Firearms Cases

June 26, 2023

Firearms-Cases Our track record in handling firearms cases speaks for itself. We have successfully defended clients facing firearms-related charges, leveraging our deep understanding of firearms laws.

R. v. A.K. (Toronto)

Allegations: A.K. faced serious gun and drug charges, including, unauthorized possession firearm, point firearm and possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine and fentanyl. Police responded to a call of a male with a firearm in downtown Toronto. It was alleged the A.K. pointed a firearm at an officer while fleeing from the police. Later, a search warrant was obtained for a vehicle, which contained approximately 50 grams of fentanyl that the Crown alleged belonged to A.K. The evidence included video and A.K. being found in possession of the car keys for the vehicle within which the drugs were located. If convicted, he faced a custodial sentence of 6-8 years in jail.

Result: The firearm charges were dismissed. The trial judge further agreed with Mr. Fedorowicz that the Crown failed to establish possession of the drugslocated inside the vehicle beyond a reasonable doubt and, a result, his client was found not guilty.

R. V. A.A. (Brampton)

Allegations: A.A. faced charges of drug trafficking, possessing a loaded firearm, and possessing proceeds of crime following a police investigation spurred by a confidential source. The search of A.A.’s residence uncovered drugs, cash, and a loaded firearm.

Strategy: A challenge was made under section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing that the search warrant was issued without sufficient reasonable grounds, violating A.A.’s privacy rights. The defence successfully argued that the evidence should be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

Result: A.A. was found not guilty of all charges due to the exclusion of evidence.


Allegations: Police execute a search warrant at S.H.’s residence. Locate a loaded firearm in addition to a large quantity of heroin and cocaine. Defence Strategy: Application filed asserting violations of S.H.’s constitutional rights. That search was unlawful because the police misled the issuing justice, and that the warrant was issued without reasonable grounds. Result: Application granted. The trial judge agrees with the defence counsel that S.H.’s Charter rights were violated and all evidence must be excluded. All charges were dismissed.


Allegations: Vehicle involved in a high-speed pursuit with police that results in a crash. A firearm was thrown while the driver (who was alleged to be M.K.) and passenger fled the scene. Chase is captured by an in-car police camera. Defence Strategy: Establish there is reasonable doubt that the firearm was discarded by the driver. It was equally plausible that the firearm was discarded by the passenger. Result: The judge finds there existed reasonable doubt that M.K. threw the firearm. Not guilty of possessing a firearm.


Allegations: During a traffic stop, police locate a firearm on the floor of the rear driver-side passenger. Also, locate cell phones in the same area. Defence Strategy: Reasonable doubt that K.A. possessed the firearm. The firearm, along with the phone, belonged to individuals who had recent access to the rear seat. Result: Not guilty of possessing a firearm.


Allegations: C.J. is facing charges of attempted murder with a firearm. Police alleged that client shot the victim on the subway platform during the afternoon commute. The victim identifies C.J. as the shooter in a statement to police and at the preliminary hearing. Strategy: Point to lack of evidence identifying the client as the shooter. The earlier identification of C.J. was unreliable. The victim had a dispute with C.J., which was a motive for false identification. Result: Not guilty of all charges.


Allegations: The client is arrested as part of the Guns and Gangs investigation “Project Sizzle.” Police located a loaded semi-automatic handgun inside T.M.’s residence. Strategy: Apply to exclude evidence pursuant to s. 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the basis that no grounds existed for the issuance of the search warrant. Result: The judge agrees that T.M.’s right to be free from unreasonable search is violated—charge of possession of firearm dismissed.


Allegations: N.S. faced serious charges of possessing and pointing a firearm. The Crown’s theory was that N.S. and the complainant became involved in a dispute after leaving the bar. The argument escalated to the point that N.S. retrieved and threatened to shoot the complainant with the firearm. Strategy: Mr. Fedorowicz’s cross-examination of the Crown’s witnesses effectively exposed their lack of credibility and reliability. Their evidence was inconsistent and did not make sense. In his closing address to the jury, Mr. Fedorowicz pointed to the absence of any independent evidence that supported the police version of events. The end result was that the Crown had failed to establish his client’s guilt to the high standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. Result: The jury finds N.S. not guilty after deliberating for only a few hours.


Allegations: Police respond to the home of P.D., who was going through a stressful period in his life. Police eventually discovered that P.D. had a Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL) and kept several firearms at the residence. Police seized the firearms and commenced an application for forfeiture under s. 117.05(2) of the Criminal Code. Strategy: Mr. Fedorowicz presented the Crown Attorney with a package of material to establish his client was a law-abiding citizen that was going through a temporary, stressful time in his life. The firearms were otherwise safely stored. As a result, there was no reasonable basis to believe that the return of the firearms would present any risk to either P.D. or a member of the public. Result: Crown abandons application for forfeiture. Firearms returned without a hearing.