3 total
Offender sentenced to 4.5 years for loaded firearm in vehicle; reduced to time served due to lockdown credits.
The offender was convicted of multiple firearms offences, including possession of a loaded restricted firearm with a defaced serial number hidden in his vehicle, and breaching a weapons prohibition order.
The Crown sought a global sentence of 6.5 years, arguing the offence was at the 'true crime' end of the spectrum.
The court disagreed, finding no evidence the firearm was possessed for drug trafficking, and imposed a global sentence of 4.5 years.
The court granted enhanced pre-sentence credit for harsh lockdown conditions at the Toronto South Detention Centre, resulting in a sentence of time served.
The offender's vehicle was ordered forfeited as offence-related property.
Section 8 Charter application dismissed; warrantless vehicle seizure and subsequent search warrant were lawful.
The applicant brought a motion under section 8 of the Charter to exclude evidence (a firearm) found in his vehicle, arguing that the initial warrantless seizure of the vehicle and the subsequent search warrant were unlawful.
The court found that the investigating officer had reasonable and probable grounds to seize the vehicle without a warrant under section 489(2) of the Criminal Code, as it matched the description of a vehicle involved in a recent shooting and was believed to contain trace evidence.
Alternatively, the seizure was lawful under the Highway Traffic Act due to improper license plates.
The court also dismissed the applicant's Garofoli challenge, finding that despite some minor errors and omissions in the Information to Obtain (ITO), the issuing justice could still have granted the search warrant.
The application was dismissed.
Accused convicted of firearms possession but acquitted of attempted murder due to reasonable doubt on identity.
The accused was charged with attempted murder and various firearms offences following a drive-by shooting.
The firearm used in the shooting was later found hidden in the dashboard of the accused's vehicle.
The Crown's case was circumstantial, relying on the accused's ownership of the vehicle, his use of the vehicle around the time of the shooting, and a fabricated report to police that the vehicle had been stolen.
The court found the accused guilty of the firearms possession charges, concluding he had constructive possession and knowledge of the firearm hidden in his vehicle.
However, the court acquitted the accused of the attempted murder charges, finding a reasonable inference that someone else may have been driving the vehicle at the time of the shooting.