exposed under cross-examination.

[38] The only notable point of difference is an observation of Constable Angevine that Mr. Mann exited the driver's side door upon returning to residence at 30 Henry Maracle St. on the date the warrant was executed. Other officers noted in their evidence that there was an observation that Mr. Mann had exited via the passenger side door of the BMW on at least one prior occasion. This point is immaterial to the relevant issues.

[39] It may be the door did work, and he exited the passenger side on another occasion for unknown reasons, perhaps the door was repaired in the interim, or perhaps one of the officers is mistaken. It makes no meaningful difference in my view the material issues to decide in this case.

[40] Minor discrepancies in peripheral observations, such as which door Mr. Mann exited from, do not undermine the reliability of the core evidence. These are expected variances in multi-officer surveillance and do not detract from the overall credibility of the witnesses.

[41] In conducting my analysis of the evidence, I am mindful that the initial information received by police—suggesting Mr. Mann may be in possession of a firearm—constitutes inadmissible hearsay. While no objection was raised during trial, I have not relied on this information for any probative purpose in determining whether Mr. Mann had knowledge and control over the firearm and prohibited items.

[42] The hearsay tendered at trial was limited to explaining the narrative of events, and the state of mind of the officers. Specifically, how police attention was drawn to Mr. Mann and why officers undertook the surveillance and investigative steps they did.

f) The Unchallenged Identification of Mr. Mann

[43] It is significant to point out that while not specifically admitted in the ASF, Constables O'Connor, Beccario, Elford, and Angevine's observations relating to the identity of Mr. Mann were not challenged under examination. Despite this, I am cognizant that it is still the Crown's burden to prove identification beyond a reasonable doubt. That burden exists independent of any challenge or silence of the accused.

[44] Similarly, there was no meaningful challenge on any of the officers' observations on the blue duffel bag, or the conclusion drawn by Angevine that it was indeed the same bag the accused was seen carrying on March 16, or on March 20, 2024. I apply the same burden noted above on this material point as well.

[45] While the officers had no prior dealings with Mr. Mann prior to the "tip" and commencement of the investigation, there was no equivocation on who they were observing when referring to Mr. Mann, or any suggestion by defence otherwise.

[46] To the extent that officers did not see Mr. Mann, they were forthright and admitted the occasions where updates were only being provided through means of communication. Regardless, there is still evidentiary value that can be applied to that communication in ensuring that Mr. Mann remained the person of targeted surveillance. Put another way, while certain officers could not make direct observations at certain locations, the information received allowed them to confirm that the person being surveilled continued to match the description and had related items (like the duffel bag) as observed by other officers.

[47] The only reasonable conclusion is that the accused, Mr. Prabhjot Mann, was consistently the subject of surveillance, as established through the officers' chain of observations. I accept their evidence to the extent that they testified they could make those observations and identifying Mr. Mann. This includes their observations regarding the duffel bag.

[48] I am satisfied that the individual observed—whether through the drop camera or through direct visual surveillance made by the officers—was the accused, Prabhjot Mann. I have no doubt in this regard. The Crown has met its burden in that regard.

[49] Angevine's identification of the blue duffel bag carried by Mr. Mann—made via covert camera earlier that day—along with his observations at GoodLife Fitness on March 16 and his confirmation that the bag matched the one containing the firearm found during the search, provides a critical link in establishing continuity and control over both Mr. Mann and the items in question.

[50] This is all combined with the admission that Mr. Mann was arrested inside the residence at the time the firearm was found.

C. The Case for the Defence

[51] In response to the Crown evidence, the defence called the spouse of the accused Amarjit Kaur.

a) The Evidence of Amarjit Kaur

[52] Amarjit Kaur, the wife of Mr. Mann, testified as a defence witness. She stated that she and Mr. Mann were married in 2023 and had been living together at 30 Henry Maracle Street in Ayr, Ontario, since March 2024. She described the residence as a leased home shared by multiple individuals, including Mr. Mann, herself, and others such as Mandeep Singh and Abhishek Jain.

[53] Ms. Kaur testified that on March 18, 2024, she accompanied Mr. Mann on a work-related trucking trip to Quebec, returning to the residence on March 20 between 1:30 and 2:00 p.m. She stated that upon arrival, Mandeep Singh opened the door, and she and Mr. Mann placed their bags in the kitchen before proceeding to their upstairs bedroom. She described Mr. Mann as feeling unwell and stated that she gave him medication before lying beside him while he slept.

[54] Regarding the blue duffel bag, Ms. Kaur testified that it was primarily used by Mr. Mann for gym-related items, including clothing, supplements, and ingredients for protein shakes. She stated that she accessed the main compartment of the bag during the trip to prepare shakes for Mr. Mann and denied ever seeing a firearm in the bag. She acknowledged that Mr. Mann carried the blue bag into the kitchen upon their return and placed it on the floor near the island.

[55] During cross-examination, Ms. Kaur confirmed that the blue bag was in Mr. Mann's possession when they entered the residence and that he placed it in the kitchen. She described its contents as including gym clothes, sandals, deodorant, and shake ingredients, primarily stored in the main compartment. She acknowledged using the bag during the trip but maintained that she had no knowledge of any firearm being present.

[56] Ms. Kaur also testified to interpersonal tensions within the residence, particularly between Mr. Mann and Abhishek Jain. She described a prior physical altercation between the two, which she had seen in a video shared by Mr. Mann. According to her, the conflict stemmed from Mr. Mann's disapproval of Mr. Jain's conduct toward another female resident, whom the household considered a sister figure.

[57] This altercation was captured on video and introduced as an exhibit through Ms. Kaur. While the footage shows Mr. Mann physically assaulting Mr. Jain, I have not engaged in any propensity reasoning that this prior disreputable conduct makes him more or less likely to possess a firearm or prohibited devices.

[58] The relevance of this assault, led by the defence, is limited to Ms. Kaur's explanation of the animosity between Mr. Mann and Mr. Jain. It is considered only as far as it may support the defence's theory that Mr. Jain, or someone close to him, coordinated and planted the firearm as an act of retribution or to frame the accused.

[59] Ms. Kaur expressed surprise upon learning from police that a firearm had been found in the blue bag. She denied any knowledge of the weapon and stated that she had never seen Mr. Mann possess one. She was briefly detained during the execution of the search warrant but was released shortly thereafter.

b) The Assessment of Amarjit Kaur's Evidence

[60] While Ms. Kaur's testimony was not directly contradicted under cross-examination, I found her lack of specificity on key details relating to who was in possession of the blue bag at relevant times to be evasive and an attempt to minimize the accused's connection to it.

[61] Overall, I found her evidence as evasive, incomplete, and implausible. A detailed assessment of why I came to this conclusion is set out in greater detail below under the heading "The Analysis of the Defence Evidence and Position".

D. The Burden of Proof, Knowledge and Control, and Circumstantial Evidence

[62] To prove possession, the prosecution must prove knowledge of the firearm and control over the firearm: R. v. Morelli, 2010 SCC 8, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 253, at paras. 15, 17; R. v. Lights, 2020 ONCA 128 at paras. 44-52; R. v. Choudhury, 2021 ONCA 560 at para. 19.

[63] The case against the accused, as far as drawing conclusions of knowledge and control, is based upon circumstantial evidence relating to where the firearm was found, when, and its connection to the accused.

[64] In assessing these circumstantial inferences, I am mindful of the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling in R. v. Villaroman. Where the Court held a trier of fact must not draw an inference of guilt unless it is the only reasonable inference permitted by the evidence.

[65] I have also instructed myself to look at the evidence holistically to consider whether I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the only reasonable conclusion is one of guilt of the offence(s) based on the totality of admissible and probative evidence.

a) Inference vs. Speculation

[66] As a matter of evidence, the difference between inference and speculation is a key distinction. McWilliams' Canadian Criminal Evidence, 5th Edition § 31:17 states:

"The process of drawing inferences from evidence is not … the same as speculating even where the circumstances permit an educated guess". Conjecture and factual speculation cannot substitute for logical reasoning based on evidence. "Inference must be carefully distinguished from conjecture or speculation". "The dividing line between conjecture and inference is often a very difficult one to draw". A "reasonable possibility" may raise reasonable doubt. So, too, it is not always easy to define, with any precision, "the bright line distinction between the drawing of reasonable inferences and mere speculation"

[67] Inference corresponds to a conclusion drawn inductively or deductively from proven premises. Speculation, by contrast, is a conclusion offered without a sufficient evidentiary premise, or one that assumes facts not in evidence. Inference is premise-dependent reasoning; speculation is premise-independent conjecture.

[68] Speculation lacks probative value and cannot be used to support findings of fact by drawing inferences from them.

[69] Reasonable doubt may arise from competing inferences where the premises are grounded in the record, but not from conjectures where the premises are absent or unproven. While a trier of fact must consider other explanations and plausible theories that are inconsistent with guilt, it does not leave every theory advanced without a proper evidentiary foundation worthy of raising reasonable doubt.

[70] I am mindful that a lack of evidence may still raise doubt and without speculation. A certain gap in the evidence may result in inferences other than guilt. But those inferences must be reasonable given the evidence and the absence of evidence, assessed logically, and considering human experience and common sense.

[71] Reasonable doubt may arise from plausible alternative inferences, but not from conjecture. This principle is echoed throughout in appellate authority and well stated in emphasizing that speculation lacks probative value and cannot support a finding of fact.

b) Inferential and Direct Conclusions Based Upon the Evidence

[72] I therefore make the following findings of fact:

(1) Despite Constable Elford uncertainty at the time the photos were captured at approximately 3:14 on March 16, 2024, it is now clear by way of the nexus of evidence, that Exhibits 5 and 6 is a photo of Mr. Mann carrying a blue duffel bag. I also find this is the same duffel bag found inside the residence on March 20 with the firearm and prohibited device inside.

(2) The BMW seen in Exhibit 7, is being driven by Prabhjot Mann at the time it is taken. Immediately after in the sequence of these photos, I find that the accused is the individual in Exhibit 9 holding a blue duffel bag. While Exhibit 8 is blurry, the immediate sequencing of these photos leads to conclude it is the accused as well.

(3) The duffel bag with the loaded firearm found inside, was the same bag Officers O'Connor and Angevine saw the accused with on March 16, 2024, inside the GoodLife Fitness (Angevine), exiting the GoodLife (O'Connor), and entering the residence located at 30 Henry Maracle on March 16, 2024.

(4) That on March 20, 2024, via the covert camera live feed and recordings, Officer Angevine observed Mr. Mann carrying the same blue duffel bag he had on March 16, 2024, at the GoodLife and entering the residence at 30 Henry Maracle (as seen in Exhibits 7, 8, and 9).

(5) For greater clarity, I find the blue duffel bag shown in Exhibits 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, and 15, is the same bag. I find this is the same bag where the loaded firearm and prohibited device was found.

(6) There is no "other" blue bag. While this was not raised by the defence in argument, or through the evidence of Ms. Kaur, I kept this possibility in mind as the evidence unfolded. Ultimately, the evidence confirmed that there was only one blue duffel bag connected to the residence or to Mr. Mann. Any other bag resembling the one Mr. Mann is observed carrying is not based in the evidence, and is therefore speculative, and incapable of supporting a logical inference to this end.

[73] These direct and inferential conclusions noted above are based upon the evidence presented at trial, and the agreed statement of fact. Those include:

(1) Observations of the officers noted above.

(2) The temporal proximity to these observations of the officers and Mr. Mann.

(3) The size, shape, colour, and water bottle affixed to the bag combined create a distinctive look of the bag.

(4) The absence of evidence of any other bag and combined water bottle resembling that seen by the officers.

(5) The presence of Mr. Mann's driver's licence in the same bag as the firearm—albeit in a separate compartment—supports the inference that the bag was under his control. A driver's licence is a personal item typically kept close at hand, particularly when one is operating a motor vehicle, as Mr. Mann was observed doing.

c) The Defence Theory of Evidence Planting by a Third Party

[74] The defence's theory is that the firearm was planted by a resident in the home. I note at the outset that a third-party suspect application was not filed to pursue who that specifically might be—although it was theorized by the defence it might have been Mr. Singh, possibly at the direction of Mr. Jain.

[75] Despite this, I am mindful of the Ontario Court of Appeal's ruling in R. v. Appleton, that makes it clear, at paragraphs 101-104 that a third-party suspect theory is not an affirmative defence, nor does it shift any burden onto the accused. Rather, it is a denial that the Crown has proven the essential element of identity beyond a reasonable doubt. The theory is admissible to the extent that it raises a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused was the person in possession of the firearm and prohibited items.

[76] Importantly, the third-party suspect rule is a threshold inquiry into admissibility. Where relevant evidence exists suggesting that another person may have committed the offence, that evidence may be considered in evaluating whether the Crown has met its burden. However, the rule must not be misapplied in a manner that improperly shifts the burden of proof to the accused. The ultimate question remains whether, on the totality of admissible evidence, the Crown has proven the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

[77] Therefore, and despite the lack of filing, I am considering the defence in this respect noted above; however, for reasons noted below, I reject it and it does not raise reasonable doubt towards the accused's guilt.

d) The Rejection of a Third-party Suspect Theory

[78] The defence theory that someone else in the residence planted the firearm in the blue duffel bag to frame Mr. Mann is speculative, implausible, and unsupported by the evidentiary record.

[79] Based on police observations and covert camera monitoring, the only individuals present in the residence from the time Mr. Mann and his wife, Amarjit Kaur, returned from their trip to Quebec until the execution of the warrant were the two of them and Mandeep Singh. No other occupants were found inside the home or observed coming and going during this time. According to same observations, the individual with whom Mr. Mann had a prior altercation—Abhishek Jain—was not present during any material times in the investigation. His absence is also supported by the evidence of Ms. Kaur.

[80] While Mr. Singh is described as a friend of Mr. Jain, there is no evidence to suggest that he would have had the motive or willingness to participate in a scheme to frame Mr. Mann. Nor is there any evidence that such a scheme ever existed or was threatened.

[81] Even assuming motive—which I do not find—the theory fails as a matter of logic, reasonable inferences, and timed opportunity:

(1) There is no evidence that Mr. Jain or Mr. Singh knew when Mr. Mann and his wife would return home from their trip, nor that they could have anticipated Mr. Mann would leave the blue bag unattended in the kitchen while retiring to the bedroom.

(2) Surveillance footage shows Mandeep Singh leaving the residence in a white Dodge Charger shortly before the tactical team arrived, with no indication that he was aware of the impending execution of the warrant.

(3) The warrant had already been issued and was executed based on pre-existing surveillance, not any real-time tip or update.

(4) There is no evidence that any tip was received between Mr. Mann's return home and the execution of the warrant; indeed, police were themselves uncertain about when the warrant would be executed due to Mr. Mann's earlier absence, which had necessitated an unplanned postponement and recalibration of the initial attempt.

(5) The firearm was found inside an internal pocket of the duffel bag. If the intent was to have police discover it upon immediate examination, it makes little sense that it would be further concealed by placing it within an internal pocket. This would also take more time to "plant" and greater exposure while Mr. Mann and Ms. Kaur were in the home.

(6) On the defence theory, the presence of Mr. Mann's driver's licence inside the bag where the firearm was located would have to be a fortuitous coincidence—either to Mr. Mann himself or to Mr. Jain's alleged scheme. This coincidence is highly implausible and contributes to my overall reasons for rejecting the defence position.

(7) If the initial "tip" somehow originated from those responsible for planting the firearm, it would have predated the accused's unexpected trip to Quebec. It is reasonable to assume that someone providing such a tip would expect prompt police action. Accordingly, any plan to plant the firearm would likely have been coordinated with the expectation that Mr. Mann would be searched shortly thereafter. If this were somehow the case, it implies a firearm would be planted before the trip to Quebec, in alignment with the originally intended warrant execution date. Since Mr. Mann brought the blue duffel bag with him on that trip, it follows that—if the firearm had been placed in the bag in anticipation of immediate police action—he would have unknowingly carried it with him throughout his time in Quebec, despite frequent use of the bag by both him and his spouse.

(8) Despite an opportunity to do so when interviewed on scene, there is no evidence to suggest Mr. Singh gave a statement to police incriminating Mr. Mann by stating who the owner of the bag was. If the intent was to frame Mr. Mann, it seems likely that the final step would be to incriminate him but telling police that the blue duffel bag was Mr. Mann's.

[82] Moreover, even if the firearm had been planted, the theory lacks a coherent endgame.

[83] It is illogical to assume that someone would plant a loaded firearm in the bag of a person known to have previously inflicted violence upon them or their friend, thereby risking further intimidation, violence, or death. The idea that Mr. Jain or Mr. Singh would arm Mr. Mann—knowing his capacity for violence—is inherently contradictory and implausible.

e) The Analysis of the Defence Evidence and Position

[84] Ms. Kaur's testimony does not advance the defence theory.

[85] She was evasive on key details surrounding the blue bag, particularly its contents and her awareness of the side pocket where the firearm was found. Her stated use of the bag was limited to accessing the main compartment for vitamins and shake ingredients.

[86] Her reference to a "pink bag" was not put to any officer in cross-examination and is immaterial, as she ultimately confirmed that Mr. Mann carried the blue bag into the kitchen and placed it on the floor, where it was later found.

[87] While she testified that she believed someone was cooking in the kitchen, she could not provide any details on who that was or what they were doing. This evidence is of no assistance.

[88] Under cross-examination, Ms. Kaur acknowledged that she only accessed the main compartment of the bag. This is significant as the firearm was found in an internal side pocket as seen in Exhibit 13. Her evidence therefore does not support a theory of "planting" as the "plant" would not be in a location she would have seen and therefore could properly exclude from her prior interactions with the bag.

[89] The alternative, of course, is that she was aware of the firearm and was not candid with the Court. If I were required to make a finding of fact one way or another, I would conclude she was aware of the firearm and prohibited devices if one considers her access to the duffel bag on the trip, and her relationship with her husband.

[90] She further admitted under cross-examination that the accused would typically use the blue bag to attend the gym. He would attend 4-5 times a week for 1 to 1.5 hours at a time. This establishes strong evidence that Mr. Mann had primary, if not exclusive, use of the blue bag where the firearm was found. It makes little sense that Mr. Mann would consistently switch bags considering the frequency in which he visited the gym. Regardless, he was using it and seen with it at the relevant times.

[91] Taken together, the defence theory is speculative, internally inconsistent, implausible, illogical, and contradicted by the surveillance, witness testimony, and physical exhibits. I reject it entirely.

E. Application of the Law of Constructive Possession

[92] While this case is one of possession simpliciter, namely Mr. Mann's knowledge and control of the firearm and prohibited devices, I also put my mind to the doctrine of constructive possession since the bag was found inside his residence, while he was found in different room in the home.

[93] I am mindful in reaching any conclusions that tenancy or occupancy of a place where contraband is found does not create a "presumption of possession."

[94] The test for possession was repeated by the Ontario Court of Appeal in the case of R. v. Choudhury as follows:

• Constructive possession is established when an accused does not have physical custody of an object but knowingly has it in the actual possession or custody of another person or has it in any place for their own or another's use or benefit: Criminal Code, s. 4(3)(a); R. v. Morelli, 2010 SCC 8, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 253, at para. 17; and R. v. Lights, 2020 ONCA 128, 149 O.R. (3d) 273, at para. 47.

• Knowledge and control are essential elements of constructive possession, which is established when the Crown proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused: (i) has knowledge of the character of the object said to be possessed; (ii) knowingly puts or keeps the object in a particular place, whether or not the place belongs to or is occupied by the accused; and (iii) intends to have the object in the place for the use or benefit of the accused or another person: Morelli, at paras. 15, 17; Lights, at paras. 44, 47.

• Tenancy or occupancy of a place where an object is found does not create a presumption of possession: Lights, at para. 50; R. v. Watson, 2011 ONCA 437, at para. 13; R. v. Lincoln, 2012 ONCA 542, at paras. 2-3; and R. v. Bertucci (2002), 169 C.C.C. (3d) 453 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 18.

• When the Crown relies largely or wholly on circumstantial evidence to establish constructive possession, a conviction can be sustained only if the accused's knowledge and control of the impugned objects is the only reasonable inference on the facts. The trier of fact must determine whether any other proposed way of looking at the case as a whole is reasonable enough to raise a doubt about the accused's guilt, when assessed logically and in light of human experience and common sense: see R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 1000, at paras. 55-56; Lights, at para. 39; and R. v. Stennett, 2021 ONCA 258, at paras. 60-61.

[95] On the topic of constructive possession, I have also reviewed the case of R. v. Yousuf, its application of R. v. Morelli, and applied it strictly in my analysis of these facts before me.

F. Findings of Fact Supporting Possession

[96] I conclude that both tests for actual and constructive possession are met in this case. The facts I have found, and rely upon are as follows in drawing the inferences that the accused had control and knowledge of the firearm and prohibited items are as follows:

• The blue duffel bag where the firearm and prohibited device was located contained the driver's licence of the accused, Prabhjot Mann.

• The driver's licence was found near the firearm, albeit in a separate pocket.

• As a matter of common sense, a driver's licence is personal item that is kept in proximity and control of by an active operator of a motor vehicle, as Mr. Mann was.

• Mr. Mann is a professional driver and not having his licence with him for a commercial trip to Quebec is highly implausible.

• The accused was observed carrying the blue duffel bag into the residence on March 20, 2024, shortly before the firearm was discovered within it.

• The same bag was observed in his possession on March 16, 2024, during surveillance at GoodLife Fitness and at the residence.

• The bag contained Mr. Mann's driver's licence, a personal item typically kept on-hand, found in a separate compartment from the firearm.

• The firearm was in a side pocket, not the main compartment, which Ms. Kaur testified she accessed—supporting the inference that Mr. Mann had exclusive control over the firearm's location.

• The accused was the primary user of the bag, as confirmed by Ms. Kaur, who stated he used it regularly for gym visits (4–5 times per week).

• No other individual was observed handling the bag between the time of Mr. Mann's arrival and the execution of the warrant.

• The firearm was loaded, suggesting it was prepared for use, not abandoned, or discarded.

• The defence theory of planting is speculative and unsupported by any direct or circumstantial evidence.

• The accused's conduct—placing the bag in the kitchen and retiring to the bedroom—suggests knowledge and control, not abandonment or ignorance.

[97] I find as a fact that Mr. Mann had both direct knowledge and control of the firearm and the prohibited items in the blue duffel bag.

[98] There is no evidence anyone was using it at the time, that anyone else had an invitation to use it, or that he did not exercise ultimate control over the blue duffel bags at all material times. I find the evidence supports the inference that Mr. Mann knew the contents of the bag. The issue of "constructive" possession therefore becomes redundant.

[99] However, if my reasoning is wrong in this respect, I further find in the alternative the firearm, ammunition, and extended capacity were deposited in the bag by him with an intent to have the object for his use or benefit on a later occasion and therefore meeting the test of constructive possession as well.

G. Conclusion

[100] The only reasonable conclusion to be reached is that this was the accused's duffel bag, his firearm, his ammunition, and his prohibited magazine housing the ammunition. He had both knowledge and control over these items. There is no evidence of passive acquiescence, nor is there any reasonable inference on the evidence before me, and the facts I have found noted above, that these items were placed (or "planted") by someone else.

[101] Despite the issue being undisputed at trial, for the sake of completion of the record, I find that the manner the firearm was stored (loaded, without a trigger lock, in an unsecured duffel bag, on a kitchen floor, with other occupants in the home) was "careless" as defined by s. 86(1) of the Criminal Code.

[102] For the reasons set out above, I find Mr. Mann guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on all counts before the Court on information 998 24 31103237.

Released: September 4, 2025

Justice S. Robichaud