Ron Krueger

The applicant and his co-accused were jointly charged with firearms offences after a search warrant was executed at an apartment.

The applicant brought an application to sever his trial from his co-accused, arguing that a joint trial would prevent him from adducing bad character evidence about the co-accused to raise a reasonable doubt about his own guilt.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the proposed evidence was inadmissible propensity and hearsay evidence.

The court applied the factors for severance and concluded that the strong factual and legal nexus, risk of inconsistent verdicts, and judicial economy strongly favoured a joint trial.

The accused applied to exclude statements made to police following the execution of a high-risk search warrant for firearms.

Officers entered the apartment with a forced entry and distraction device, pointed firearms at the accused, restrained him with zip ties, and questioned him within approximately one minute of entry without first administering a police caution.

The court considered whether the statements were voluntary under the common law confessions rule and the accused’s right to silence.

Given the highly coercive circumstances, the accused’s state of stress, the absence of a caution, and the fact that the answers were given in response to police questioning while the accused was detained and restrained at gunpoint, the court found a reasonable doubt as to voluntariness.

The statements were therefore excluded from evidence at trial.

The accused brought a motion seeking a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the basis of a 38.5‑month delay between arrest and the commencement of trial on firearms possession charges.

The case arose out of a large-scale police investigation involving numerous accused, extensive disclosure, and a lengthy preliminary inquiry.

Applying the Morin framework, the court categorized most of the delay as inherent to the complexity of the prosecution and the multi‑accused preliminary inquiry, with a later portion attributable to institutional delay.

The court also considered that the accused had not sought severance or earlier trial dates and had agreed to scheduling decisions that contributed to the timeline.

Balancing the reasons for delay and the limited demonstrated prejudice, the court concluded that the delay did not amount to a breach of s. 11(b).

The accused was charged with possession of six illegal firearms and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine.

The firearm charges were based entirely on videos found on cell phones seized from the accused's home, as no actual firearms were recovered.

The court had to determine whether the items in the videos were real firearms, and whether the possession occurred in Toronto and within the alleged timeframes.

The court found the accused guilty on two counts of firearm possession, relying on circumstantial evidence including the appearance of the guns, the accused's handling of them, and his threatening commentary.

The accused was acquitted on the other firearm counts due to lack of proof regarding location or timing.

The accused was also acquitted of conspiracy to traffic cocaine, as the court was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that an agreement had been reached.