CITATION: R. v. Bennett, 2026 ONSC 2765
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
– and –
FREDERICK BENNETT
Defendant
Sara Samet, James Mencel, Arian Khader, for the Crown
Self-represented Defendant Mitchell Chernovsky, amicus curia
HEARD: April 20- May 14, 2026
JUSTICE S. NAKATSURU
1Frederick Bennett is charged with many gun trafficking and related offences. He is self-represented at his trial. Amicus counsel has been helping.
2Usually, I do not speak to the defendant directly when dealing with my decisions on guilt or innocence. But to make sure you understand my decision, Mr. Bennett, I will address you in the first person. And as simply as possible.
3You know how the police investigation, Project Saxophone, started. It started in America by investigators with Homeland Security Investigation. They were investigating firearm offences. I appreciate you have complaints and concerns about what Homeland Security did. You also made arguments about in your closing submissions. As I have said before. Many times. We will deal with them in a separate hearing after the trial is over. They will not be ignored.
4After closely looking at all the evidence, I find that the Crown has proven all the essential elements of each count in the Indictment. I will not go through each count separately. That will take too long. And serve no useful purpose.
5Also, no useful purpose is served in the unique circumstances of this case to go through the evidence in any detail. To be blunt, the Crown’s case is overwhelming.
6That said, I will explain to you the core reasons why I am convicting you on everything.
7To start, as I have said repeatedly before, you start this trial presumed to be innocent. You finish the trial presumed to be innocent until the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt each offence. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a very high standard. I must be sure of your guilt. If not, you must be acquitted. Looking at the whole of the evidence, I am sure that the Crown has proven each essential element of each offence you face.
8I must look at the whole of the evidence. The evidence relevant to each count must be considered separately. I cannot use evidence on one count as evidence you are guilty of another count. In other words, I do not in my head reason if you are guilty of one count of gun trafficking that is some evidence you are guilty of a separate count of gun trafficking. For certain, I do not think because you committed one crime, you are the type of person that is likely to commit another crime you are charged with.
9Proof by the Crown relies heavily on the testimony of the Under Cover Officer.1 In summary, beginning at the end of January, 2023, lasting until September, 2023, you and this Under Cover Officer are said to have done eight in-person transactions where you sold the officer 20 handguns and rifles along with magazines and ammunition for a total of $101,300. The transactions were arranged by the encrypted messaging platform, Signal, using text, audio, and video messaging. Also, a few telephone conversations. The sales transactions allegedly happened during the day in parking lots of shopping malls where you both arrived in cars. There were police cover teams there watching. The firearms were seized and tested. In many ways, this is a simple and straightforward case.
10Why am I convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty?
11I accept the evidence of the Under Cover Officer. The Under Cover Officer was honest. The Under Cover Officer’s evidence was reliable. He had lots of opportunities to communicate and meet you. He had the various Signal messages he had with you to refresh his memory from. They also confirm his testimony. He also had notes and debriefing summaries to refresh his memory from. You have argued that he did not record some conversations with you. I do not find this lessened the weight of his evidence as refreshed from his notes. His notes were detailed although not verbatim. The verbal conversations he recalled were consistent with the Signal messages and the context of what was happening at the time.
12None of the cross-examination impeached his credibility or made me question his accuracy. The one time when he did not make a continuous screenshot of a Signal message at the end of January, 2023, is of no moment. It was a simple mistake by the officer, and I can tell the messages were complete on those days. Nothing is missing. The fact that there was no metadata retrieved, and the phone used by the Under Cover Officer was no longer available, does not lead me to question the honesty or accuracy of his testimony. There are a lot of messages that support his testimony.
13I can and do give a lot of weight to the Under Cover Officer’s testimony.
14Despite amicus’s submission, I do not agree that issues related to entrapment has any negative effect on the Under Cover Officer’s credibility. The answers he gave to questions that relate to entrapment were honest and reliable. In no way did he try to shield the prosecution from allegations of entrapment. The fact he did not try and make inquiries of Homeland Security Investigation, makes sense, given his specific role as the undercover operative.
15The Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was you who sold the various firearms, magazines, and ammunition. I find the Crown has.
16First, the Under Cover Officer has identified you as that person. I accept that testimony. They had repeated in-person interactions with you, over many months. Some involved discussions about future deals, suppliers, and pricing. The Under Cover Officer had the chance to be very familiar with your appearance, voice, mannerism and behavior. This really supports the identification: (see the case of R. v. Baksh, 2022 ONCA 48, at paras. 23-29, where the Ontario Court of Appeal said it was okay for a judge to reason from several meetings between an undercover officer and accused that this can support an identification). On the other hand, I give little weight to Staff Sgt. Gallagher and D.C. Banasik’s identification of you. But that does not really matter given the great weight I give to the Under Cover Officer’s identification.
17Second, although I do not need to resort to any other evidence to find it was you, the photos taken by the surveillance team support the Under Cover Operator’s identification. I have looked closely at them. Using appropriate caution, I can say the images look very much like you.
18Third, the audio messages and videos sent by you. I am sure that this is your voice. I exercise the significant caution that I must, but given my familiarity with your voice, I am confident it is you speaking. Cadence, tone, timbre, inflection, and manner of speech. They match. Indeed, your style and tone of voice is pretty unique. Especially the August 18, 2023, voice message you left. It’s long, rapid, and verbose. It is you. I have no doubt.
19That said, I will ignore this voice evidence. I agree with Mr. Chernovsky that given you are self-represented and you have made much submissions on your own behalf at trial that gives me such familiarity with your voice, there may well be Charter considerations as well as just fairness considerations that warn me that maybe I should not rely on this evidence. So, I will not.
20The Crown must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the firearms and related items like the ammunition and magazine seized from you were the firearms and devices tested and certified in the certificates of analysis and referred to in the affidavits. I am so satisfied. The evidence of the Under Cover Officer along with the photographs taken of the items and the evidence of the other police officer who seized them to the point they made their way to the hands of the certifying police officer, proves this. The Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that these are prohibited firearms, registered firearms, or prohibited devices as the case may be.
21As well, I am satisfied based upon the affidavits introduced by the Crown that you had no legal authority or right to sell or possess any of these firearms or devices.
22Finally, the evidence speaks for itself that you sold and possessed the weapons and related items.
23It is important for the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the mental element for each of the separate offences.
24I find that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you knowingly sold to the Under Cover Officer these illegal firearms and devices and knew you were not authorized to do so. Simply, you knew you were committing this crime of gun trafficking.
25The Signal messages including the audio messages are clear. Easy to interpret. And consistent. They were properly identified by the Under Cover Officer. Additional ways of authenticating them are not necessary in this circumstance. You are the “Mr. Priceless” on the messages.
26While other things are discussed, these communications are about each transaction of the sale of the firearms. You two talk about agreeing to sell specific firearms and the meeting spots for the exchange. You two talk about things that clearly show you know these are illegal guns. I know what guns you are talking about. They are the ones charged against you. Indeed, sometimes there are images of the firearms that were later sold.
27This is undeniable evidence that you knew that these were illegal firearms and magazines that you could not legally possess or transfer them. This is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, the in-person conversations and verbal calls support this finding. Aside from perhaps the first transaction, I find that you were engaged in brokering the illegal sales of the weapons from your suppliers to the Under Cover Officer’s own purchasers.
28The Crown has also proven the counts of possessing a firearm knowing that the serial number has been altered, defaced, or removed beyond a reasonable doubt. First, you had no lawful excuse to do that. Second, the photos and the Staff Sgt. Vicker’s testimony clearly prove the firearms in question had the serial numbers removed or defaced. The images show that these serial numbers were deliberately removed by some mechanism. Said differently, they were not just worn off through use or time or obstructed partially or in whole, by accident.
29Additionally, the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you knew that the serial numbers were removed or defaced when you possessed the firearms. The removal or defacing is obvious to anyone who would even casually see the firearm. You had the firearms in your possession for some period. In other words, you had a chance to see them. And you were instrumental in their illegal sale, meaning the circumstances would be such that you would likely have inspected them just to make sure that they were the guns that the Under Cover Officer had ordered.
30Even beyond that, s. 108(4) of the Criminal Code has a rebuttable presumption that if you possessed the firearms, you knew the serial number was altered, defaced, or removed. No evidence was called by you, nor does any evidence arise from the Crown’s case that rebuts that presumption.
31Finally, it is so clear that all the essential elements of the offences of possessing money knowing that it was obtained by the commission of an Indictable offence has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. You knew the money handed to you from the Under Cover Officer was the product of illegal firearms trafficking.
32The following are the counts and transactions that I find you guilty of:
(a) Counts 1 - 6. February 13, 2023. In this first transaction, you first met with the Under Cover Officer at the Yorkdale Mall. After discussions, you two drove to the Scarborough Town Center. You exited a white Lexus and entered the Under Cover Officer’s car, counted the money, and then took two bags from the white Lexus and placed them in the trunk of the Under Cover Officer’s car. Inside the bags was a Tec-9 handgun and a Junior Carbine with serial numbers removed. In a white sock was two magazines and ammunition. Two magazines were overcapacity. You left with $11,500.
(b) Counts 7 – 10. February 23, 2023. After arranging the sale through messaging, the Under Cover Officer went to Yorkdale Mall. You entered the car. You sold the Under Cover Officer a Taurus and a Glock for $10,300. Magazines with ammunition as well. One magazine was overcapacity.
(c) Counts 11 – 15. March 21, 2023. The sale took place at the Scarborough Town Center. You got in the Under Cover Officer’s car and told him to remove a magazine with ammunition and a Bersa handgun from a satchel you were wearing. You came back momentarily and the Under Cover Officer removed a Glock handgun with an empty magazine from the satchel. The serial number was defaced. The magazine was overcapacity. You received $10,300.
(d) Counts 16 – 19. May 17, 2023. This sale involved two non-restricted rifles as well as the unauthorized transfer of ammunition. You arranged for the sale of two rifles, a GSG-16 rifle and a Mossberg 715T rifle, “banana” and drum magazines, and 22 caliber ammunition, which were in a black hockey bag and a TV cardboard box that you placed in the Under Cover Officer’s car’s trunk at the Scarborough Town Center. The items matched the photos sent earlier by you. The total amount of the sale was $9,500.
(e) Counts 20 – 28. July 13, 2023. This transaction involved five Smith and Wesson handguns. You two went to the Yorkdale Mall. This time, the Under Cover Officer fronted the $22,000 purchase price you had arranged before on Signal messages. You left and then came back about 25 minutes later with a bag with the five handguns in it. Three magazines were overcapacity. Four of the handguns were prohibited and one was restricted.
(f) Counts 45 – 47. August 15, 2023. In this transaction, a Taurus G2C was agreed to be sold. It was sold for $4,700 at the Scarborough Town Center with an overcapacity magazine. You gave the officer a black gift bag with the items in it.
(g) Counts 48 – 51. August 21, 2023. After further communication, you agreed to sell two Smith and Wesson handguns and a Springfield Armory handgun for a total of $14,000. You got into the Under Cover Officer’s car at the Yorkdale Mall initially but left shortly as you seemed concerned about law enforcement in the area. Shortly after moving location, you handed the Under Cover Officer a grey shopping bag with a handgun, left, then returned with a gift bag with the other two guns in it. They came with magazines and ammunition.
(h) Counts 59 – 65. September 17, 2023. You sent the Under Cover Officer a photograph of two AR-style rifles and a handgun. The price agreed to was $19,000. You met at the Scarborough Town Center. You put a blue bag with the guns inside in the trunk of the officer’s car and received the cash. The magazines sold were also overcapacity.
Justice S. Nakatsuru
Released: May 14, 2026
COURT FILE NO.: CR-24-20000673-0000
DATE: 20260514
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
Crown
- and -
FREDERICK BENNETT
Defendant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
NAKATSURU J.
Released: May 14, 2026