Paul Syrduk

The accused were charged with numerous weapons offences after police intercepted their vehicle near the border and found a duffel bag containing nine handguns and fourteen high-capacity magazines.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on text messages, the accused's proximity to the bag, and their interactions with the individual who brought the bag into the vehicle.

The court found that the circumstantial evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew the contents of the bag, as it was reasonably possible they were simply giving a friend a ride without knowledge of the firearms.

Both accused were acquitted on all counts.

The 24-year-old first-time offender pled guilty to importing 9 handguns and 14 high-capacity magazines across the St. Lawrence River.

The Crown sought 5-6 years, while the defence sought 3.5-4 years.

The court weighed the extreme seriousness of firearms importation against the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, and early guilty plea.

The court imposed a total sentence of 4 years imprisonment, less 15 months credit for pre-sentence custody, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition.

Alexander Just was found guilty of two counts of production of cannabis marijuana and one count of possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The court considered aggravating factors including the large-scale commercial nature of the operation, the use of foreign workers, and the significant street value of the seized cannabis.

Mitigating factors included his status as a first offender, strong community support, good character, and rehabilitation prospects.

The Crown sought a 5-year sentence, while the defence proposed 12 months.

The court imposed a global sentence of 2 years in penitentiary, emphasizing deterrence and denunciation, and declined a probation order.

The accused, a vegetable farmer, brought a pre-trial application to exclude evidence of a large marijuana grow operation found on land he rented.

Police had trespassed on the rented land to make initial observations, which were then used to obtain search warrants.

The court found that the initial trespass violated the accused's s. 8 Charter rights and that the warrants could not have been issued without the unconstitutionally obtained information.

However, applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court concluded that the police acted in good faith, the breach was minimally intrusive, and the evidence was highly reliable.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.