P.K. Burstein

The applicant sought a review of the Chief Firearms Officer's decision to revoke his firearms licence following his guilty plea to harassing telecommunications against his former intimate partner.

At the sentencing hearing for those charges, the judge granted a conditional discharge and explicitly declined to impose a firearms prohibition, finding no public safety risk based on psychological evidence.

The CFO subsequently revoked the licence based on the same underlying facts, without reviewing the sentencing transcript or the psychological reports.

The reviewing judge found that while issue estoppel did not strictly apply to sentencing determinations, it was an abuse of process for the Crown and CFO to relitigate the identical public safety issue that had already been decided in the applicant's favour.

The revocation was cancelled.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm and awaited an in-person sentencing hearing where the Crown would seek a custodial sentence.

The accused was unvaccinated against COVID-19.

The court considered whether to impose a bail condition requiring the accused to receive a COVID-19 vaccine to mitigate the risk of transmission in the courtroom and correctional facilities.

The court held that while a vaccination mandate could be constitutionally justifiable, a 14-day strict house arrest and testing quarantine prior to the sentencing hearing was an equally effective and less intrusive alternative under section 515(4)(h) of the Criminal Code.