Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Court File No.: CR-24-344
Date: 2025-05-16

Between:
His Majesty the King
Applicants' Counsel: Erin Pancer and Cindy Nadler

and

Chi Do
Respondent's Counsel: John Erikson

Heard: March 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 2025

Reasons for Judgment
Fowler Byrne

I. Facts

A. Ms. Do’s Possession of the Firearms

[1] Ms. Do is charged with the following offences:

a) Three counts of transferring a firearm knowing that she was unauthorized to do so, contrary to s.99(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada;

b) Twelve counts of possession of a firearm for the purpose of trafficking it, knowing she was not authorized to do so, contrary to s.100(1) of the Code; and

c) One count of public mischief, with the intent to mislead, by reporting an offence that had not been committed, contrary to s.140(1)(cc) of the Code.

[2] Each count under s.99(1) and s.100(1) refers to a specific firearm, referenced by its make and serial number.

[3] Ms. Do originally elected to be tried by a judge and jury. Just before the jury was picked, she re-elected to a trial by judge alone.

[4] Ms. Do acquired her Possession and Acquisition License (“PAL”) on April 9, 2019. With the PAL, she was authorized to purchase both restricted and non-restricted firearms.

[5] Following the acquisition of her PAL, Ms. Do purchased the following firearms, for the listed amount, on the following dates:

Order Date	Item Purchased	Purchase Price	Serial Number
2/28/2020	Smith & Wesson M&P Sport II 5.56 16” Barrel #11617	$812.47	TM37572
03/19/2020	GLOCK 20 SF/Short Frame 4.6” BARREL, 10MM, AUSTRIA	$904	BLFC530
04/14/2020	HUNT GROUP MH-P 12ga 3"Cham 18.5" Barrel Pump Action Shotgun-M4 Stock	$553.69 (non-restricted long gun)
04/24/2020	GLOCK 22 Gen4 Semi-Auto Pistol 40SW - Dark Earth	$899.48	BGKW745
05/05/2020	Churchill Pump 12ga 3"cham 15" shotgun with Shockwave Grip & Scabbard-OD GREEN	(non-restricted long gun)
05/05/2020	Churchill Pump 12ga 3"cham 15" shotgun with Shockwave Grip & Scabbard-BLACK	$644.08 (with above) (non-restricted long gun)
06/08/2020	Smith & Wesson SD40VE 4.25" Barrel Pistol 40SW	$531.09	FZV0231
09/21/2020	ROMANIAN TOKAREV TT33 7.62*25 PISTOL 7+1	$305.09	DX15271953
11/24/2020	Ruger 1702 GP100 357 Mag Heavy Barrel 4.2" 6rd Rubber Grip	$1129.99	17924456
01/14/2021	Ruger 1702 GP100 357 Mag Heavy Barrel 4.2" 6rd Rubber Grip	$1129.99	17921278
05/14/2021	Glock 48 Single Stack 9mm Pistol Fixed Sights		AFHS140
05/14/2021	Glock 17 Gen 5 Handgun 9mm	$1647.54 (with above)	AEXH770
06/07/2021	IWI JERICHO 941F 9MM ISRAELI POLICE SURPLUS GRADE-1		31320063
06/07/2021	Norinco NP762 4.5" Pistol 7.62X25 TOKAREV	$960.48 (with above)	12955942
07/10/2021	Ruger American Pistol 9MM 4.5" bbl Novak sight	$813.59	86090524
11/28/2021	Glock 48 Single Stack 9mm Pistol Fixed Sights	$752.58	ADUA007
12/23/2021	Smith & Wesson SD9VE 4.25" Barrel Pistol 9MM	$564.99	FCN4249
12/23/2021	GLOCK 19 Gen4 9mm Pistol Multicam- Black	$960.49	AFDF335
01/08/2022	Glock 48 Single Stack 9mm Pistol Fixed Sights	$752.58	AFHS163

[6] On April 22, 2020, Ms. Do also purchased two boxes of ammunition, totaling 75 bullets, for a total of $68.91.

[7] When a person with a valid PAL purchases a firearm, they are required to present their PAL and pay for the firearm up front. Then the purchase and the PAL number is sent to the Chief Firearms Officer with the R.C.M.P. so that the dealer can obtain the authorization to transfer ownership of the firearm to the purchaser and ship it out. This process can take up to two to three weeks.

B. The Chief Firearms Investigation

[8] Ms. Do first came under investigation when she purchased four firearms in a short period of time. On January 28, 2022, she purchased two handguns: a Smith & Wesson SD40VE 4.25” Barrel Pistol 40 SW and a Tara TM-9 Striker-Fired 4.5” Pistol 9 mm, for the combined price of $858.78. Just three days later, on February 1, 2022, she purchased two more handguns through Tenda Canada: a Glock 19 Gen4 9 mm Pistol with MAPLE LEAF Engraving and a Glock 19 Gen4 9mm Pistol Multicam- Tan, for a combined price of $1798.95.

[9] When the purchases were sent to the Chief Firearms Officer for transfer approval, it was noted that she purchased four firearms within days of each other. Ms. Do was flagged as a high-volume purchaser, and an officer from the Chief Firearms Office – Officer Dela Cruz – was instructed to investigate the purchases by Ms. Do.

[10] Officer Dela Cruz started his investigation in his office by examining Ms. Do’s PAL and her inventory of firearms according to their records. As a result of this investigation, he learned that Ms. Do had 15 handguns and 1 long gun registered to her.

[11] On or about February 14, 2022, Officer Dela Cruz contacted Ms. Do by telephone and advised her of the investigation. He wanted assurances that all of the firearms were still in her possession. Ms. Do assured him that all of her firearms were safely stored in her safe at her home.

[12] Officer Dela Cruz asked Ms. Do to take photos of all her firearms that were stored at her house. Ms. Do said she was rushed and on her way to work, but promised to email him the photos of all 16 firearms later that day.

[13] Officer Dela Cruz received no photos from Ms. Do on that day, or on the next day. Accordingly, he contacted her again, at which time he learned that she had reported the theft of the guns early in the morning on February 15, 2022 and attended at the police station that night to make her statement.

C. Ms. Do Calls Peel Regional Police Reporting a Robbery

[14] On February 15, 2022, at 12:31 a.m., Ms. Do called the Peel Regional Police and reported a robbery. She told the police that she had just got home from work and went into her safe to take photos of the firearms for the Firearms Officer, when she discovered that her firearms, ammunition, some cash, and silver bars were missing. All of her firearms were missing except for two long guns. She indicated that she was in her safe a few weeks prior to that when she picked up another handgun that had been recently purchased, and all her firearms were in the safe at that time. The only person she believed could have committed the theft was a man she was having an affair with and who she had just broke up with. His name was Alex. He was a Sri Lankan man, who she met in Barrie. His last name was too long for her to remember. She believed Alex knew where she kept the key to her safe. She had deleted any contact information for him after the breakup. She did not have camera surveillance. The police told her on that call that due to the number of guns involved, the matter was being referred to the Criminal Investigations Bureau (“CIB”) and that an officer may visit her that night.

[15] Officer Colin Bowers and Officer Steve Ahrens from the Peel Regional Police arrived at Ms. Do’s home at approximately 1:00 a.m. on February 15, 2022. They entered through the front door, and followed Ms. Do into the house and down the staircase to the basement, which was located in the centre of the main floor. It was her parents’ home, but she lived in the basement. Her parents, her son, and her brother also lived in the house, and they had their bedrooms on the second floor.

[16] Ms. Do showed the officer her safe which was hidden in the back of her closet, behind clothing and personal effects. It was opened when the police arrived. It showed no visual signs of damage. She still had one shot gun and one long gun, and some empty firearm cases. It was quite tight in the closet and the officer was unable to fit into the closet to closely inspect the safe while wearing all his gear.

[17] Ms. Do told the police that she believed that her former boyfriend Alex may have broken in. They were having an affair for approximately one and one-half years. She taught him how to sneak in the back door so that she could conceal the relationship from her parents. She kept the key to the safe in a little box on her dresser. Alex saw her grab the key on an earlier occasion. Alex and her husband were the only individuals who knew where her safe was.

[18] Ms. Do showed the officers the two guns that were left behind. She showed where she usually kept the ammunition, on top of the safe, which was also missing. There were some hard cases left, which were used to hold the firearms, and she had some of the paperwork, showing her purchases. She told the officers that she had been in the safe two or three few weeks ago when she received another firearm purchase, and all the firearms were there at that time. Ms. Do testified that she believed all the firearms had a code lock on them, so someone would need a code and key to unlock them.

[19] Ms. Do explained to the police that she liked to collect guns. She explained that she had a lot of the same type of guns because she wanted to gift some to her husband when he got his PAL. The officers took custody of the two remaining long guns in case the thief returned. She also reported that she had $5,000 in cash in the safe and that was missing as well. She was saving it up to give to her brother for his 30th birthday. She believed she had 12 firearms stolen, but she was not sure.

[20] When Officer Bowers entered the home that night, he observed no signs of forced entry. He did see an alarm system at the door. He also saw two very small windows in the basement that were only 6 to 7 inches tall. He did not believe anyone could fit through these windows.

D. Ms. Do’s Statement to Police February 15, 2022

[21] Following this attendance, the officers asked Ms. Do to come to the 22nd Division that night and give a statement about the theft. She drove herself there. When Officer Bowers returned to 22nd Division, he submitted the two long guns for possible DNA testing or fingerprinting. Nothing was found on them. The rest of the investigation was handled by the CIB.

[22] When she arrived at the 22nd Division, Ms. Do was interviewed by Officer Mitchell Molloy with the CIB of the Peel Regional Police. The interview started at approximately 3:15 a.m. In that interview, Officer Molloy learned that firearms were an interest of Ms. Do. She stated that she also intended to gift some of them to her husband when he got his PAL. Ms. Do said she discovered the firearms were missing when she went into her safe that night to take pictures for Officer Dela Cruz. She also told police that some cash, silver bars, as well as the ammunition that she kept on top of the safe were missing. When asked how they went missing, Ms. Do stated that she believed someone came in and took them. The only suspect she could think of was a man with whom she was having an affair. She ended the relationship a few months ago. Neither of her parents, her son, or her brother, all who lived at the house, knew she had a safe and handguns in the house.

[23] Ms. Do told Officer Molloy that this man with whom she had the affair knew she had a few guns. He saw her take the key to the safe from a box on her dresser when she put some money in the safe. She had also taught him how to come in the back door and sneak downstairs to her apartment. He was the only one who knew where the safe was. She was last in the safe two or three weeks ago, and all the firearms were there. She assumed that her ex-boyfriend took them sometime after then. She said that the breakup was messy and he was not happy about it.

[24] Ms. Do advised Officer Molloy that she met Alex in the summer of 2020, and they started becoming romantically involved towards the end of 2020, around the time she got married. She ended the relationship with Alex in October 2021. She did not know Alex’s last name. He was Sri Lankan. His last name started with a “K” and was very long. She didn’t bother learning it. She knew that he lived in a town near Barrie, with “beach” in the name. He would sneak into her home at night or during the day when she had a day off. When she ended the relationship with him, she deleted all information about him, including all his phone numbers and any photos. She was able to find one phone number which she believed he used on November 23, 2021, and gave that to the officer.

[25] Ms. Do also told the officers that the four most recent guns she purchased, which had prompted the investigation, were going to be her last, as she was moving into a new condominium in September and would need that money for her mortgage.

[26] When asked about what guns she purchased, she thought she had “12 or so” guns. She said she had a few Glocks, some Smith & Wessons, and a couple of Rugers, and others, but she could not remember their names. When asked how many Glocks she had, she responded “I’m gonna shoot for five”. When asked how many Smith & Wessons, she thought three, and “I bought a lot of nines”. She thought she had 2 Rugers. She said she had two revolvers and she bought two of the same by accident, thinking they were different sizes.

[27] When asked what she liked about the firearms, she said she liked that they “go pow”, and she liked the loud noise. She stated that she has not shot any of her guns, but she wanted a collection. She planned to eventually go to a range and fire them. She said she is learning about them. She admitted she didn’t know much about them at that time. She likes to take them apart and look at them. She has a cleaning kit and likes to “play around with it”. She eventually was going to join a gun club. She was not sure how much the firearms all cost. She buys them, plays with them for a bit and then puts them away. She also wanted to give some to her husband when he got his PAL. She admitted to buying 14 to 16 guns over about one and one-half years. She planned to put the safe in her den in her new condominium and learn more then. Right now, she was too busy to learn about them and shoot them, and also it was hard to get into a gun club due to COVID. At the time of the reported theft, gun ranges were open, but she had never gone to one to shoot her firearms. She stated that she had never been at a range. When pressed to explain why the guns interested her, she said “Honestly, like I just, I just wanted to have them, and I know it sounds stupid and it sounds weird.” She talked about framing some of her guns in her new condo and putting some of them in the safe.

[28] When asked why she had $5,000 in cash in the safe, she said she was saving $10,000 to give to her brother for his upcoming 30th birthday.

[29] Ms. Do told Officer Molloy that she wouldn’t do anything stupid because she is a single mother to her 13-year-old son. She wants to build a business so one day she wouldn’t have to work so hard. The interview ended at approximately 4:30 a.m. and she left.

[30] On February 23, 2022, Officer Molloy called her again, asked how she was doing, and gave her the number for victims’ services. He confirmed that she had no contact with Alex.

[31] In cross-examination, Officer Molloy stated that his only role in the investigation was to interview Ms. Do. He did not investigate any of the people Ms. Do mentioned, such as her husband, Mr. Kristos Bidwell (the father of her child), or Mike Rogel, a friend. Molloy also confirmed he did not try to locate Alex or seek production orders for Ms. Do’s phone.

E. Police Investigation of Ms. Do

[32] In or around March 3, 2022, the Peel Regional Police learned that on November 18, 2021, the Hamilton Police Service executed a search warrant at 5 Milne Ave. in Scarborough Ontario, in a completely unrelated investigation. This was three months before Ms. Do reported the theft of her firearms. In the course of that search, the police found a locked second floor office, which was pried open. Inside that room, in a box, they located a safe, which was also pried open. In that safe, they found 11 firearms.

[33] Several of these firearms had serial numbers which had been filed off. Restoration work was performed on some of them. As a result of this restoration work, the following guns were identified:

a) Glock 22 Gen 4 .40 caliber, with a brown frame and black slide, which revealed a serial number of BGKW745, which is the same serial number for a firearm registered to Ms. Do, and identified as No. 4 in the list referred to above; and

b) Glock 48 9x19 mm firearm, with a silver slide and black frame, which revealed a serial number of AFHS140, which is the same serial number for a firearm registered to Ms. Do, and is identified as No. 11 in the list referred to above.

[34] Also seized by the Hamilton Police at this time, was a black 357 Ruger Magnum GP 100. While the serial number on one part of the firearm was filed off, the officers were able to locate another serial number elsewhere on the gun, revealing serial number 17924456. This is the same serial number for a firearm registered to Ms. Do, and is identified as No. 9 in the list referred to above.

[35] Following this discovery, in or around May 13, 2022, Officer Milan Ivkovic from the Specialized Enforcement Bureau (“SEB”), was asked to become involved. The SEB focuses on major drug investigations, gangs and firearms. He was advised of the reported theft from Ms. Do’s apartment, the number of guns that she had and how three of them were recovered prior to the reported theft. There were suspicions that she was a “straw purchaser” – someone who purchases firearms legally, but then provides them illegally to others. He reviewed what was gathered in the investigation to date, but was not aware that Ms. Do was already interviewed by Officer Molloy.

[36] As a result of what he learned, he determined that he could arrest Ms. Do. He then contacted her by telephone, and she agreed to turn herself in voluntarily. She was arrested on June 22, 2022. After having an opportunity to speak to counsel, Officer Ivkovic interviewed Ms. Do on that day.

F. Ms. Do’s Statement on June 22, 2022

[37] At first, Officer Ivkovic did not tell Ms. Do that they had recovered three firearms that were registered to her. Ms. Do told him that prior to February 15, 2022, the last time she opened her safe was in mid-January 2022, and all of her firearms were there. Everything looked the same, and although she didn’t know exactly how many gun cases were in the safe, all of them were stacked neatly in her safe. When she went into her safe in the early morning of February 15, 2022, she found only a few empty cases, left in a messy manner.

[38] In her interview, when asked why she had so many firearms, she said that she likes to practice target shooting. She purchased three Glock 19’s because she was going to give one to her husband and the other for her 13-year-old son, when he got older. She wanted to purchase her firearms then in case the government banned them all later.

[39] She repeated that the only person she could think of that could have stolen the firearms was her ex-boyfriend. She was dating Alex for a few months, maybe close to a year. She ended it in December 2021. She said that whoever broke in would have done it between the time in January when she last opened her safe, and the time she reported the thefts.

[40] Officer Ivkovic then advised Ms. Do that three of the firearms registered to her were retrieved by the Hamilton Police Service several months prior to the reported theft and asked her how that could happen. Ms. Do replied that someone must have broken in before November 2021, and took those guns. They would have left the cash and silver at that time and kept everything looking neat. The thieves then came back again in those few weeks in January to take the rest.

[41] Officer Ivkovic then reviewed with Ms. Do the number of times she might have opened her safe in late 2021. According to her purchase history, she purchased a Glock 48 on November 28, 2021, and would have put that firearm in the safe shortly thereafter. She then purchased both a Smith & Wesson and a Glock 19 on December 23, 2021, and would have put those firearms in the safe shortly thereafter. Finally, she purchased another Glock 48 on January 8, 2022, and when she received that firearm shortly thereafter, on or about January 20, 2022, that was the last time she opened her safe, before the reported theft. She indicated that on each occasion, nothing looked amiss.

[42] Officer Ivkovic never conducted any investigation into an “Alex K”. He never obtained a production order for Ms. Do’s cell phone. Ms. Do did not bring her cell phone with her to the interview with Officer Ivkovic, so he could not examine it then. He did not speak to Ms. Do’s husband. He admitted that he could have called the Barrie police to inquire into an “Alex K” but he did not. He admitted knowing that there are several towns in the area of Barrie that contain the word “beach”. He called the telephone number given by Ms. Do that she thought maybe belonged to Alex, but it turned out to be the answering service for DirectTV. He did not believe that Alex existed.

G. Ms. Do’s Financial Background

[43] In 2020 and 2021, Ms. Do worked in a nail salon in Barrie and at the Marriot Hotel in Toronto. She agreed that both businesses were negatively impacted by the pandemic.

[44] The Crown called a representative of the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) who gave evidence that in 2020, Ms. Do declared $37,210 in income, of which only $16,293 was employment income. The rest was comprised of employment insurance benefits in the sum of $6,917 or Canada Emergency Response Benefits (“CERB”) in the sum of $14,000. Ms. Do did not file a tax return in 2021, but the CRA had a record of her earning $18,459 in employment insurance benefits and a further $5,073 in employment income. The CRA representative agreed that the CRA would have no knowledge of any unreported income or tips that Ms. Do may have received.

[45] In total, Ms. Do declared gross earnings of $60,742 over 2020 and 2021. During the same period, she spent $12,678.46 on a combination of restricted and unrestricted weapons, and ammunition. In January 2022, she paid for an addition 5 firearms, which totalled $3,410.31. From this, I can infer that she spent approximately one-third of her net income from 2020 to early 2022 on firearm purchases.

H. Ms. Do’s Evidence at Trial

[46] Ms. Do gave evidence at trial. She was married in October 2020. She and her husband did not live together. He had a place close to his work in Toronto and she often stayed with her Aunt’s place in Barrie. She and her Husband would travel between these places.

[47] Ms. Do started having an intimate affair with Alex from the fall of 2020, which affair continued until October 2021, a period of over a year. After the intimacy ended, she tried to keep up communication with Alex, as a friend, but Alex was not happy with the situation. It led to further conflict so in December 2021 she completely cut Alex out of her life and deleted everything about him from her phone.

[48] Ms. Do does not know Alex’s last name or his address. She assumed that he was single and had no children. She never took a photo of him. He had one photo of them on his phone. She believes he was a self-employed tech guy who set up security cameras. She never researched him online and was not interested in doing so. He told her that he had no social media. She never took any steps to locate Alex after the reported theft.

[49] When the affair was ongoing, she would let Alex in the house through the back sliding door. The family kitchen table was in front of these sliding doors, and this is where her family ate their meals. Someone would have to go through the family kitchen to reach the centre stairwell. She said he would come when most of her family were gone, and she had a day off. This was difficult during the pandemic as people were working and attending school from home. Her father never left the house, as he was on long term disability. Alex knew what car she drove and if he drove by, he would be able to see if her car was there.

[50] Ms. Do told her husband about her affair around August 2021. He then found out in November 2021 that the affair had continued. Their attempts at reconciliation were not successful and finally around the middle of 2022, they divorced.

[51] Ms. Do stated that her interest in firearms first started when she watched movies, documentaries and photos about the war in Vietnam where she saw women fighting with guns. She was also interested in going hunting with her friend Mike Rogal. She would go hunting with him but did not fire his guns.

[52] She liked the Glocks that she purchased as they were small, sleek and small enough for her hands. Some of her guns came in a case but others did not. Her safe was skinny so she had to angle her cases to make them fit and loose handguns were tucked into spaces, sometimes in a sack. Sometimes she would take the foam out of a case so she could put 2 guns in that case.

[53] She testified that all of her guns were stored in her safe that was in the back of her closet in her basement apartment.

[54] The last time she was in her safe before reporting the theft was about two weeks prior. Everything seemed to be the same as usual. She had guns in cases and some were in soft bags but not in a case. The safe looked full and undisturbed. When she opened the safe on February 15th, all the guns were gone, all the soft cases were gone, the box that contained her silver was there, but it was empty. Her envelope with $5,000 cash was gone. There were only a few empty firearm cases left in the safe.

[55] She agreed that between the time that three guns were seized by the Hamilton police and the day she reported the theft, she went into her safe about three times. She did not notice anything missing during any of those occasions.

[56] She believes that Alex knew about the safe because he saw her go into it. In addition to Alex, her brother also knew she had a safe in closet. Her friend Mike knew about her safe because she talked to him about it, but he had not come to her home. Her husband also knew about the safe. Her son, her mother and her father did not know about it. When asked why she did not mention to the police earlier that her brother knew about the safe, she said it was because she never thought of him as a suspect.

[57] Although her son helped her move the safe, in a box, down to the basement, she did not tell him what it was. No one helped her install the safe. Her parents did not notice when the safe was delivered.

[58] Ms. Do testified that when she was first interviewed by the police on February 15, 2022, it was late and she was nervous. She had been up all day and had not had an opportunity to rest. She was not aware that she would be interrogated that night, and it made her very nervous. She was not exactly sure how many guns she had registered in her name at that time. She never kept track of the number, just a ballpark. She brought them home, looked at them, and then put them in her safe.

[59] When questioned why she purchased so many duplicates, she said she purchased two identical Ruger GP100 by mistake. She thought they were different sizes. When asked why she purchased three identical Glock 48s, she said one was going to be a gift for her husband and the other would be kept for her 13-year-old son even though he could not use it for 5 years.

[60] She testified that she was able to afford the firearms because she didn't have many expenses. She did not pay rent, and her son did not need much. She only has to pay for her cell phone and her gas. There's always food in her house and the whole family contributes collectively.

[61] In 2020, she filed her income tax return, but did not declare her tips. In 2021, she thought her aunt filed for her but later discovered that she did not. When she worked at the restaurant with her aunt, she was paid as the head chef, but she would be paid arbitrary amounts. They did not track hours. She received more than the $5,000 in income that she declared. She understands that this is tax evasion. Some of her tips were reflected in the T4 and some were not. She did not think she had to declare all her tips. It was not her intention to mislead the government. She just signed the tax return the accountant gave her. She used the same accountant that her husband used but doesn't remember who it was. She simply gave her information to the accountant and signed what he prepared. She does not know how much her unreported income was in 2020 and 2021. She has not filed a tax return since.

[62] Ms. Do testified that she never ended up taking possession of the condominium due to financial mismanagement. She was supposed to live there with her husband and cousin. She never did know what her mortgage payments would have been.

[63] Ms. Do stated that she was working at a nail salon in Barrie in 2022, but abandoned that to open her own restaurant. The restaurant business did not last six months. As of 2022, she walked away from all the restaurants she was involved in. Now she rents a room out of another salon in Barrie, and only does lashes. She commutes to Barrie from her home in Brampton. Her family is not aware of these criminal charges.

[64] She admits that in 2020 and 2021, she spent $16,000 on firearms, which was a large part of her reported income. She never fired any of them. She never went to the range with them. She never applied to be a member of a range. She claims to have bought a box of ammunition for every gun she owned, despite there only being a record of one such purchase. She believes she had 16 to 20 boxes of ammunition on top of the safe, which were stolen.

[65] Ms. Do claims to have a problem with impulse purchasing and admits she is irresponsible with money. This is not only for firearms, but with shoes, clothes, accessories, and home decor. She has no idea how much she spends. She has a few credit cards with balances but does not own a line of credit. She has a vehicle, but it is in her mother's name. Her mother paid for it and she gives her mother money towards it from time to time. She does not get much financial contribution from her son’s father. She takes care of his clothes, his shoes, his phone, or her family helps out as well.

[66] She never made an insurance claim for the missing cash or silver bars.

II. Assessing the Evidence of Ms. Do

[67] According to Ms. Do, she did not transfer her firearms in any manner. She maintains she was the victim of a theft. She testified that she was robbed on at least two occasions. The first theft went undetected by her for at least three months. The last theft, between mid-January 2022 and February 15, 2022, was when she realized what happened. She then immediately reported the theft to the police.

[68] At the start of this trial and throughout, Ms. Do is presumed to be innocent, unless and until Crown counsel proves her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The obligation to prove Ms. Do’s guilt rests with Crown counsel alone. From start to finish that obligation never shifts. Ms. Do does not have to present evidence or prove anything.

[69] Despite this, Ms. Do chose to testify. When considering Ms. Do’s evidence, I am mindful of the direction provided by R. v. W.(D.), [1991] 1 SCR 742. If I accept Ms. Do’s evidence, that she did not transfer the firearms, and was robbed, then I must acquit her. Even if I do not accept her evidence, but her evidence leaves me with a reasonable doubt about an element of the offence, then I must acquit her. Finally, if I do not accept her evidence, and I do not have a reasonable doubt as about any of the elements of the offences, I still can only convict her if the rest of the evidence that I do accept, proves her guilt of the offence, beyond a reasonable doubt.

[70] After reviewing the evidence presented at trial, I do not accept Ms. Do’s evidence that she was robbed of her firearms. Nor does her evidence leave me with a reasonable doubt about any of the elements of the offences. I have come to these conclusions for a number of reasons.

[71] First, she was inconsistent with her evidence on several occasions.

[72] She was inconsistent about who knew about the safe. When speaking to Officer Molloy, she said that neither her parents, her brother nor her son were aware that she had a safe with guns in the basements. Only Alex and her husband knew. At trial she said that Alex, her husband, Mike Rogal and her brother knew she had the safe in the basement.

[73] She was inconsistent about when she and Alex ended their relationship. When speaking to Officer Molloy, she said she and Alex broke up in October 2021. When speaking to Officer Ivkovic, she said they broke up December 2021. At trial, she said that she broke up the romantic relationship in October 2021 and then cut off all contact with him in December 2021, deleting any reference to him from her phone. This inconsistency is particularly important given her assertion that she suspected that Alex stole the firearms and the subsequent discovery of some of those firearms in November 2021.

[74] Also, she told Officers Bowers and Ahrens that she had never shot her guns, but she told Officer Molloy that she liked to practice target shooting. She then said that although she went hunting with her friend Mr. Rogal, she never shot his hunting rifle.

[75] Her evidence is also inconsistent with respect to her purchase of ammunition. She testified that she bought a new box of ammunition with each new firearm she purchased. The purchasing history obtained from the two firearms dealers that she dealt with shows that she only ever bought ammunition on one occasion.

[76] The inconsistency that is most detrimental to Ms. Do is her evidence about when the robbery occurred. In her statement to Officers Dela Cruz on February 14, 2022, in her statement to Officers Bowers and Ahrens on February 15, 2022, and in her statement Officer Molloy later that day, she indicated that all of her firearms were in her safe in mid-January 2022. She repeated this to Officer Ivkovic at the beginning of her interview with him.

[77] In light of the discovery of three of her registered firearms in November 2021, it is evident that Ms. Do was not being truthful when she first spoke to the police. Clearly, at least three of her firearms were removed from that safe sometime prior to November 18, 2021. To be exact, the firearm identified as No. 4 herein was ordered on April 24, 2020, and delivered some weeks later. Accordingly, that gun was transferred sometime between the end of April 2020 and November 18, 2021.

[78] Also, the firearm identified as number 9 herein, it was ordered on November 24, 2020 and delivered a few weeks later. That means that this gun was transferred from Ms. Do’s home sometime between early December 2020 and November 18, 2021.

[79] Finally, the firearm identified as No. 11 herein, that was ordered on May 14, 2021 and delivered some weeks later. That means that it was transferred sometime between June 2021 and November 18, 2021.

[80] When police confronted her with this inconsistency, it was only then that Ms. Do took the position that there must have been other robberies, at least one, prior to the robbery in January or February 2022. The prior robberies were described as occurring differently, in that they tried hard to conceal the robbery, by leaving everything exactly as it was, leaving cash and silver bars, and leaving boxes of ammunition.

[81] Ms. Do then had to admit that she was in her safe at least three times between November 18, 2021, and February 15, 2022, and never noticed anything different. It was only at trial that she indicated that she took some of her firearms out of their cases, and doubled up the firearms in some cases, making it harder to see if any were missing. At no time, in the prior three police interviews, had she ever mentioned that before. Up to the beginning of her interview with Officer Ivkovic, she maintained that all firearms were in her safe as of mid-January 2022.

[82] The second reason why I do not believe Ms. Do is because her evidence was not plausible and did not make sense.

[83] First, Ms. Do claims to be a collector, yet also confessed to not knowing much at all about her firearms at all. In saying this, I am not referring to her inability to recall what firearm she bought on any particular day. I am referring to her lack of knowledge about firearms in general. She admits not knowing anything and wanting to learn. She talked about framing them, and then catching herself when she remembered she had to keep them in a safe. The most she could say about why she liked them was because they went “pow”.

[84] Despite having over $16,000 worth of firearms for approximately one- and one-half years, she never shot one of them. She never brought them to a gun range. She admitted to not ever registering to belong to a gun range or getting on a wait list to join a club.

[85] In addition, she bought duplicates of the same firearm.

[86] She bought two Ruger 1702 GP100’s within two months. When asked why, she said it was a mistake and that she meant to buy two different sizes. Despite this mistake, no effort was made to return it or exchange it for the firearm she wanted.

[87] Over the course of this one-and-one-half years, she bought 10 different Glock firearms. Three of them were completely identical – same make, caliber, size, and colour. She bought the first on May 14, 2021. She bought the second one on November 28, 2021. The third was purchased just over a month later on January 8, 2022.

[88] When confronted with this, she claimed she bought an extra for her husband, and another for her son. This is despite the fact that her husband did not have his PAL, and despite the fact that their marriage was in the process of ending because of her admitted affair with Alex. By her evidence, she told her husband about the affair in August 2021, and then he found out the affair never ended in November 2021.

[89] With respect to her son, he was only 13 years old when she bought the duplicate Glock 48’s. He would not be allowed to use the firearm for at least five years.

[90] She also tried to purchase a duplicate Smith & Wesson SD40VE 4.25” Barrel Pistol 40SW, but was stopped by this investigation. For her last purchase, she bought two Glock 19, Gen 4, the only difference appearing to be the color, and one having a Maple Leaf engraving.

[91] Her evidence of how Alex must have got into her safe does not make any sense.

[92] First, she claims he was motivated by their breakup. We now know that the guns retrieved by the Hamilton Police were probably transferred from Ms. Do’s safe before they broke up.

[93] Also, Alex would have to sneak in her back sliding door, go through the home, and then go down the centre staircase. The basement windows were too small to crawl through. He would then have to come back up with at least 15 firearms, silver bars and cash. Some of these firearms were still in their cases, as only 4 cases were left behind. This would have had to occur when her father was always home, and when her mother and son were more regularly home during the pandemic. Also, he would have had to do it at least one to three more times, if there were earlier thefts as theorized by Ms. Do. On each occasion, he would have had to retrieve her key, open up the safe, take what he wanted, and then carefully replace the key. According to her evidence, he did this even on the last occasion when he did not try to otherwise conceal the robbery. On this occasion, there would be no need to conceal the fact that the key was used.

[94] I also find her inability to provide any information about Alex not plausible. She was purportedly in a sexual relationship with this man for approximately one-and-one half years, starting from when she got married, and never learned his full name, where he lived or what he did for a living. Yet, she was comfortable enough to teach him how to sneak into her family home, where her young son and parents lived. To be clear, it is not Ms. Do’s responsibility to investigate or identify Alex for the police, or to prove that he did it, but the lack of evidence about Alex’s identity does not make sense.

[95] Also, on Ms. Do’s evidence, she spent an unreasonable large portion of her income on firearms. Ms. Do did not earn enough income to be able to spend such a large portion of her income on these firearms. She claims that she earned more money, but to accept that she was telling the truth at trial, I would have to accept that she lied to the Canada Revenue Agency. She was also unable to tell the court how much extra she did earn. To be clear, it is not being suggested that Ms. Do’s low income makes her more likely to illegally transfer firearms, but rather the amount she spent on firearms compared to what she said she earned, makes her story implausible.

[96] Also, she claimed to have $5,000 in cash in her safe, that was robbed. She claimed she wanted to save another $5,000 and to give it all to her brother, for his 30th birthday. If she needed another $5,000 in cash, it does not make sense that she continued to buy firearms. In the month prior to her reported robbery, she spent $3,400 alone on firearms, an amount that would have enabled her to reach her goal more readily. The only explanation she had was that she was a poor money manager and was an impulsive shopper.

[97] Finally, I find the timing of the report of theft to be suspicious. The report of a theft came on the very day that she was supposed to provide evidence that she had possession of the fifteen firearms. While viewed alone, it may make sense, but considered with the other evidence, it appears to be the only option open to Ms. Do who needed a reasonable explanation as to why her firearms were missing. Viewing this theft report in light of all the evidence, Ms. Do was motivated to fabricate a story about being robbed.

[98] While individually, each of these inconsistencies or considerations may be plausible, but viewed in their totality, I am left with no reasonable doubt as to Ms. Do’s guilt. Viewed through the lens of logic and in light of human experience, I am left with no other reasonable conclusion other than Ms. Do transferred these firearms without authorization, to someone else.

[99] Ms. Do herself readily admitted that her story made no sense. She kept on referring to her story as “sounding stupid”. At one point she said it sounded absurd.

[100] Finally, Ms. Do argues that the police had “tunnel vision”. They never investigated anyone else. She told them that her son’s father sold drugs. More importantly, she told them that she thought that Alex may have been the thief. Instead, they decided early on that she was a “straw purchaser”, and they looked no further.

[101] Unfortunately, I do not agree. At first, she was treated as a victim of a theft. No charges were laid until three of her firearms showed up at another crime scene. All of the evidence that the police did have, including Ms. Do’s insistence that all the guns were in the safe in mid-January 2022, clearly pointed to her as the culprit behind the transfer of these weapons.

III. Has the Crown Proven the Offences Beyond a Reasonable Doubt?

[102] Having found that I do not believe Ms. Do’s evidence, nor does the defence evidence leave me with a reasonable doubt, I must consider if the evidence I do accept proves the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

[103] Ms. Do is alleged to have committed 16 separate offences. Each allegation is a separate charge. I must make a separate decision and give a separate verdict for each charge, and my decision on each charge may be different. I must make my decision on each charge only on the basis of the evidence that relates to that charge, and the legal principles that apply on that charge. I may not use evidence that relates only to one charge in making my decision on any other charge.

[104] For all firearm offences, the Crown’s evidence is entirely circumstantial. Accordingly, an inference of guilt that I draw from that circumstantial evidence should be the only reasonable inference that such evidence permits. I should consider any other plausible theories or possibilities that are inconsistent with guilt. These other theories must be based on logic and experience applied to the evidence or lack of evidence. To justify a conviction, the circumstantial evidence, viewed logically and in light of human experience, should be such that it excludes any other reasonable alternative: R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, paras 38-42; R. v. Darrington, 2025 ONCA 189, para 5.

A. Unauthorized Transfer of a Restricted Weapon

a. Law

[105] With respect to the charges under s.99(1), the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that for each of the three firearms at issue, that it was a restricted firearm, that Ms. Do transferred that firearm, and that she knew she was not authorized to do so.

[106] The Code defines “transfer” under s.84 to mean “sell, provide, barter, give, lend, rent, send, transport, ship, distribute or deliver”. Accordingly, the Crown does not have to show that an accused received any money or value in exchange for the firearms.

[107] It is not contested that the firearms at issue were restricted and that Ms. Do did not have the proper authorization to transfer any of them. Accordingly, the sole issue for me to determine is whether Ms. Do intended to transfer those restricted firearms.

b. Analysis

[108] Having rejected Ms. Do’s evidence that the firearms were stolen from her safe, the only reasonable inference is that she intended to transfer the firearms. I do not need to find that she gave them to the people who possessed them in November 2021, only that she transferred them to someone else.

[109] This reasonable inference is supported by all the evidence, such as:

a) She purchased multiple firearms in a short period of time;
b) She purchased multiple firearms that she never used;
c) She purchased multiple firearms of which she had little knowledge, despite professing to be interested in them;
d) She purchased duplicates of some firearms for implausible reasons, including that one was for her minor son;
e) Her reported income did not support the amount of money she spent on firearms;
f) Her firearms safe and its key were well hidden, and few people knew about them;
g) Entry of anyone through the back door of her home, who was not known to the family, was unlikely; and
h) Three of the firearms were found in other locations, three months before she claimed they were in her safe, all of which had one or all of their serial numbers defaced.

[110] Accordingly, after considering the totality of the evidence, I am satisfied that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Do intentionally transferred the three firearms recovered in Scarborough. Accordingly, all elements of the offence have been proven for each of these three firearms.

B. Possession for the Purpose of Transfer

a. Law

[111] With respect to the offences under s.100(1), the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Do possessed a restricted firearm, and that she did so with the purpose of transferring it, with or without consideration. Again, it is not contested that Ms. Do possessed the firearms at issue at one time, and that the firearms were restricted. Accordingly, with respect to the 12 counts under s.100(1), the sole issue which I must consider is whether I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Do possessed these firearms with the intent that they be transferred.

b. Analysis

[112] This offence focuses on her purpose and intent. After considering all the evidence, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the only reasonable conclusion is that she possessed the firearms for the purpose of transferring them.

[113] This reasonable inference is supported by the same evidence as set out in my analysis under s. 99(1) of the Code. She has limited knowledge of these firearms. She “mistakenly” bought duplicates. She invested over $16,000 on these firearms, when her income did not support it. The only way she could have continued to spend money on the firearms was by selling them to others.

[114] She claims she collected firearms because she liked the “pow” sound. That being said, she never did fire them, never joined a gun club, and never even tried. By her own evidence, her story made no sense.

[115] Based on the totality of evidence that I do accept, as detailed above, the only reasonable inference is that she purchased these firearms for the purpose of transferring them illegally. Accordingly, the Crown has proven all elements of this offence, beyond a reasonable doubt, for all 12 of the firearms that have not yet been recovered.

C. Public Mischief

a. Law

[116] In order to secure a conviction for this offence, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Do:

a) reported an offence that had not been committed; and
b) that she did it with the intent to mislead a peace officer and cause them to enter into or continue an investigation.

[117] Accordingly, the actus reus of the offence, in our case, is reporting an offence had not been committed, which thereby causes a peace officer to investigate, whereas the mens rea is the intent to mislead a peace officer by so doing: R. v. Delacruz, affirmed 2013 ONCA 61.

[118] As I have already stated, I do not accept Ms. Do’s evidence. I find that she lied to the police when she reported a theft. I find that she reported the robbery intending to mislead the police and to hide her involvement in the transfer of the firearms. It is also clear that this report caused the police to investigate. She was brought into the 22nd Division to make a statement. Investigations into her purchasing history were made. Following the discovery of three of her firearms at an unrelated crime scene, she maintained her theory of the theft, and in fact, expanded it to include multiple thefts so as to explain how the guns ended up in Scarborough. I also have no doubt that the sole purpose for so doing was to mislead the police into believing there was a robbery, and to take suspicion away from her.

[119] Viewed on the totality of the evidence, there is no other reasonable inference to make. Ms. Do continued throughout the trial to maintain that she did not transfer these firearms illegally, or intend to transfer them illegally, and continued to advance her theory that Alex was the probable guilty party. The only reasonable conclusion to reach is that Ms. Do is also guilty of public mischief.

IV. Conclusion

[120] Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, I find Ms. Do guilty on all counts.

Fowler Byrne
Released: May 16, 2025