R v Baba – 2006 OJ No 5387 (OCJ – Trotter):

[1] G. TROTTER J. (orally):— Mr. Baba is charged with numerous offences involving drugs and firearms. Police executed a search warrant at a hotel room on Dixon Road near the airport, in which they found a duffle bag containing almost two kilograms of cocaine, 482 grams of marijuana and almost 1,000 ecstasy pills. It goes without saying that the quantity and value of these drugs is substantial. Also found in the bag was a loaded Glock handgun with a high-capacity magazine clip.

[2] The facts before me suggest that the accused and another individual were observed by the police around the hotel room, coming and going. The hotel room was rented to somebody else at the time. The Crown alleges that the accused and his co-accused were exercising control over the room and the contents therein. Shortly after the police discovered these items in the Holiday Inn on Dixon Road the accused was apprehended at a gas station nearby. He was searched and the police found another loaded handgun with a high-capacity magazine. A further 99 grams of cocaine was found on his person.

[3] Mr. Baba is 20 years old. He has no criminal record. He has no legitimate job. Until recently, he was living with his parents. For the past seven months he has been living with his girlfriend. However, he has maintained weekly telephone and personal contact with his parents.

[4] By virtue of some of the drug offences with which he is charged, the onus is on the accused to justify his release.

[5] He adduced evidence from his parents. Both struck me as honest and hardworking people, perplexed by what their son is alleged to have done. Both are prepared to support him by signing for his release as sureties. They have assets only in cash at this point, probably in the amount of $6,000 to $7,000. A friend of the family also testified. She has known the accused for seven years. She is prepared to be a surety. She has $200,000 equity in real estate, but wishes to pledge only $5,000. She was asked if she would be prepared to pledge more. She said that she would, but it was clear to me that she was not keen on doing so.

[6] There is no real issue on the primary ground in this case. The focus must be on the secondary and tertiary grounds. The offences which Mr. Baba faces are serious. Mr. Sack in his excellent submissions did not suggest anything less. The Crown’s case is seemingly strong at this point. I find that it is extremely strong, at this point, on the second set of charges related to the drugs and the gun found on his person. While the evidence is less strong on Mr. Baba’s connection to the hotel room, there is a reasonably cogent case that he was involved in significant drug trafficking with the use of firearms. It is concerning that the accused was arrested in a public place with a firearm that was loaded. It is very early in the proceedings and of course, this is not meant to be a trial, but it is fair to say that, if convicted, Mr. Baba will face a substantial term of imprisonment in the penitentiary.

[7] The onus makes a difference in this case. On all of the evidence I am not satisfied that Mr. Baba has discharged his onus that he will not commit further offences if released on bail. His sureties are honest and hardworking people. The plan is a good one in theory. However, after listening to them and watching them testify, I am not sure that they have such a good connection with their son and a sufficient understanding of his present life such that they would be effective sureties.