Court File and Parties

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: September 18, 2025

Court File No.: Oshawa 23-28107579

Between:

His Majesty the King

— and —

Chukwuemeka Okaeme

Before: Justice Joseph Hanna

Heard on: November 7 – 8, 2024; April 25, 2025; July 17, 2025; September 12, 2025

Reasons for Judgment released on: September 18, 2025

Counsel:

• J. Pollard, for the Crown
• S. Yeghoyan, for Mr. Okaeme

HANNA J.:

Introduction

[1] Chukwuemeka Okaeme is charged with three firearm-related offences arising from his alleged possession of a loaded handgun. The firearm was reportedly discovered by his father under a mattress in the basement area of the family home, where the accused is said to have slept.

[2] Specifically, the accused is charged with the following Criminal Code offences:

1. possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, contrary to s. 95(1);
2. unauthorized possession of a firearm, contrary to s. 91(1); and
3. possession of a firearm knowing its possession was unauthorized, contrary to s. 92(1).

[3] It is not contested that on October 17, 2023, police seized a loaded prohibited firearm from the front doorstep of the accused's residence after receiving a complaint from the accused's father, Andrew Okaeme. It is also conceded that the accused did not possess a licence authorizing him to possess the firearm seized. The main issue in this case is whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was in possession of the firearm seized.

Evidence of Andrew Okaeme

[4] Andrew Okaeme is a retired teacher and the father of the accused.

[5] At the time of the relevant events, Andrew Okaeme lived at […] in Ajax with his wife Lori-Lee Jacobs, his twin daughters, and the accused. He described the home as a four-bedroom house. He advised that he, his wife, and his daughters had their bedrooms on the second floor of the home, and that the accused would stay in the basement.

[6] He indicated that his son had a bedroom upstairs, but that when he turned 18, he had moved into the basement. The accused is now 27 years old and was 25 at the time of the alleged offences.

[7] Andrew Okaeme explained that there were two ways to get to the basement. One can enter through the main door of the house and then go downstairs, or one can enter through the garage and then go downstairs. The basement had one room containing a bed, where the accused would sleep, and a bathroom. While inside the house, one did not need a key to enter the basement.

[8] On October 11, 2023, the accused travelled to Newfoundland with his mother to attend his grandfather's funeral. They did not return until October 14th.

[9] While his son was gone, Andrew Okaeme went into the basement to clean. He testified that he would not go downstairs when his son was home because he wanted to provide his son space. When he had the opportunity to clean down there, he would seize it. He indicated, however, that he would never go into his son's room to look for something or to search his room.

[10] On October 11, Andrew Okaeme went into the basement and picked up cans and bottles to put out for recycling. On the credenza, he observed an item which he referred to as a pebble. He described it as stumpy. He bit into the item, initially thinking it was candy and then put it down when he realized that it was not. He explained that there typically was candy in the basement. In cross-examination, he added that he picked up unfinished food from the bed as well that day.

[11] On October 12th, Andrew Okaeme went into the basement to retrieve boxes for the recycling. He decided to re-align the bed. He explained that every time he walked through the narrow space between the bed and other furniture, his leg would strike the bed. In his view, this was due to the bed being positioned such that the foot of the bed was where the headboard should have been. He wanted to reposition the bed so that the area where the headboard was supposed to be would be against the wall. He planned to place a piece of wood between the bed and the wall to protect the wall.

[12] He testified that as he was trying to turn the bed, the mattress also moved. He wanted to adjust the mattress, so he lifted it. At that point, he discovered a gun under the mattress. He explained that when he saw it, he dropped the mattress and lifted it again multiple times thinking he might have been hallucinating. He described hoping that when he lifted the mattress again the gun would disappear.

[13] Andrew Okaeme described picking up the gun, and three items from the credenza, which he referred to as pebbles, and placing them all in a grocery bag which had been nearby. He described the pebbles as being partially covered by the grocery bag and somewhat exposed — either inside or on top of the bag. He testified that there was nothing else in the bag.

[14] He took the bag containing these items as well as a ripped $20 bill he had found and went upstairs. He then placed the bag under his own bed. He explained that he took the severed bill because he was concerned that his son might think the bill was not legal tender and waste it.

[15] On October 13th, Andrew Okaeme went into the basement to change some lights.

[16] When asked about his intention regarding the firearm, he explained that he had hoped his son would provide an explanation for how it came to be in the basement.

[17] On October 14th, Andrew Okaeme picked up his son and Ms. Jacobs from the airport. When they arrived home, the accused entered through the garage and Andrew Okaeme and his wife entered through the main door. Andrew Okaeme testified that just prior to entering the home he told his wife he had found a gun in their son's space. Later that day he showed her the gun.

[18] Andrew Okaeme told his son that he had removed three things from the basement. He told him that one of these items was money, which he had taped for him and left on the fireplace. He said that the accused thanked him for that. Andrew Okaeme never told his son what the other two items were. Andrew Okaeme testified that it would have been obvious to his son that his room had been cleaned while he was gone.

[19] Andrew Okaeme testified that at some point between October 14 and October 17, his son became visibly upset and requested that he "give him his thing," though he did not specify what he was referring to. At no point did Andrew Okaeme disclose to his son that he had taken the firearm. He agreed in cross-examination that he probably indicated to his son that he would never turn him in. He explained that he wanted his son to come to him and discuss the issue. He agreed that his wife called 911 regarding a conflict between him and his son, which seemed on the verge of becoming physical. He clarified, however, that he did not believe the fight would have become physical because he had gone upstairs.

[20] Andrew Okaeme indicated that at some point he moved the gun from under his bed to a bin in the dining room. On October 17, 2023, he called 911. The police instructed him to place the gun on a step outside the house with the barrel pointed towards the house. He did exactly as he was told. He confirmed that the grocery bag he used to collect items from the basement—including the firearm and what he described as pebbles—was the same bag he later left for police.

[21] Andrew Okaeme could not provide a detailed description of the gun. He recalled that it looked grey and that it appeared like the type a police officer would carry. When shown a photograph of the gun seized by police, he stated that he remembered the gun he had found to be grey as opposed to black.

[22] Regarding the pebbles, he testified that he did not know what they were. He explained that he always believed that a bullet would be pointed on one side and flat on the other side. He acknowledged that sometime later he probably thought they could be bullets. He described the pebbles as less than an inch in size, square or rectangular, and bronze coloured. When shown a photograph of the ammunition seized by the police he said, "these are bullets, this is definitely not what I thought I saw that very day."

[23] Andrew Okaeme described his relationship with his son as not particularly close, especially in contrast to the extremely close bond between his son and his mother. Defence counsel made several suggestions to Andrew Okaeme regarding his relationship with his son. Andrew Okaeme acknowledged he was not very engaged in his son's sporting activities. He advised he was more interested in his son's academics. He denied that he rejected his son's attempt to hug him after his son had been drafted by the Buffalo Bandits. He denied that he ever discouraged his son to invest in the stock market. He testified that he did not recall ever being violent towards his son. He denied having animosity towards his son and he described their relationship as cordial.

[24] Andrew Okaeme agreed that in 2023 there was animosity between him and his wife. He initially testified that he and Ms. Jacobs shared the same bedroom, though she slept in a separate bed within that room and that she occasionally slept in their son's former bedroom. In cross-examination he acknowledged that by 2023 he and his wife had stopped sleeping in the same bedroom. He indicated that Ms. Jacobs would still enter that master bedroom to retrieve clothing or to shower. He advised that he did not consider the master bedroom to be "his own room," but rather a family room, and that he would typically be alone in that space.

[25] Andrew Okaeme testified that his son occasionally had friends over who would go into the basement. However, he did not have a clear recollection of when the accused last had friends over. He knew his son's friend, Glody. He testified that the accused and Glody were no longer close in October 2023. He said Glody would rarely come around. He saw Glody, however, the same day that his son was arrested, October 17, 2023. Glody rang the doorbell and had a conversation with Andrew Okaeme.

[26] Andrew Okaeme indicated that his son was usually alone in the basement. He advised that his son had mental health issues which were exacerbated during COVID. He said he would be relieved when he would see his son come upstairs.

[27] Andrew Okaeme agreed that his son had had girlfriends. With respect to one of them, named Andrea, he agreed that she would have probably slept over in the basement. He clarified in re-examination that he had not seen her for a significant period prior to October 2023.

[28] He testified that Jesse Okaeme, his nephew, lived at his residence between 2010 – 2012. He advised that Jesse lived in Vaughan between 2021 and 2024.

[29] Andrew Okaeme described hosting a Nigerian community event at his home sometime in either August or September 2023. He said between 20 – 30 people attended. He indicated that the meeting occurred in the family room and that there was not food or drink being served in the basement. Other than Jesse Okaeme, he was not aware of anyone else from that group knowing the accused. He indicated that Jesse spent the evening that night and slept in the basement.

The Items Seized by Police and the Accused's Arrest

[30] On October 17, 2023, at approximately 10:33 a.m., members of the Durham Regional Police Service attended the Okaeme residence at […], Ajax. Body-worn camera footage shows Andrew Okaeme walking down the front steps, followed a few seconds later by Ms. Jacobs. Police Constable Pereira retrieved a firearm and ammunition from a plastic bag located on the front steps. The firearm was identified as a Smith and Wesson handgun with a laser attachment beneath the barrel. Police Constable Christopher Steenson rendered the firearm safe by removing the magazine and racking the slide, ejecting one bullet from the chamber. The video shows P.C. Steenson placing the firearm and the ejected bullet into an empty box. P.C. Pereira is then seen emptying the plastic bag into the box, at which point the video appears to show four loose bullets in the box at 10:34:55.

[31] P.C. Pereira testified that the bag contained two loose rounds of ammunition. However, both the video evidence and a photograph of the box's contents show a total of four loose rounds—one of which had been ejected from the firearm's chamber. P.C. Steenson testified that the magazine contained seven rounds, which is consistent with the photograph filed as an exhibit.

[32] The defence conceded the continuity of the firearm and ammunition seized. It acknowledged that the item was a loaded prohibited firearm, as confirmed by the certificate of analysis filed as Exhibit 2. The defence also conceded that the accused did not possess a licence authorizing his possession of the seized firearm.[1]

[33] P.C. Pereira arrested the accused in front of the residence at 12:42 p.m. He remained on scene until 12:51 p.m., at which point he transported the accused to the police station. While at the residence, he did not observe anyone other than police officers approach the property.

Evidence of Lori Jacobs

[34] Ms. Jacobs, the accused's mother, was called as a defence witness. She described Andrew Okaeme's relationship with his children as distant. She stated that her husband was dismissive when their son asked for assistance with stock market investments. She testified that the two did not get along and that there was animosity between them. While she did not characterize Andrew Okaeme as disliking his son, she described their relationship as standoffish. She recalled that their interactions had become physical when the accused was a teenager.

[35] Ms. Jacobs testified that her son slept in the basement. She noted that other household members stored items there, including food and bins of supplies belonging to her daughter. She described the basement as an open space, with a pantry-like area under the stairs and a washroom with a small vanity. In the main area, there was a desk and a credenza. She confirmed that her son kept a television and gaming system in the basement and would move between the basement and upstairs. She agreed that when he wanted privacy, he would go to the basement, and that his clothes and shoes were kept there.

[36] She stated that she occasionally tidied her son's room but had stopped for a period after he told her he would take care of it himself. She recalled last cleaning his room in 2022 or early 2023.

[37] Ms. Jacobs testified that the basement could be accessed via French doors and a separate entrance from the garage, which was often left unlocked. She denied having any conversations with her son about the firearm found following his arrest.

[38] She recalled hosting a Nigerian community event at her home on September 23, 2023. The accused's cousin, Jesse, attended with a friend whom she did not know. She noted that Jesse was familiar with the home, having lived there between 2012 and 2014. Approximately 18 to 20 people attended the event. She did not know if anyone went downstairs, as she was not monitoring the door. She said Jesse spent the night and described him as a regular visitor.

[39] Ms. Jacobs testified that her son occasionally had girlfriends sleep over and friends visit. She named David, Glody, Josh, and Levine as some of those friends.

[40] She stated that Glody, a childhood friend of the accused, no longer lived in the neighbourhood but continued to visit. The last time she recalled seeing him at the house was in June 2023. She described Glody attending the residence on October 17, 2023, after the accused's arrest, and requesting to go downstairs to use the computer. Andrew Okaeme denied him entry.

[41] She did not recall the last time she saw David at the house. The last time she remembered seeing Josh or Levine was in the summer of 2021. The most recent occasion she recalled a girlfriend sleeping over was in March 2023.

[42] Ms. Jacobs testified that the garage contained a fridge, garden equipment, bins of toys, fitness equipment, and shelves.

[43] She stated that she left for Newfoundland on October 11 and returned on October 14. Upon her return, her husband informed her that he had found a gun in the residence. She testified that she was shocked and that she had no prior knowledge of a firearm being in the home.

[44] She indicated that Andrew Okaeme showed her the gun, which was stored in a cardboard box under his bed. She believed she saw what might have been bullets with it, though she was not sure. Ms. Jacobs recalled her husband also showing her a ripped five-dollar bill.

[45] Ms. Jacobs overheard her husband telling their son that he had taken money and other items from his room. At the time, Andrew Okaeme was on the landing and the accused was in the basement. She recalled her son initially responding "okay," but later coming upstairs to ask for his things back. She stated that this was consistent with her son's past behaviour when his father had taken his things.

[46] She called the police on October 14, 2023, because she was concerned that the situation between her son and her husband might become physical.

[47] Ms. Jacobs testified that in 2022, Andrew Okaeme had sent her a photo of himself holding a long gun while in Newfoundland.

Assessment of the Witnesses' Evidence and Initial Findings of Fact

[48] Before analyzing whether the elements of the offences have been proven, I will begin by making basic findings of fact, based on my assessment of the witnesses' credibility and reliability, and having considered the other evidence filed.

[49] Andrew Okaeme was a careful, credible, and balanced witness. His account was not undermined during cross-examination, and I found no significant internal contradictions in his testimony. His explanation for attending the accused's room in the basement to tidy up was logical and consistent with Ms. Jacob's evidence that he would clean their son's room when the opportunity arose. His reasoning for moving the bed was logical, and his reaction upon discovering the gun under the mattress — including his disbelief and wish that he was hallucinating — was both believable and compelling.

[50] I found Andrew Okaeme to be forthright in describing his relationship with his son. He acknowledged that they were not particularly close but denied harbouring any animosity toward him. I accept that evidence, which is generally consistent with Ms. Jacob's testimony. While she stated her husband had animosity toward the accused, she did not characterize his attitude as one of dislike. Furthermore, Ms. Jacobs testified that, during the period between her return from Newfoundland and Andrew's decision to contact the police, he was struggling with the issue of the gun. The evidence does not suggest that Andrew Okaeme was eager to report his son. This hesitancy, while not enhancing his credibility, does in my view counterbalance the suggestion that he was motivated by animosity.

[51] Defence counsel challenged the fact that Andrew Okaeme initially assured his son he would not contact the police, but later did so. I do not find this sequence of events problematic. Andrew Okaeme was clearly in a difficult position, having to weigh the risk of implicating his son against the necessity of addressing the presence of a dangerous weapon in his home. He testified that he had hoped his son would explain the gun's presence. When he received no explanation, he decided to contact the police. This decision, despite the earlier assurance he had given to his son, was both understandable and reasonable in the circumstances.

[52] Ms. Jacob's testimony that she witnessed a dispute between her husband and son regarding the latter's belongings, along with her account of Andrew showing her a ripped bill, lends further support to Andrew Okaeme's narrative of events.

[53] Andrew Okaeme's evidence was not without flaws. For instance, when shown a photograph of the gun and ammunition seized by police, he stated that they appeared different from the gun and pebbles he had discovered. Despite this discrepancy, he was clear that he had placed both the gun and pebbles into the bag left for the police to collect. The testimony of the police witnesses, supported by the body-worn camera footage and the photograph of the seized items, clearly establishes that the items recovered were those collected by Andrew Okaeme. Considering that over a year had elapsed since the incident, it is understandable that he was unable to identify them. This inability does not, in my view, undermine the reliability of his evidence regarding the location in which he found the items he testified about.

[54] I also found Ms. Jacobs to be a credible witness. While she appeared eager to help her son by offering her opinion that others had access to the basement, I found she ultimately presented as a fair witness. She acknowledged that the accused slept in the basement, kept his belongings there, and would retreat there when he wanted privacy. I found her to be a fair witness.

[55] The evidence of the police witnesses was essentially unchallenged and supported by the video and photographic evidence filed.

[56] Having assessed the evidence collectively, I find that the following facts have been clearly established:

i) At the relevant time, the only individuals residing in the home where the items in question were found were the accused, his mother, his father, and his sisters.

ii) While others within the home had access to the basement area where the firearm and ammunition were discovered, the evidence clearly establishes that this area functioned as the accused's bedroom.

iii) Between October 11, 2023 and October 14, 2023, Andrew Okaeme discovered a firearm under his son's mattress and three rounds of ammunition on a credenza which was nearby. The firearm was found by Andrew Okaeme in a loaded condition. There was no suggestion that he loaded it after he found it, and he credibly testified that he did not give any attention to the gun's magazine.

iv) The firearm and ammunition discovered by Andrew Okaeme were seized by the police on October 17, 2023. I accept Andrew Okaeme's evidence that he placed the gun and what he referred to as three pebbles in the bag which he left for the police. P.C. Steenson testified that there was one round in the gun's chamber and seven in the magazine. The photograph of the items seized depicts seven rounds in the magazine and four loose rounds in the box.

v) When the accused returned from Newfoundland, he was informed that three items had been taken from his room, but only one—the ripped bill—was identified.

vi) At some point prior to the seizure of the firearm and ammunition, the accused was upset and had argument with his father during which he asked for either his thing, or his things back.

vii) The accused occasionally had friends and girlfriends visit the basement area. This was not a frequent occurrence in the months proximate to the date when the firearm and ammunition were discovered.

viii) On September 23, 2023, there was a cultural event at the residence during which between 18 – 30 people attended. The accused's cousin, Jesse, spent the night in the basement.

ix) On the day the accused was arrested, his friend Glody attended the residence asking to use his computer. Andrew Okaeme refused this request.

The Governing Legal Principles

[57] The accused is presumed innocent. The onus rests upon the Crown to prove his guilt of the offences charged beyond a reasonable doubt. While proof to an absolute certainty is not required, proof beyond a reasonable doubt falls much closer to an absolute certainty than to proof on a balance of probabilities. A reasonable doubt can arise from the evidence or from the absence of evidence.

[58] The relevant legal principles on constructive possession were set out by the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Choudhury, 2021 ONCA 560, at para. 19:

• 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, 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.

Determination of Whether the Accused's Possession of the Firearm has Been Proven

[59] Upon review of all the evidence, I find that the Crown has proven the accused's possession of the firearm seized beyond a reasonable doubt. Having regard to the evidence in its entirety and the absence of evidence, the accused's guilt is the only reasonable inference that can be drawn. I reach this conclusion based on the cumulative effect of the following considerations.

[60] First, although others had access to the basement area where the firearm and ammunition were discovered, this space was clearly the accused's bedroom.

[61] Second, the only people residing in the home where the firearm and ammunition were found were the accused, his mother, his father, and his two sisters. Both Andrew Okaeme and Ms. Jacobs convincingly testified to being surprised by the presence of these items. There is no evidence connecting the firearm or ammunition to either of the sisters: see similarly R. v. Smith, 2005 ONCJ 59, at para. 24; aff'd 2007 ONCA 22. I do not consider it a reasonable inference that either sister chose to conceal a firearm under their brother's mattress without his knowledge. I consider it equally implausible that either sister would leave ammunition on the credenza in the basement without the accused being aware of it. If these items belonged to one of the sisters there were other locations where one would reasonably expect them to store the items, such as their own bedrooms, which would have allowed them to maintain better control over them.

[62] Third, a loaded firearm is both valuable and dangerous. It is highly implausible that someone would conceal this item beneath the mattress of the bed where the accused regularly slept without his knowledge: R. v. Brown, 2020 ONSC 4888 at para. 46; R. v. Dawkins, 2021 ONSC 197 at para. 91 (vi); R. v. Cobb, 2022 QCCQ 1435, at para. 124; R. v. Morrison, 2013 BCCA 408 at para. 8. It is a compelling common sense inference that a third party would maintain more control over the firearm and would not entrust it to the accused without his knowledge: R. v. Bonilla-Perez, 2014 ONSC 2031 at para. 51, affirmed 2016 ONCA 535; R. v. Bokhari, 2018 ONCA 183, at para. 10; R. v. Thompson, 2020 ONCA 361, at para. 11; R. v. Walters, 2023 ONCA 4, at paras. 23 – 30. For the same reason, I consider it speculative and unreasonable to infer that either the accused's cousin, friend, or a former girlfriend stored the firearm under the accused's mattress unbeknownst to him. It is also speculative to theorize that someone would abandon a loaded firearm under the accused's mattress or leave it there by accident: R. v. Desmond-Robinson, 2019 ONSC 451, at para. 35, aff'd 2022 ONCA 369, at paras. 6 – 7; R. v. Richardson, 2023 BCCA 29, at paras. 40 – 42.

[63] Fourth, the ammunition and firearm were found in close proximity – the firearm under a mattress and the ammunition on a nearby credenza. I infer that these items are associated with one another. Their presence in two different locations in the accused's bedroom makes it extremely implausible that he was unaware of them.

[64] Fifth, when the accused returned from Newfoundland, his father advised him that he had taken three items from his room but disclosed the identity of only one – the ripped bill. The accused subsequently became upset and demanded the return of either "his thing", "his things", or "his stuff." While Ms. Jacobs testified that this reaction was consistent with her son's prior behaviour when her husband had taken items from his room, I find this evidence supports the inference that the accused was aware of what had been taken. I accept Andrew Okaeme's testimony that the only items he removed were the firearm, the ripped bill, and what he referred to as pebbles. Neither Andrew Okaeme nor Ms. Jacobs testified that the accused was inquiring about what had been taken; rather, the evidence indicates that he was upset and sought the return of his items.

[65] Sixth, that the accused may have had reason to believe his father might tidy his room while he was away does not, considering all the evidence, leave me with a reasonable doubt regarding his possession of the firearm. I note that the firearm was concealed under the mattress. The presence of ammunition left on the credenza may be characterized as inattentive. However, Andrew Okaeme testified that he would never search his son's personal space. It is therefore reasonable to infer that the accused would not have expected his father to notice the ammunition. In any event, I find the theory that some person other than the accused placed the firearm under his mattress and left ammunition on his credenza without his knowledge to be so exceptionally improbable that the inattentive way the ammunition was left does not raise a reasonable doubt regarding the accused's guilt.

[66] Seventh, I appreciate that there is no forensic evidence such as DNA or fingerprints connecting the accused with either the firearm or ammunition. The absence of such evidence "may raise a reasonable doubt about the guilt of an accused or contribute to a conclusion by the trier of fact that the case for the Crown falls short of the standard of proof the law demands": R. v. Bruzzese, 2023 ONCA 300, at para. 22. The absence of evidence of a forensic connection between an accused and an offence will vary in its significance depending on the case: R. v. Hassanzada, 2016 ONCA 284, at paras. 71 and 107; R. v. Brezi, 2018 ONSC 170, at para. 197; R. v. Sadikov, 2015 ONSC 3653, at paras. 64 – 71, aff'd 2018 ONCA 609, at para. 11. When I consider the absence of evidence in this case in the context of the evidence as a whole, I am not left in a reasonable doubt about the accused's possession of either the firearm or ammunition seized.

[67] Eighth, Glody's attendance at the residence following the accused's arrest does not leave me in a reasonable doubt regarding the accused's guilt nor does it contribute to a reasonable doubt. Glody did not enter the home without permission and was denied access to the residence by Andrew Okaeme. Any connection between Glody and the firearm is speculative. This evidence does nothing to undermine the convincing inferences I have drawn regarding the accused's knowledge and control over the gun.

[68] For these reasons, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge and control of the loaded firearm discovered by his father and seized by the police. No other reasonable conclusion is available on the totality of the evidence.

Conclusions Regarding the Counts Charged

[69] I have determined beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had possession of a loaded handgun until the moment his father removed it from beneath the mattress. This was the same gun seized by police. The defence concedes that the firearm seized is a prohibited firearm, and that the accused did not hold a valid licence authorizing its possession. The only reasonable inference is that he was aware that he did not possess a licence. The accused is therefore guilty of the offences of unauthorized possession of a prohibited firearm, contrary to s. 91(1) of the Criminal Code and possession of a prohibited firearm knowing its possession was unauthorized, contrary to s. 92(1) of the Criminal Code.

[70] Unlike R. v. Lights 2020 ONCA 128, this is not a case involving mere transitory possession. The firearm was concealed under the mattress the accused slept on, loaded, with a round in the chamber. Additional ammunition was found nearby on his credenza. In all the circumstances, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused either knew the firearm was loaded or was wilfully blind to that fact: R. v. Jeyakanthan, 2023 ONSC 5370, at para. 165; R. v. Grant, 2024 ONSC 128, at para. 71; R. v. Hamidu, 2023 ONCJ 547, at paras. 174 and 188. Consequently, the accused is also guilty of possessing a loaded prohibited firearm, contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code.

[71] The Crown has proven the essential elements of the three offences charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I find the accused guilty of each count.

Released: September 18, 2025

Signed: Justice Joseph Hanna

[1] This was explicitly confirmed by the defence on September 12, 2025.