COURT FILE NO.: 21-28
DATE: 2022/04/27
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
BAROU MBUYAMBA AND JEVON ANDERSON
Accused
Barb Glendinning and Paul Syrduk, for the Crown
Daniel Howard and Mellington Godoy, for the Accused
HEARD: March 18, 21 - 23, and 25, 2022
REASONS FOR decision
Roger J.
[1] The accused are charged with weapons related offences. More particularly, the indictment charges each with:
• nine counts of import a firearm, relating to nine various handguns, contrary to s. 103(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, at counts one to nine;
• fourteen counts of import a prohibited device, relating to fourteen high-capacity detachable cartridge magazines, contrary to s. 103(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, at counts ten to twenty-three;
• nine counts of possess a firearm, relating to the same nine various handguns, contrary to s. 92(1) of the Criminal Code, at counts twenty-four to thirty-two;
• fourteen counts of possession of a prohibited device, relating to the same fourteen high-capacity detachable cartridge magazines, contrary to s. 92(2) of the Criminal Code, at counts thirty-three to forty-six;
• nine counts of unauthorized possession a firearm in a motor vehicle, relating to the same nine various handguns, contrary to s. 94 of the Criminal Code, at counts forty-seven to fifty-five;
• fourteen counts of unauthorized possession of a prohibited device in a motor vehicle, relating to the same fourteen high-capacity detachable cartridge magazines, contrary to s. 94 of the Criminal Code, at counts fifty-six to sixty-nine;
• nine counts of possession of goods unlawfully imported into Canada, relating to the same nine various handguns, contrary to ss. 155 and 160 of the Customs Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 1 (2nd Supp), at counts seventy to seventy-eight; and
• fourteen counts of possession of goods unlawfully imported into Canada, relating to the same fourteen high-capacity detachable cartridge magazines, contrary to ss. 155 and 160 of the Customs Act, at counts seventy-nine to ninety-two of the indictment.
[2] The Crown’s case is entirely circumstantial, and the accused did not testify.
Background
[3] The alleged offences occurred in the area near Cornwall, Ontario, on June 10, 2020.
[4] An officer with the Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA”), testified that they received intelligence from their American counterpart about possible smuggling activities on June 10, 2020. He explained that consequently, the CBSA and border integrity officers with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (“RCMP”), located in Cornwall, were particularly active that day.
[5] The CBSA and RCMP were on the lookout for suspicious activities on the St. Lawrence River. The CBSA officer was positioned in an unmarked vehicle near a local restaurant fronting on the river, trying not to be noticed, and watching the river. Three RCMP officers were posted at other locations in separate marked vehicles, also surveilling the river. In addition, an RCMP marine team was patrolling the river.
[6] These events occurred during the first summer of the Covid-19 pandemic. International travel was prohibited. Also, because of Covid restrictions, the local restaurant where the CBSA officer was positioned was closed.
[7] At about 20:27, the CBSA officer noticed an approaching motorboat. He saw three people onboard and thought that the boat seemed suspicious when it stopped and hovered near the dock of the restaurant, seemingly waiting. He testified that he could see the occupants using their cellular phone. He surreptitiously took pictures of a small runabout boat, light in colour, with some red markings, a light grey or light blue Johnson outboard motor, and registered in New York State.
[8] Shortly after, at about 20:44, the CBSA officer observed the boat land at the restaurant’s dock and one male exit the boat carrying a duffel bag. The bag appeared to be heavy. The boat left and the person with the duffel bag seemed to be waiting for someone, while trying to conceal the bag and to look inconspicuous by leaning against the wall of the restaurant. Shortly after, a dark Honda CR-V SUV pulled up and the man with the bag put the bag in the rear hatch and boarded the back seat of the car, which then left.
[9] The license plate of the CR-V and relevant descriptions of the man with the bag, of the duffle bag, and of the vehicle were relayed by the CBSA officer to the RCMP, who proceeded to locate and intercept the vehicle. At 20:57, the CR-V was located and stopped by the RCMP a short distance away, driving north on Boundary Road.
[10] The vehicle stopped by the RCMP had four occupants. The accused, Barou Mbuyamba, born July 2000, was the driver. His friend, the accused, Jevon Anderson, was the front seat passenger. The backseat passenger-side passenger matched the description of the man seen disembarking the small boat with a duffel bag and embarking in a dark coloured vehicle matching the description and licence plate of this vehicle; he was identified as Tony N’Zoigba. The backseat driver-side passenger was a Mr. Kwadwo Danso-Manu.
[11] Earlier that evening, at about 20:08 p.m., this same CR-V had been recorded by a video camera travelling south on the Cornwall Bridge. According to the cellphone records of Mr. Anderson, they most likely attended a gas station on Cornwall Island. On their way back, they had to stop and clear the border services agency, which they did at about 20:40 p.m. The border officer then observed only three occupants in the car. She noted the licence plate, which is the same as that of the vehicle described above and found that it was registered to a woman living in Rockland, Ontario. The border officer allowed the car to proceed without identifying the occupants.
[12] As well, the same runabout boat was spotted earlier that day, and its occupants identified by RCMP officers. At that time, foreign vessels were not expected in Canadian waters because the Quarantine Act, S.C. 2005, c. 20, restricted foreign travel. At about 14:30 on June 10, 2020, officers with the RCMP marine unit stopped a boat with a New York registration at a marina in Cornwall. The evidence establishes that it is the same boat as the one described above. The officers spoke to the occupants of the boat, explaining the new rules, and noticed that the boat lacked any safety equipment. At that time, the boat only had two occupants. They were identified as Mr. Jessee Gorrow from the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe in Akwesasne, New York, and Mr. Andrea Costanzi from Ontario. The officers offered to escort them back because the boat lacked any of the required safety equipment, but on the occupants’ undertaking to purchase this equipment the officers gave them a warning. Interestingly, in the pictures taken of the same boat later that evening by the CBSA officer, we see that two of the three occupants are wearing what appears to be a new life jacket.
[13] A former friend of the accused testified that she loaned her mother’s Honda CR-V to the accused, Mr. Mbuyamba, on July 10, 2020. She was uncertain of the time but believed that it was later in the day; she was mistaken about this as the evidence indicates that the accused left earlier than she remembered. She understood that the two accused and Mr. Danso-Manu were going to pick up one of their friends, Tony N’Zoigba, although she had never previously heard of this person. She understood that Mr. N’Zoigba was not too far away and that the accused would therefore not be gone too long, or at least not leave the city, but she also seemed uncertain about this. She explained that she was more than friends with Mr. Mbuyamba at the time. She said that she had spent time with the three of them that day, and that she might have travelled with them to pick up Tony, and possibly also stay somewhere overnight, had she felt better and had there been enough room in the car. However, she was not feeling well, did not wish to go, and made this clear to Mr. Mbuyamba; she did not go. She testified that Mr. Mbuyamba told her that it was urgent, that Tony had no other ride. Her conversations about this were mostly with Mr. Mbuyamba. She confirmed that the two accused were good friends of one another since at least high school.
[14] When they were stopped by the police, all occupants of the vehicle appeared nervous, although the officer who testified about this indicated that it is not uncommon for people to be nervous in such circumstances.
[15] Mr. Mbuyamba told the officer that he did not know why they were being stopped. It was explained that it was because they were observed in proximity to the border, and that their vehicle would be searched under s. 99 of the Customs Act.
[16] A duffel bag matching the description relayed over the radio by the CBSA officer was found in the rear hatch of the vehicle. It contained the nine handguns and fourteen high-capacity detachable cartridge magazines listed on the indictment. Other duffel bags were also found in the rear hatch, but they contained clothing and products typically associated with overnight travel.
[17] When the vehicle was stopped, Mr. Anderson was observed to be busy gathering and counting $20 dollar bills; he told the officer that it was his money. He also asked the officer, upon being informed that he was under arrest for the guns and magazines found in the car, “is that what you guys found?”.
[18] All occupants were searched. Mr. Mbuyamba had $240 cash and one cellphone. Mr. Anderson had $2,700 cash loose in his pockets and one cellphone. Mr. N’Zoigba had one cellphone and otherwise did not have anything of significance on him, and Mr. Danso-Manu had $570 and two cellphones. The five cellphones were seized and sent for analysis, but extraction of information was only possible on the cellphones belonging to Mr. Anderson and Mr. N’Zoigba.
[19] The cellphone of Mr. Anderson was not password protected (he told the police that it was his phone and that it was not password protected), and the police were able to extract text and call information from his phone. The police were only able to extract videos from the phone of Mr. N’Zoigba.
[20] When observing the still images made from the videos taken from the phone of Mr. N’Zoigba, it is apparent that the nine handguns shown on those images are the same as the nine handguns seized in the accused’s CR-V. Although we cannot see their serial number, we nonetheless see that the shape and contour of the guns are the same. We can also see, on those images, that the person holding each of the nine handguns wore a purple sweater (as we see his hand and sleeve on the images), which matches the observations made of the sweater worn by Mr. N’Zoigba when he disembarked from the boat and when he was arrested. It is apparent from the evidence that Mr. N’Zoigba used his phone to make videos of the nine handguns which were later found in his duffel bag in the rear hatch of the accused’s CR-V.
[21] Mr. N’Zoigba pleaded guilty to importation and possession of nine handguns and fourteen high-capacity detachable cartridge magazines, contrary to s. 103(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and ss. 155 and 160 of the Customs Act. He was sentenced on September 10, 2021, to four years less time served: see R. v. N’Zoigba, 2021 ONSC 6023. Charges laid against Mr. Danso-Manu, the other backseat passenger, were stayed by the Crown.
[22] The text messages and telephone records show that Mr. Anderson and Mr. N’Zoigba communicated by text and phone from June 7 to June 10, 2020. It also appears as if the battery of Mr. N’Zoigba’s phone ran out of power at about 20:30 on June 10, because at 20:31, Mr. Costanzi (who was earlier observed by the marine unit of the RCMP to be a passenger in the boat) texted Mr. Anderson, and thereafter communications recorded on Mr. Anderson’s phone were with him rather than Mr. N’Zoigba.
[23] The Crown prepared a table showing relevant texts and telephone calls, which I attach below:
Timeline of Cellphone Communications on Mr. Anderson’s phone, June 7 to June 9, 2020:
Date
From
To
Time
Text
Chat
Page
June 7 2020
Anderson
N’Zoigba
12:54 pm
Yo, call me
3
006
June 8 2020
Anderson
N’Zoigba
8:46:15 pm
What time we meeting you Wednesday
3
006
June 8, 2020
N’Zoigba
Anderson
8:46:37 pm
I’ll keep you posted
3
006
June 8 2020
N’Zoigba
Anderson
8:46:41 pm
Should be around noon
3
007
June 8, 2020
N’Zoigba
Anderson
10:24 pm
1
014
June 8, 2020
N’Zoigba
Anderson
12:14 pm
Did he call back?
1
014
June 8
N’Zoigba
Anderson
12:24 pm
Sayless respect broski
1
014
June 9, 2020
N’Zoigba
Anderson
12:05 pm
Yo did Kevin call
3
007
June 9, 2020
N’zoigba
Anderson
12:07
Yo did Kevin call
1
014
June 9
N’Zoigba
Anderson
12:20
Yo
1
015
June 9
Anderson
N’Zoigba
12:22:02
Ye he called for a bit only 2 mins
1
015
June 9
Anderson
N’Zoigba
12:22:13
Had me call the next broski
1
015
June 9
Anderson
N’Zoigba
12:22:25
He said he going call again
1
015
June 9
N’Zoigba
Anderson
12:25:37
Ok bet that
1
015
June 9
N’Zoigba
Anderson
12:25:44
Hit me on text tho ain’t got data
1
015
June 9
N’Zoigba
Anderson
2:19
Yo y’all gotta make sure to call me
1
016
June 9
N’Zoigba
Anderson
2:20
If for some reason I don’t answer let him know to have everyone who’s coppin to add up on snap
1
016
June 9
Anderson
N’Zoigba
2:31:10 pm
Bet
1
016
June 9
N’Zoigba
Anderson
2:31:11 pm
My nigga
1
016
June 9
Anderson
N’Zoigba
3:21 pm
Yo call
3
007
June 9
N’Zoigba
Anderson
4:44:25 pm
t6nyfromthe6ix
1
016
June 9
N’Zoigba
Anderson
4:44:55 pm
Add up
1
016
Timeline of Cellphone Communications, June 10, 2020:
From
To
Time
Phone Call Duration
Text
Chat
Page
N’Zoigba
Anderson
9:16 am
Y’all should faward no later than 1 PM
3
007
N’Zoigba
Anderson
9:17 am
Round 12 really
3
008
Anderson
N’Zoigba
9:39:33 am
Aii we goin be dere 12
3
008
N’Zoigba
Anderson
9:39:56 am
Nah that’s too early
3
008
N’Zoigba
Anderson
9:40:05 am
Be there for 2:30
3
008
Anderson
N’zoigba
9:40:25 am
So 12:30?
3
009
Anderson
N’Zoigba
9:40:38 am
Ah lie?
3
009
N’Zoigba
Anderson
9:40:39 am
2:30PM
3
009
Anderson
N’Zoigba
9:40 am
Kk
3
009
N’Zoigba
Anderson
10:01 am
Did Kd call?
1
017
Anderson
N’Zoigba
10:03:07 am
Yo
1
017
Anderson
N’Zoigba
10:03:15 am
Call
1
017
N’zoigba
Anderson
10:03:24 am
19:48
004 - #1
N’Zoigba
Anderson
12:21 pm
Be there for 3 exactly bus got delayed
1
017
N’Zoigba
Anderson
1:31 pm
My ride up north is delayed
1
017
N’Zoigba
Anderson
1:32:25 pm
Y’all be good by 4 tbh
1
017
Anderson
N’Zoigba
1:32:52 pm
Fuc Aii just tell me the time
1
018
N’Zoigba
Anderson
1:32:59 pm
Gotchu
1
018
N’Zoigba
Anderson
1:33
Yeh shit is fuck still my fault
1
018
N’Zoigba
Anderson
1:56:00 pm
Y’all be there before 5 Smfh just got in my ride
3
010
N’Zoigba
Anderson
1:56:09
Keep you posted
3
010
N’Zoigba
Anderson
2:02 pm
Y’all be there before 5 Smfh just got in my ride
3
010
N’zoigba
Anderson
2:03 pm
00:57
004 - #3
Anderson
N’Zoigba
3:36:26 pm
Still 5?
3
010
N’Zoigba
Anderson
3:36:36 pm
Yeah
3
011
N’Zoigba
Anderson
3:36:49 pm
Be there by 5
3
011
N’Zoigba
Anderson
3:36:57 pm
Ready to pick me up
3
011
N’Zoigba
Anderson
3:37 pm
Y’all should hit roads live
3
011
N’Zoigba
Anderson
3:51 pm
00:25
004 - #5
Anderson
N’Zoigba
4:00 pm
Yo call me
1
018
N’Zoigba
Anderson
4:03
02:16
004 - #6
Anderson
N’Zoigba
4:50
U there in 10?
1
018
Anderson
N’Zoigba
4:51 pm
Don’t rush I’m 15 away had to slow up dere was a jake
1
018
N’Zoigba
Anderson
4:53:24 pm
Not even y’all good How far are y’all
1
019
N’Zoigba
Anderson
4:53:46 pm
How far are y’all?
1
019
Anderson
N’Zoigba
4:54:20 pm
It say 5:06 arrival
1
019
Anderson
N’Zoigba
4:54:36 pm
U needs mans to wait a bit?
1
019
N’Zoigba
Anderson
4:54:49 pm
Yeah just a bit
1
019
N’Zoigba
Anderson
4:55:03 pm
Won’t be none crazy just got here waiting for my ride to the landing
1
019
Anderson
N’Zoigba
4:55:42 pm
Aii so wat time u think?
1
020
N’Zoigba
Anderson
4:55:51 pm
5:30 latest
1
020
N’Zoigba
Anderson
4:55:55 pm
I’ll call you
1
020
Anderson
N’Zoigba
4:56:00 pm
Aii
1
020
N’Zoigba
Anderson
4:56:01 pm
B4 I’m on the water
1
020
N’Zoigba
Anderson
4:56:07 pm
Post at mcds
1
020
Anderson
N’Zoigba
5:33 pm
Yo call me
3
012
Anderson
N’Zoigba
5:34 pm
Kd otp
3
012
N’Zoigba
Anderson
5:37 pm
Missed
005 - #1
N’Zoigba
Anderson
5:38 pm
01:17
004 - #7
N’Zoigba
Anderson
6:05:24 pm
Don’t park next to the college
1
021
N’zoigba
Anderson
6:05:51 pm
Listen give me a couple of minutes I’ll give you an update
1
021
N’Zoigba
Anderson
6:50:23 pm
Not answered
005 - #1
N’Zoigba
Anderson
6:50:35 pm
Yo
1
021
N’Zoigba
Anderson
6:50:50 pm
00:50
004 - #8
N’Zoigba
Anderson
7:03:40
Not answered
005 - #2
Anderson
N’Zoigba
7:04:13
Ye
3
012
N’Zoigba
Anderson
7:04:30
Calling y’all in 10
1
021
N’Zoigba
Anderson
7:04:46 pm
Sorry for the delay lots of movement on the way ayers
1
021
N’Zoigba
Anderson
7:04:58 pm
Waters boydes
1
021
N’Zoigba
Anderson
7:05:08 pm
From boydem
1
022
N’Zoigba
Anderson
7:24:08
Not answered
005 - #3
N’Zoigba
Anderson
7:24:47 pm
00:26
004 - #9
8:00 pm
00:19
004 - #10
N’zoigba
Anderson
8:03 pm
00:12
004 - 13
N’Zoigba
Anderson
8:27 pm
18396 highway 2
3
012
Anderson
N’Zoigba
8:30:20 pm
New addy!
3
013
Anderson
N’Zoigba
8:30:21 pm
3
013
Anderson
N’Zoigba
8:30:24 pm
I’m at the gas station
3
013
N’Zoigba
Anderson
8:30:37
Yeah
3
013
Costanzi
Anderson
8:31 pm
Please confirm pickup
2
022
Anderson
Costanzi
8:32:22
Okk
2
022
Anderson
Costanzi
8:32:40 pm
15 mins from where I’m at
2
022
Costanzi
Anderson
8:34 pm
00:33
004 - #11
Anderson
Costanzi
8:37 pm
Fuck bro gonna take 10 mins dawg we gotta pass sum border inspection shit cuz we crossed over when went to the gas station
2
022
Costanzi
Anderson
8:40:47 pm
What you driving?
2
023
Anderson
Costanzi
8:41:58 pm
Honda CRV black
2
023
Anderson
Costanzi
8:42:02 pm
We passed inspection
2
023
Anderson
Costanzi
8:42:11 pm
8 mins gps
2
023
Costanzi
Anderson
8:47 pm
00:37
004 - #12
Costanzi
Anderson
8:50
Good job! Be safe!
Costanzi
Anderson
8:54:09 pm
I’m already back on shore!
2
023
Costanzi
Anderson
8:54:48
They don’t call me big for nothin’
2
024
Costanzi
Anderson
9:35 pm
Missed
005 - #4
Costanzi
Anderson
9:38 pm
Missed
005 - #5
Costanzi
Anderson
9:39 pm
Missed
005 - #6
Costanzi
Anderson
9:41 pm
Missed
005 - #7
Costanzi
Anderson
9:55 pm
Missed
005 - #8
Costanzi
Anderson
9:56 pm
Missed
005 - #9
Costanzi
Anderson
10:29 pm
Missed
005 - #2
Costanzi
Anderson
10:44 pm
Missed
005 - #3
[24] The above texts show that from June 7 to June 10, 2020, Mr. Anderson and Mr. N’Zoigba were communicating to arrange a meeting. They show that Mr. N’Zoigba inquired about telephone calls from a Kevin and a KD. They shared some social media coordinates.
[25] They initially expected to meet at about 13:00 on June 10, 2020. At 12:21 and 13:31, Mr. N’Zoigba advised Mr. Anderson that his bus was delayed, that his “ride up north is delayed”. By 13:32, Mr. Anderson appears to be growing impatient and asks for confirmation of the meeting time. Mr. N’Zoigba responds that they should be meeting at about 17:00.
[26] These text messages also indicate that at about 14:00 on June 10, 2020, Mr. N’Zoigba was slightly more than a two-hour drive south of Cornwall. This is apparent because earlier, at about 12:20 and 13:30, he texted that he was heading north and waiting for his bus or ride, and at about 14:00, he texted that he got in his ride and expected to meet Mr. Anderson at about 17:00.
[27] As well, this is apparent because at 16:55, Mr. N’Zoigba texted that he was waiting for his boat ride, and at 16:56 he texted that he would call before he was on the water. The meeting time kept being delayed, and at 18:05 Mr. Anderson was told by Mr. N’Zoigba not to park at the college. I assume, from the evidence, that this was most likely because a RCMP vehicle was visible from the water near that location. At 20:27, Mr. N’Zoigba texted Mr. Anderson the address of the local restaurant where, at about the same time, the boat was observed by the CBSA officer. At 20:30, Mr. Anderson confirmed the new address and indicated that he was at the gas station, most likely on Cornwall Island because, shortly before, their vehicle was observed driving south on the bridge towards that island or the United States, and, shortly after, their vehicle was at the Canadian border crossing. At 20:31 and thereafter, Mr. Costanzi, the passenger in the boat, is the only one who communicates with Mr. Anderson, most likely because Mr. N’Zoigba’s phone battery ran out. At 20:31, Mr. Costanzi asked Mr. Anderson to confirm the pickup, and at 20:37 Mr. Anderson responded that they will be delayed ten minutes because they must clear the border inspection, which matches the evidence given by the border agent.
[28] Mr. Anderson indicated that they must clear the border inspection, and briefly after, at 20:42, texted that they were eight minutes away. At 20:44, Mr. N’Zoigba was observed by the CBSA officer landing at the dock of the local restaurant and disembarking the small New York plated boat of Mr. Gorrow, from Akwesasne New York and Mr. Costanzi, from Ontario, with the duffel bag containing the nine handguns and the fourteen magazines. At 20:50, Mr. Costanzi texted “good job, be safe”, and after confirming that he was back on shore at 20:54, Mr. Costanzi repeatedly unsuccessfully tried to call Mr. N’Zoigba (on eight occasions during the next seventy minutes).
Issues
[29] The evidence in this case is entirely circumstantial. The primary issue is whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the Crown proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offences charged. More specifically, whether the circumstantial evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Mbuyamba and/or Mr. Anderson were in possession of the handguns and magazines contrary to the Criminal Code and the Customs Act, and whether it proves that the accused knew, as an occupant of the motor vehicle, that the handguns and magazines were within the motor vehicle.
Legal Principles
General Principles
[30] Accused persons are presumed innocent and the burden of proving their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is always on the Crown. That heavy burden of proof never shifts. An accused has no obligation to establish his or her innocence. This important and long-standing principle of our criminal law is constitutionally entrenched in s. 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
[31] Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason and common sense that logically arises from the evidence or from the absence of evidence. A reasonable doubt is not far-fetched or frivolous. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not require the Crown to prove the guilt of the accused with absolute certainty or beyond any doubt, which would be an impossibly high standard of proof.
[32] To be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt means to be sure or to be certain that an offence has been made out. A finding of not guilty is required where the evidence only manages to convince the decision-maker that an offence probably or likely occurred.
[33] In deciding a case, a judge can believe or disbelieve a witness, but still be left with a reasonable doubt after considering all the evidence. Further, when considering the testimony of a witness, a court can accept all, some, or none of a witness’s testimony, and frailties and inconsistencies in a witness’s evidence do not necessarily mean that his or her evidence should be rejected. The assessment of the credibility and reliability of the witness’s evidence is always important.
[34] An accused does not have to testify in his or her defence. If an accused elects to remain silent in the face of criminal allegations, as both accused elected to do, no adverse inference can be drawn against them for their reliance on that important right. As the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed, an accused's silence at trial is not evidence of guilt and “cannot be used as a makeweight for the Crown in deciding whether the Crown has proved its case.”: R. v. Prokofiew, 2012 SCC 49, [2012] 2 S.C.R. 639, at para. 4. If, after considering the whole of the evidence, the judge is not satisfied that a charge against an accused has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the judge cannot look to the accused's failure to testify to remove that doubt and help the Crown prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt: see Prokofiew, per Moldaver J. at paras. 4, 10-12, 15, 20-21, 26, and per Fish J. at paras. 64-65.
[35] The heavy onus of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is always on the Crown because of the risks that accused people face when they are charged with criminal offences. Before a person is required to face the consequences of a criminal conviction, the evidence must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offences with which the accused is charged. If the evidence is not strong enough to convince the judge with that degree of certainty that the accused committed the offence, the accused must be acquitted.
Possession, Knowledge, and Circumstantial Evidence
[36] In a case such as this, where the evidence of the Crown is entirely circumstantial, the application of this burden of proof requires that the judge must be satisfied that the only reasonable or rational inference that can be drawn from the circumstantial evidence is that the accused is guilty. If there are reasonable inferences other than guilt, the Crown's evidence does not establish the alleged guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt: see R. v. Griffin, 2009 SCC 28, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 42, at para. 33; R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 1000, at paras. 17-22, 28-30, 32-38; R. v. Pearle, 2016 ONCA 954, at para. 7; and R. v. Biggs, 2016 ONCA 910, 34 C.R. (7th) 147, at para. 17. The circumstantial case against the accused must be considered as a whole; it is only the cumulative effect of the evidence that must satisfy the Crown's burden of proof to justify conviction.
[37] With respect to the charges before the court, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew, as an occupant of the motor vehicle, that the handguns and magazines were within the motor vehicle: see R. v. Styles-Lyons, 2012 ONSC 5812, at paras. 95-97.
[38] An accused must knowingly possess a weapon. This is summarized in R. v. Morelli, 2010 SCC 8, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 253, at paras. 15-17:
[15] For the purposes of the Criminal Code, “possession” is defined in s. 4(3) to include personal possession, constructive possession, and joint possession. Of these three forms of culpable possession, only the first two are relevant here. It is undisputed that knowledge and control are essential elements common to both.
[16] On an allegation of personal possession, the requirement of knowledge comprises two elements: the accused must be aware that he or she has physical custody of the thing in question, and must be aware as well of what that thing is. Both elements must co-exist with an act of control (outside of public duty): Beaver v. The Queen, [1957] S.C.R. 531, at pp. 541-42.
[17] Constructive possession is established where the accused did not have physical custody of the object in question, but did have it “in the actual possession or custody of another person” or “in any place, whether or not that place belongs to or is occupied by him, for the use or benefit of himself or of another person” (Criminal Code, s. 4(3)(a)). Constructive possession is thus complete where the accused: (1) has knowledge of the character of the object, (2) knowingly puts or keeps the object in a particular place, whether or not that place belongs to him, and (3) intends to have the object in the particular place for his “use or benefit” or that of another person.
[39] Possession must coexist with knowledge of what the thing is and some intentional act of control over the object: see Styles-Lyons, at paras. 98-99, citing R. v. Marryshow, [2003] O.J. No. 1332 (Ont. S.C.), at para. 24.
[40] Proof of possession requires the Crown to establish two distinct elements of knowledge and control. However, criminal liability for voluntary occupancy in a vehicle knowing there is a weapon in the conveyance does not, unlike a possession charge, require proof of control: see R. v. Anderson-Wilson, 2010 ONSC 489, at para. 68.
[41] In circumstances where the weapon is not “readily visible”, knowledge cannot be inferred without direct or sufficient circumstantial evidence to satisfy the court that such an inference is the only reasonable one to be drawn from the evidence: see Styles-Lyons, at para. 103.
[42] There is no presumption that the driver of a vehicle has knowledge of its contents: see R. v. Lincoln, 2012 ONCA 542, at para. 3:
This line of reasoning constituted an error in law, in our view. It in effect applied a presumption that, because Mr. Lincoln was the operator of the vehicle at the time, he is deemed to have knowledge and control of its contents, unless there is evidence to the contrary. No rebuttable presumption of knowledge and control for purposes of determining possession, based solely on the fact that a person is the operator with control of the vehicle, exists at common law or under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19. To give effect to such a premise would constitute an impermissible transfer of the Crown’s burden of proof to the accused. While the fact that a person is the operator with control of the vehicle, together with other evidence, may enable a trial judge to infer knowledge and control in appropriate cases, it cannot, standing alone, create such a rebuttable presumption. See R. v. Watson, 2011 ONCA 437, at paras. 11-13.
[43] In Villaroman the Court indicates at paras. 30, 35-37:
[30] It follows that in a case in which proof of one or more elements of the offence depends exclusively or largely on circumstantial evidence, it will generally be helpful to the jury to be cautioned about too readily drawing inferences of guilt. No particular language is required. Telling the jury that an inference of guilt drawn from circumstantial evidence should be the only reasonable inference that such evidence permits will often be a succinct and accurate way of helping the jury to guard against the risk of “filling in the blanks” by too quickly overlooking reasonable alternative inferences. It may be helpful to illustrate the concern about jumping to conclusions with an example. If we look out the window and see that the road is wet, we may jump to the conclusion that it has been raining. But we may then notice that the sidewalks are dry or that there is a loud noise coming from the distance that could be street-cleaning equipment, and re-evaluate our premature conclusion. The observation that the road is wet, on its own, does not exclude other reasonable explanations than that it has been raining. The inferences that may be drawn from this observation must be considered in light of all of the evidence and the absence of evidence, assessed logically, and in light of human experience and common sense.
[35] At one time, it was said that in circumstantial cases, “conclusions alternative to the guilt of the accused must be rational conclusions based on inferences drawn from proven facts”: see R. v. McIver, [1965] 2 O.R. 475 (C.A.), at p. 479, aff’d without discussion of this point [1966] S.C.R. 254. However, that view is no longer accepted. In assessing circumstantial evidence, inferences consistent with innocence do not have to arise from proven facts: R. v. Khela, 2009 SCC 4, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 104, at para. 58; see also R. v. Defaveri, 2014 BCCA 370, 361 B.C.A.C. 301, at para. 10; R. v. Bui, 2014 ONCA 614, 14 C.R. (7th) 149, at para. 28. Requiring proven facts to support explanations other than guilt wrongly puts an obligation on an accused to prove facts and is contrary to the rule that whether there is a reasonable doubt is assessed by considering all of the evidence. The issue with respect to circumstantial evidence is the range of reasonable inferences that can be drawn from it. If there are reasonable inferences other than guilt, the Crown’s evidence does not meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
[36] I agree with the respondent’s position that a reasonable doubt, or theory alternative to guilt, is not rendered “speculative” by the mere fact that it arises from a lack of evidence. As stated by this Court in Lifchus, a reasonable doubt “is a doubt based on reason and common sense which must be logically based upon the evidence or lack of evidence”: para. 30 (emphasis added). 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 in light of human experience and common sense.
[37] When assessing circumstantial evidence, the trier of fact should consider “other plausible theor[ies]” and “other reasonable possibilities” which are inconsistent with guilt: R. v. Comba, [1938] O.R. 200 (C.A.), at pp. 205 and 211, per Middleton J.A., aff’d [1938] S.C.R. 396; R. v. Baigent, 2013 BCCA 28, 335 B.C.A.C. 11, at para. 20; R. v. Mitchell, [2008] QCA 394 (AustLII), at para. 35. I agree with the appellant that the Crown thus may need to negative these reasonable possibilities, but certainly does not need to “negative every possible conjecture, no matter how irrational or fanciful, which might be consistent with the innocence of the accused”: R. v. Bagshaw, [1972] S.C.R. 2, at p. 8. “Other plausible theories” or “other reasonable possibilities” must be based on logic and experience applied to the evidence or the absence of evidence, not on speculation.
[44] The line between a plausible theory and speculation is not always easy to draw, but the basic question is whether the circumstantial evidence, viewed logically, in light of human experience, is reasonably capable of supporting an inference other than that the accused is guilty: see Villaroman, at para. 38. One must also be careful in drawing conclusions based on stereotypes or how one assumes an accused person would or would not act: see R. v. Atem, [2021] O.J. No. 3320 (Ont. C.J.), at para. 23.
[45] It is the cumulative effect of relevant circumstances which must be assessed in determining whether proof beyond a reasonable doubt exists. In weapons prosecutions, the following circumstances have been considered relevant: see Anderson-Wilson, at para. 74.
The physical proximity of the firearm to the accused.
The degree of visibility of the firearm.
The degree of communal use of a vehicle containing the firearm.
The size, nature, and number of weapons in a particular space.
The nature of other items located proximate to the firearm capable of providing context for inferences of knowledge and control.
[46] It is not sufficient for the circumstantial evidence to give rise only “to a high degree of suspicion” while falling short of establishing that the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the proven facts is guilt: see Anderson-Wilson, at para. 77, citing R. v. Freeman (2006), 141 C.R.R. (2d) 217 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 7; see also R. v. Jean, 2010 ONCA 885, at para. 5.
Analysis
[47] For the following reasons, I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of either of the accused because I am not satisfied that guilt is the only reasonable or rational inference that can be drawn from the circumstantial evidence applicable to either. In my view, another reasonable inference that can be drawn from the circumstantial evidence is that the accused were personal friends of Mr. N’Zoigba who agreed to help him out that day with transportation from Cornwall for reasons other than the alleged joint enterprise to smuggle guns and high-capacity cartridge magazines into Canada. My conclusion is based on my assessment of the circumstantial evidence, viewed cumulatively and as a whole.
[48] The circumstantial evidence does not establish that either of the accused knew that Mr. N’Zoigba was transporting guns and cartridge magazines, or that either of these were in Mr. N’Zoigba’s duffel bag or, consequently, in their vehicle. There is no mention of guns or cartridge magazines in the communications between Mr. Anderson and Mr. N’Zoigba (and Mr. Costanzi). The duffel bag was placed in the rear hatch of the CR-V by Mr. N’Zoigba. The vehicle then quickly left and was observed driving away. It was intercepted by the RCMP less than 15 minutes later, and there is no evidence that the accused stopped anywhere. The vehicle was searched by the RCMP, the duffel bag was found still within the rear hatch of the CR-V, and there is no evidence that the bag did not remain there for the entire but brief period between when it was placed there by Mr. N’Zoigba and when the vehicle was intercepted by the RCMP. The two accused were good friends, and both were friends with Mr. N’Zoigba. The latter needed a ride, and the accused considered bringing two other friends, including his girlfriend, and possibly staying somewhere overnight; overnight bags were found in the CR-V.
[49] The cumulative effect of the circumstantial evidence is ambiguous. At best for the Crown, it creates no more than a high degree of suspicion, which falls short of establishing that the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the proven facts is guilt. For example, the factors outlined in Anderson-Wilson, see para. 45 above, do not establish that the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the proven facts is guilt. The accused were in close physical proximity to the guns and magazines, but these were inside a duffel bag, placed in the rear hatch of their CR-V by their travelling friend, for less than 15 minutes. The guns and magazines were not visible, and time was short. Time and circumstances did not allow an inspection of the bag as the CR-V immediately drove away from Cornwall with the bag in its rear hatch until the vehicle was, moments later, intercepted by police.
[50] There is a concern inherent to inferential reasoning, which circumstantial evidence requires, that triers of fact may unconsciously "fill in the blanks" by too quickly overlooking reasonable alternative inferences or bridge gaps in the evidence to support the inferences that the Crown invites. This concern is addressed by remembering “that an inference of guilt drawn from circumstantial evidence should be the only reasonable inference that such evidence permits”: see Villaroman, at paras. 26-30.
[51] Here, the cumulative effect of the evidence gives rise to competing inferences. The evidence includes:
• the accused Mr. Mbuyamba not being forthright with his girlfriend about where he was going to pick-up his friend;
• the sense of urgency that Mr. Mbuyamba communicated to his girlfriend;
• borrowing her car which arguably could not easily be traced back to him;
• the accused’s girlfriend being concerned when the accused did not quickly return;
• the text messages between Mr. Anderson and Mr. N’Zoigba (and Mr. Costanzi most likely only because Mr. N’Zoigba’s phone stopped working) reproduced above;
• how Mr. N’Zoigba and the accused appeared to have been concerned about nearby police presence;
• how they consequently changed the pick-up address;
• the accused being dishonest with the border officer about where they had been (saying that they had just turned around when in fact they had driven to Cornwall Island);
• how Mr. N’Zoigba tried not to be noticed while waiting to be picked-up;
• how quickly the accused picked-up Mr. N’Zoigba, and how quickly they drove away;
• the accused obviously knowing that Mr. N’Zoigba placed a duffel bag in the rear hatch of the CR-V just prior to boarding the CR-V;
• Mr. N’Zoigba obviously knowing that he was importing and in possession of nine handguns and fourteen high-capacity cartridge magazines, and the guns and cartridge magazines found on videos on Mr. N’Zoigba’s phone being the same as those found in his duffel bag;
• Mr. Anderson, the front seat passenger, obviously relaying instructions to his friend and driver, Mr. Mbuyamba;
• Mr. Anderson being busy counting $20 bills, possibly a payment by Mr. N’Zoigba, totaling $2,700, and the amount of cash found on the other accused and on the rear seat passenger, Mr. Dansu-Manu;
• all occupants of the CR-V appearing nervous when intercepted by the police;
• what each of the accused said upon being stopped and arrested – Mr. Mbuyamba told the officer that he did not know why they were being stopped; Mr. Anderson told the officer that it was his money that he was busy gathering, he asked “is that what you guys found” when told what had been found, and said that it was his phone and that it was not password protected; and
• Mr. Costanzi repeatedly unsuccessfully calling Mr. Anderson (on eight occasions during the next seventy minutes).
[52] The cumulative effect of the evidence does not satisfy me that the only rational inference that can be drawn from the circumstantial evidence is that either of the accused is guilty, as there exists a rational, non-guilty inference that is sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt – friends agreeing to pick-up a friend coming in illegally from the United States for reasons other than the three were involved in a joint enterprise to smuggle guns and high-capacity cartridge magazines into Canada: see R. v. Anderson-Wilson, at para. 72, citing R. v. Griffin, 2009 SCC 28, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 42, at para. 34.
[53] When assessing the evidence, it is important not to confuse what was said and done by Mr. N’Zoigba, who clearly knew what he was transporting, from what was said and done by either of the accused. It is important as well to be mindful of possible stereotypical reasoning. And it is also important not to jump to conclusions too quickly by “filling in the blanks” as we obviously now know that there were guns in Mr. N’Zoigba’s duffel bag. Knowing that Mr. N’Zoigba entered Canada illegally from the United States does not prove knowledge of what was in his bag. The whole of the evidence only proving that the accused possibly or even probably knew what was in the bag is not sufficient.
Conclusion
[54] In summary, based upon the whole of the evidence in this case, I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of either of the accused for any of the alleged offences. I am not convinced that the only reasonable or rational inference to be drawn from the evidence is that the accused, or either of the accused, are guilty of any of these alleged offences. Rather, another reasonable inference from this evidence is that the accused were friends of Mr. N’Zoigba, who agreed to help him with transportation from Cornwall not knowing what was in his bag.
[55] Consequently, each of the accused is found not guilty on all counts of the indictment, and a forfeiture order may go to the Crown for the nine handguns and high-capacity magazines.
Mr. Justice P. E. Roger
Released: April 27, 2022
COURT FILE NO.: 21-28
DATE: 2022/04/27
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
Barou Mbuyamba and Jevon Anderson
Accused
REASONS FOR decision
Roger J.
Released: April 27, 2022

