Tom Mack

The accused was charged with firearm offences after police executed a search warrant at a condominium unit and found a loaded restricted firearm in a bag in a bedroom closet.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence to prove constructive possession, arguing the accused was the leaseholder and occupied the bedroom.

The court found that while the accused had joint control of the bedroom, the evidence did not rule out the reasonable inference that a co-occupant had sole possession of the hidden firearm without the accused's knowledge.

The accused was found not guilty.

The accused was convicted of sexual interference for touching his step-daughter's buttocks.

The court found the accused ineligible for a conditional discharge as the offence could not be proven to have occurred before the maximum penalty was increased.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for sexual offences against children by persons in a position of trust, the court imposed a 60-day intermittent custodial sentence, reduced to 11 days after credit for pre-trial custody and strict bail conditions, followed by two years' probation.

Following a jury verdict finding the accused guilty of sexual interference and sexual assault against his stepdaughter, the defence requested a bifurcated hearing to determine the proven facts for sentencing.

The court applied the principles from R. v. Ferguson to determine the factual implications of the ambiguous jury verdict.

Due to significant credibility and reliability issues with the complainant's evidence regarding hundreds of alleged incidents, the court found only the minimum consistent facts proven.

The court concluded that only one incident of touching the complainant's buttocks was proven beyond a reasonable doubt for the purpose of sentencing.

This criminal trial concerned charges of possession of a prohibited firearm and two prohibited extended magazines, and possession of a firearm with a defaced serial number.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of two police officers, whose accounts contained critical contradictions regarding the accused's actions and the sequence of events leading to the discovery of the firearm.

The court applied principles of possession and the assessment of circumstantial evidence, particularly the guidance from R. v. Villaroman, which states that if reasonable inferences other than guilt can be drawn, the Crown has not met the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Due to the inconsistencies in police testimony, the lack of direct evidence of the accused handling the firearm, and the absence of forensic links (DNA or fingerprints), the court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew of or controlled the items.