Proactive policing includes the practice of heightening police presence to reduce crime. But a recent ruling from the Alberta Court of King’s Bench on a disclosure motion may indicate that other important outcomes are unclear. Is it good law enforcement policy to get guns off the streets if police initiatives are based on inaccurate information that undermine the cases they bring to court?

1. Introduction

On October 20, 2025, the trial of Brian Adams, Harliv Cheema and Ethan Phan commenced before Justice Derek Jugnauth in the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta, at Calgary, Alberta without a jury. The defendants were charged with firearm offences stemming from a motor vehicle stop on July 15, 2023. Mansoor Mohammad was the operator and registered owner of the vehicle. During cross examination, one of the police officers referred to a report containing his knowledge of the criminal histories of Messrs. Mohamed and Adams. The report, along with similar reports prepared by two other officers, were provided to the Crown twenty months before the trial began but not disclosed to the defendants until the fifth day of trial. The late disclosure triggered a mid-trial motion for additional disclosure. The Crown asserted that the disclosure sought on the motion was clearly irrelevant, not fruits of the investigation and constituted third party disclosure. On January 14, 2026, Justice Jugnauth released the ruling indexed as R. v. Adams holding that the materials were “obviously relevant” to claims of arbitrary arrest and unreasonable search and seizure advanced by the defendants under ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. (here)

2. Background

Members of the Calgary Police Service, Violent Crime Suppression Team (“VCST”), were on patrol in the vicinity of the Badlands tent that was hosting a concert during the Calgary Stampede. The VCST was on the lookout for persons they believed to be members of organized crime. Messrs. Mohammad and Adams were targets. The police began to follow the Mohammad vehicle with the intention of initiating a traffic stop for unlawfully tinted windows. The stop led to physical altercations and the arrest of the three defendants. Searches incidental to the arrests produced the firearms that were the subject of the charges before the court. The trial began as a blended voir dire during which the defendants asserted violations of their Charter rights. The disclosure motion sought the production of records described as “the full collection of police intelligence and investigative records underlying Mr. Mohammad and Mr. Adams’ alleged criminal history that the involved officers relied on to support their grounds for the detention, arrest and search of the Applicants in the moments following the traffic stop.” The issue on the ruling was whether the police records constituted third party disclosure.

3. The Ruling

The alleged criminal history and police intelligence contained in the records involved historical events not directly related to the traffic stop. The defendants therefore conceded that the materials did not constitute “fruits of the investigation” as described in the leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Stinchcombe. (here) However, based on later rulings of the court in R. v. McNeill and R. v. Gubbins, the defendants asserted that “records external to the fruits of the investigation may still be producible as first party disclosure where those materials are ‘obviously relevant’ to an issue at trial.” (here and here)

The defendants argued that the records were “obviously relevant” because the alleged criminal history and intelligence “played a central role in the decision to detain and search all three accused.” The underlying records, they claimed, were necessary “to test the officers’ asserted grounds for police action.” Denying them a fair opportunity to challenge the basis for the officers’ grounds “effectively immunizes potentially unlawful state action from meaningful judicial scrutiny.” Although the Crown argued irrelevancy, and that the records were not fruits of the investigation, its “primary objection was the Applicants’ assertion that the materials fall within the first party disclosure regime.”

Some police officers had already been confronted on the voir dire with evidence contradicting certain aspects of the foundation for the witness’ professed belief that Mr. Adams was dangerous or had a propensity for carrying firearms. For example, one officer wrote in his notes that “Brian Adams has a criminal history with convictions for violence”. When confronted with Mr. Adams’ criminal record showing a single conviction in 2019 for failing to comply with a bail condition, the officer acknowledged that his evidence and notes were inaccurate. The officers’ notes included other inaccuracies about Mr. Adams’ criminal history including allegations of drug trafficking and firearm offences in 2015 for which he was not convicted.

In finding that the materials sought were “obviously relevant” to the Charter claims under ss. 8 and 9, Justice Jugnauth held that disclosure was necessary to protect the defendants’ right to make full answer and defence under s. 7. “Demonstrating that the officers’ subjective belief that the Applicants were carrying a firearm was not objectively reasonable is exactly how the Applicants would prove they were arbitrarily detained and unlawfully searched,” he said. “This is the core of the Applicants’ defence.”

4. Conclusion

In an article titled ‘Proactive policing’ leads Calgary police to seize 4 handguns published by Global News on July 20, 2023, journalist Adam Toy referenced a statement by Staff Sgt. Mike Lalande of the Calgary Police Service about the arrests. “It is very concerning that we found these offenders in possession of loaded firearms while out in busy public areas,” he said. “Thanks to proactive work and quick action from our patrol and VCST (violent crime suppression team) officers, we were able to seize these firearms and likely prevent further violence.” In this case, the proactive policing policy triggered a dual purpose traffic stop – tinted windows and organized crime targets. In other words, the tinted windows investigation under the Traffic Safety Act was deployed to see what else might turn up while the targets were detained for the traffic investigation. But the efficacy of the gun seizures has been potentially undermined by the inaccurate information that partially grounded the police initiative. Justice Jugnauth directed the parties to schedule the trial continuation without delay.