R. v. Osaigbovo, 2024 ONSC 6914

Case Summary

The defendant was found guilty of several firearms and drug offences by a trial judge who provided brief oral reasons and promised written reasons to follow. The trial judge subsequently retired without providing the written reasons. Furthermore, the trial judge recorded convictions for seven counts, despite the defendant only being arraigned on five. The defendant brought a motion for a mistrial. The Superior Court of Justice held that the brief oral reasons were insufficient to allow another judge to impose sentence under s. 669.2 of the Criminal Code. Given the lack of reasons, the unarraigned convictions, and the resulting miscarriage of justice, the court granted the motion and declared a mistrial.

Court File and Parties

LINDSAY COURT FILE NO.: CR-19-10000361-00MO DATE: 2024-12-11

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

OSAHON OSAIGBOVO Defendant

Counsel: J. Frost, for the Crown P. Aubin, for the Defendant

HEARD: November 27, 2024

REASONS FOR DECISION

REGIONAL SENIOR JUSTICE EDWARDS

Overview

[1] Trial judges are required to give reasons for their decision whether they are convicting or acquitting an accused. Sometimes, the trial judge due to various exigencies may give a bottom-line decision “with reasons to follow”. With the best of intentions this is precisely what happened on September 22, 2023 when the trial judge convicted Mr. Osaigbovo with written reasons to follow. The matter came back on September 22, 2023, again on January 6, 2024 and March 18, 2024. Counsel understood that on these re-attendances written reasons would be provided prior to sentencing. Unfortunately, the trial judge is now retired and it falls upon me to determine whether under s. 669.2 of the Criminal Code of Canada (the “Code”) the reasons provided by the trial judge are sufficient to allow me to impose sentence. I also deal with the motion brought by Mr Osaigbovo seeking a mistrial.

The Indictment

[2] Mr. Osaigbovo stands charged on an indictment which has 5 counts as follows:

Count 1 – unlawful possession of a firearm knowing that the serial number had been removed contrary to s. 108(1)(b) of the Code.

Count 2 – unlawful transportation of a loaded handgun contrary to [s. 86(2)](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985

R. v. Osaigbovo, 2024 ONSC 6914

Case Summary

Court File and Parties

REASONS FOR DECISION

Overview

The Indictment

Judge

Counsel

Parties

Areas of Law

Fact Patterns

Issues

Statutory Provisions 7

Legal Tests 1

Legislation 6