Breaking and entering to steal firearm, Weapons trafficking
R. v. L.F.A.N.
A publication ban applies. The offender is not named.
Sentence and the Crown's position
What the law allows
A jury found the offender guilty of breaking and entering a Richmond residence and stealing firearms in August 2020, and of transferring one of the stolen rifles to an undercover officer for $3,000 in December 2020. Justice Edelmann found a global sentence of five and a half years warranted but reduced it to five years' imprisonment, less 135 days' credit, because of a breach of the offender's s. 9 Charter rights during the undercover operation. The firearm transfer carried a three-year mandatory minimum, which the offender did not challenge.
In the judge's words
1Setting aside the Charter breach, as I noted, I would have considered a sentence of five and a half years to be warranted in the circumstances. However, given the state misconduct in the investigation which led to the sale of the firearm to the undercover officer, I conclude that a sentence of five years more adequately addresses the principles of sentencing, including those set out in Nasogaluak.
The record
- Convicted of
- Breaking and entering to steal firearm (CC 98)
- Weapons trafficking (CC 99(2))
- Prior convictions
- 2 prior convictions1
- At the time of the offence
- Not stated1
- Mandatory minimum
- Applied1
- Appeal
- Not yet checked
- Counsel
- Crown: R.J. Antonuk, F. Nejatali
Defence: P.J. Butler
Sources
- R. v. L.F.A.N., 2025 BCSC 845 Court decision, CanLII, April 14, 2025
[36] Mr. … was found guilty of transferring a non‑restricted firearm, contrary to s. 99(1) of the Criminal Code, which provides for a mandatory minimum punishment of three years and a maximum punishment of not exceeding 14 years. … [37] Mr. … challenges neither the applicability nor the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentence in the circumstances.
[23] Mr. … has a criminal record, mainly for property‑related offences. However, all of his convictions postdate the offences that are before me. Only two of the offence dates, one for possession of stolen property and another for identity theft, predate the offences before me.
[53] Setting aside the Charter breach, as I noted, I would have considered a sentence of five and a half years to be warranted in the circumstances. However, given the state misconduct in the investigation which led to the sale of the firearm to the undercover officer, I conclude that a sentence of five years more adequately addresses the principles of sentencing, including those set out in Nasogaluak.
[55] Mr. … was arrested on January 14th for breaching bail and has been in custody since that time for a total of 90 days. The Crown agrees that … should get credit at 1.5 days per day that he has spent in presentence custody, which would result in a credit of 135 days. … I will be sentencing you to a further sentence of four years and 230 days, taking into consideration the credit of 135 days, and so the record would reflect a five
- R. v. L.F.A.N., 2025 BCSC 845 Court decision, Courts of British Columbia