Sharna Reid

The accused were charged with firearms offences after police found two loaded handguns in satchels in the back seat of a rented vehicle they were occupying.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence and DNA profiles linking the accused to the firearms.

The court acquitted one accused entirely, finding reasonable doubt regarding his knowledge and control of the firearms.

The other accused was acquitted of charges relating to one firearm due to the possibility of indirect DNA transfer, but convicted of possession of the second firearm.

The court also held that the second firearm, which was inoperable but easily repairable, met the definition of a firearm for simple possession but not for possession in a motor vehicle or possession of a loaded firearm.

The accused was charged with possession of a firearm and ammunition after police executed a search warrant and found the contraband hidden in a basement where the accused was staying.

At the close of the Crown's case, the defence brought a motion for a directed verdict.

The court found that while there was circumstantial evidence the accused had control of the basement, there was no evidence he had knowledge of the hidden firearm and ammunition.

The motion for a directed verdict was granted and the accused was acquitted of all charges.

The accused, Nakhari Henry-Robinson, pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded restricted firearm, careless storage of a firearm, and breaches of a release order and a probation order.

The court considered aggravating factors, including a significant and related criminal record and the dangerous nature of possessing a loaded firearm in a public place.

Mitigating factors included an early guilty plea, the accused's youth (22 years old), challenging social context (anti-Black racism, poverty, exposure to gun violence), and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions due to lockdowns and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The judge emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing principles for firearms offences, rejecting the defence's argument for a conditional sentence or time served.

The court imposed a sentence of 40 months for the firearm offence, with concurrent sentences for the other charges, resulting in 17.5 months of additional jail time after accounting for pre-sentence custody credit.

The accused, a first-time offender, was convicted by a jury of reckless discharge of a firearm and occupying a motor vehicle knowing of the presence of a firearm.

The offences occurred after the accused's vehicle was vandalized, leading him to counsel the driver of an SUV to fire shots towards a townhouse complex.

The court imposed the mandatory minimum sentence of four years for the reckless discharge offence, noting the harshness of the penalty given the accused's youth and excellent rehabilitation prospects.

The court also awarded 89 days of pre-sentence credit, including 81 days for time spent under strict house arrest conditions.

The accused was charged with robbery, aggravated assault, breach of recognizance, and failing to comply with a probation order.

The complainant, a heroin addict with a criminal history, alleged a violent attack and robbery by the accused and others.

The court found the complainant to be an incredible and unreliable witness due to inconsistencies, exaggerations, mistaken identifications, and admitted lies.

While the complainant suffered serious injuries, the Crown failed to prove the accused's involvement in the robbery and aggravated assault beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted of robbery, aggravated assault, and breach of probation, but found guilty of breach of recognizance based on his plea and supporting evidence.

The two accused were charged with sexual assault following an incident in a hotel room.

The complainant alleged she blacked out from alcohol consumption and awoke to find one accused sexually assaulting her while the other was present, after having been assaulted by the first accused while unconscious.

The court found the complainant's evidence regarding her memory loss unreliable, noting it conflicted with toxicological evidence and her behavior captured on video.

Both accused testified, with one claiming consensual sex and the other denying any sexual contact.

The court found the evidence of the accused raised a reasonable doubt and acquitted both men.

Following a jury conviction for second degree murder, the court determined the appropriate period of parole ineligibility under s. 745.4 of the Criminal Code.

The offender argued for the 10‑year statutory minimum while the Crown sought 13 years.

The court considered the nature and brutality of the stabbing, the circumstances surrounding the meeting with the victim, and the offender’s efforts to conceal the crime.

Although the offender had no criminal record and some mitigating personal circumstances, the attack was particularly violent and involved luring the victim to an isolated location.

Balancing aggravating and mitigating factors and considering jury recommendations, the court imposed a 12‑year period of parole ineligibility.

The accused were arrested after police conducted a high-risk takedown of a parked vehicle based on an uncorroborated confidential informant tip alleging cocaine was inside.

Officers arrested the occupants at gunpoint and searched the vehicle, discovering cocaine and a loaded prohibited firearm.

The court held the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest or search, as the tip was vague, the source’s credibility was not established, and there was no meaningful corroboration.

The warrantless arrest and search breached the accused’s rights under ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter.

Applying the s. 24(2) framework from Grant, the court found the police conduct deliberate and serious and excluded the evidence, resulting in acquittals.

The accused brought a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal at the close of the Crown’s case on charges including robbery with a firearm, unlawful confinement, and conspiracy to commit robbery.

The defence argued that there was insufficient evidence that a real firearm had been used and that the conspiracy charge lacked proof of an agreement.

The court applied the directed verdict test and concluded there was evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could convict, including circumstantial evidence suggesting the accused lured the complainant to a motel where the robbery occurred and evidence supporting an inference that a firearm was used.

The court declined to amend the indictment to refer to an imitation firearm and found that the circumstantial evidence could support the inference of participation in a conspiracy.

The motion for a directed verdict was dismissed.

During a jury trial for robbery while armed with a firearm, the accused sought leave to re-open the defence case after both parties had delivered closing submissions but before the jury charge.

The defence sought to introduce cell phone records showing several brief calls from the accused’s phone to the complainant’s phone the day after the robbery, arguing the evidence would rebut an inference of consciousness of guilt arising from the absence of post‑incident contact.

The court held that although the proposed evidence was relevant, its probative value was low because the calls were extremely brief and equally consistent with guilt as with innocence.

The judge also found that the defence had possessed the records for months and made a deliberate tactical decision not to introduce them during the trial.

Allowing the case to be re‑opened after closing arguments would prejudice the Crown and undermine the orderly conduct of the trial.

The motion to re‑open the evidence was therefore refused.