Trial judge previously received suspension in 2017 for wearing MAGA hat in court
The Ontario Court of Appeal has overturned a conviction for possessing a loaded prohibited firearm, ruling that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient to allow for meaningful appellate review.
The decision focused on whether Justice Bernd Zabel of the Ontario Court of Justice adequately addressed the accused's Charter challenges concerning his right to a trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) and his right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure under s. 8. Justice Zabel, who previously received a 30-day suspension in 2017 for wearing a "Make America Great Again" hat in court, rejected the appellant's Charter applications and convicted him based on an agreed statement of facts.
The case arose after police found a loaded firearm in the trunk of a car that the appellant was driving with three male passengers. The Crown proceeded on a single charge, which was possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm without authorization, contrary to s. 95(2) of the Criminal Code. Justice Zabel rejected the appellant's Charter applications and convicted him based on an agreed statement of facts. The defence did not present evidence, make submissions, or contest the conviction at trial.
On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge's reasons for dismissing the s. 11(b) and s. 8 applications did not permit meaningful appellate review. He claimed that the trial judge failed to make key factual findings, did not specify which aspects of the Crown's submissions he relied upon, and did not engage in independent legal reasoning. He argued that, in substance, Justice Zabel's reasons for both his applications adopted the Crown's submissions. While acknowledging that simply adopting a party's submissions does not automatically render reasons insufficient, the appellant maintained that, in this case, the lack of detailed analysis prevented proper appellate review. The Crown conceded that more detailed reasons would have been "preferable" but argued that the judge's decision was still sufficient.
The Court of Appeal ruled that the trial judge's reasoning did not meet the required standard. According to the court, the substance of his reasons was “a boilerplate adoption” of the Crown’s submissions. The court noted, "Poor reasons, in themselves, do not justify appellate intervention. Appellate intervention is only warranted where the insufficiency of reasons prevents meaningful appellate review."
The court found that the s. 8 application concerned whether police lawfully searched the vehicle's trunk under s. 12(3) of the Cannabis Control Act, involving multiple unresolved legal and factual issues. The trial judge did not specify the legal basis for his conclusion that the search was lawful, nor did he determine whether the items in the trunk were "readily available to any person in the vehicle" as required under s. 12(2)(b). He also did not conduct a s. 24(2) Charter analysis in case he found a s. 8 breach.
The appeal court also found the s. 11(b) reasons inadequate. The trial judge did not explain the basis for attributing certain delays to the defence or clarify how he assessed whether a delay waiver was valid. His reasons did not engage with the affidavit evidence presented on the need for a second judicial pre-trial, nor did he explain how late disclosure of the s. 11(b) application factored into his analysis.
The court stressed that for reasons to be sufficient, they must clearly explain the decision, the reasoning behind it, and the logical link between them. The court emphasized that while trial court workloads are heavy, judges must provide clear and reasoned decisions to ensure meaningful appellate review. The ruling concluded that the lack of explanation in this case undermined confidence in the decision-making process.
Ultimately, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and ordered a new trial on the firearm charge.
