 |
| John L. Hill |
The OPP provincial weapons enforcement unit led the execution of the search warrant as part of an ongoing investigation after over 40 firearms were seized from a vehicle stopped by police on Highway 401 near Prescott, Ont. The operation was assisted by the OPP’s tactics and rescue unit, as well as the emergency response team and officers from the Akwesasne Mohawk Police Service.
The Cornwall Police Service, Canada Border Services Agency, and U.S. Homeland Security Investigations also participated in the investigation.
Officers seized ammunition, a laptop and cellphones. Two individuals, including Laffin, were taken into
Veronika Oliinyk
Laffin and his co-accused were each charged with possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking, importing a firearm knowing it is unauthorized, unauthorized importing of a firearm, and conspiracy to commit an indictable offence.
Laffin was convicted of possessing firearms for the purpose of trafficking under s. 100 of the Criminal Code, having 43 illegal firearms, parts and high-capacity magazines. He received a seven-year sentence and applied for bail pending appeal.
Justice Grant Huscroft of the Appeal Court heard the motion on Aug. 21, 2025, with the judge’s written endorsement documented as R. v. Laffin, 2025 ONCA 605.
Justice Huscroft explained that, to obtain bail, Laffin, through his counsel, had to prove: (1) the appeal is not frivolous, (2) he would surrender into custody, and (3) detention is not needed in the public interest. The only issues were (1) and (3). There was no concern that Laffin would refuse to surrender into custody if bail was granted for the appeal.
Laffin’s proposed appeal arguments — that the judge’s reasons were inadequate, that a finding of guilt was the only reasonable conclusion (based on the test established in R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33), and that the judge failed to properly apply the test for knowledge and control of the items in the vehicle — all failed.
Although the standard for satisfying the “not frivolous” criterion is low (R. v. Manasseri, 2013 ONCA 647; R. v. Oland, 2017 SCC 17), the grounds Laffin presented were so weak that they did not establish a reviewability interest that outweighed the public interest in immediate enforcement of the decision to keep Laffin in custody. The public interest outlined in Oland requires not only assurance of public safety but also public confidence in the justice system.
Justice Huscroft was satisfied that Laffin’s arguments met the low “not frivolous” threshold but were very weak on the merits. Strong evidence of actual possession included video of the appellant transferring a suitcase full of guns, with his co-accused acting as lookout.
On the public interest test, the seriousness of the offence — linked to a large cache of dangerous firearms associated with gun violence — and the weakness of the appeal outweighed any interest in reviewability. Granting bail would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.
Unlike other cases where bail was granted (e.g. R. v. Ansari, 2023 ONCA 601), this case involved an extremely serious conviction with little prospect of success on appeal. Laffin’s appeal was dismissed.
It did not make the front page of the Cornwall Standard-Freeholder on Feb. 5, 2003, when 18-year-old Brandon Laffin and three other family members were reported in custody after U.S. authorities conducted a massive US$1.2-million marijuana seizure and found about US$120,000 in cash.
Perhaps Justice Huscroft was worried that granting bail on appeal in the current political climate — where police and judges are criticized for allowing “catch and release” to be standard when criminals are arrested — would become front-page news.
John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a J.D. from Queen’s and an LL.M. in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. His most recent book, Acts of Darkness (Durvile & UpRoute Books) was released July 1. Hill is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books) and The Rest of the (True Crime) Story (AOS Publishing). Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.