Man acquitted on gun charges, convicted of assault

A Brandon man who was accused of firing a gun at a door his ex-girlfriend was hiding behind in 2023 has been acquitted of all weapon-related charges and found guilty of assault — netting him a total sentence of two months in custody.

The accused, 24, was charged with intentional discharge of a firearm while being reckless to the life or safety of another person, possession of a firearm contrary to an order, possession of ammunition contrary to an order and assault.

Justice Elliot Leven delivered a written decision on Jan. 12 after the man stood trial in Brandon’s Court of King’s Bench in October 2025.

He convicted the man of assault but found the Crown failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on the remainder of the charges.

A publication ban on information that could identify the victim prevents the Sun from naming the accused.

In his decision, Leven included a summary of the witnesses’ testimonies.

The complainant testified she and the accused were partners from 2019 to 2023 and their relationship started to deteriorate that March, Leven wrote.

She testified they got into an argument on March 26, 2025, which resulted in her locking herself in the bathroom of her Brandon residence and him smashing a plate. She told the court she stayed the night at the man’s sister’s house before returning the next morning, when the couple started to argue again.

“They argued and wrestled a little bit. The complainant locked herself in the bathroom again. The accused banged on the bathroom door. There was a sound as if something was thrown at the door. The accused burst into the bathroom. He pushed the complainant, and she fell into the bathtub,” Leven wrote.

The woman called 911, and the man left.

“The complainant saw a little hole in the bathroom door, that hadn’t been there the day before,” Leven wrote. “The complainant never saw the accused fire a gun at the bathroom door.”

Leven also noted that she told the court she didn’t see or smell smoke.

The complainant testified she knew her partner had a gun and had seen him shoot it at the mattress in their residence.

She told her sister what had happened, and she came over to help her gather the accused’s belongings, including a gun he had in the closet, Leven wrote.

The two went to the police station with the intention of asking for a no-contact order and they showed an officer shells they found on the floor of the residence, she testified.

“She found one near the bathroom door. The others were in the bedroom near the closet door,” Leven wrote.

The complainant identified herself in several photos showing bruises on her body.

The police officer who executed a search warrant at the residence also testified. He said there was a small hole on the outside of the bathroom door, but no corresponding hole on the inside.

“He said that it was ‘very unusual’ that a bullet would not completely penetrate a hollow wooden door. Perhaps there was a misfire,” Leven wrote.

The officer said in his many years handling guns, bullets sometimes misfire. He also noted that there were five holes in the bedroom mattress.

“They looked like bullet holes. The floor under the bed was carpeted. There were no loose bullets under the bed. He did not wish to cut up the carpeting, so he never retrieved any bullets. If the holes in the mattress were made by bullets, he didn’t know the calibre,” Leven wrote.

The defence called one witness, an experienced gun owner and gun club member. He explained the difference between a “misfire” and a “hang-fire,” a misfire being when a bullet doesn’t fire at all and a hang-fire being when the bullet doesn’t fire properly.

“In all his vast experience, he had only experienced one hang-fire,” Leven wrote.

Leven explained how the defence conducted an experiment during which the witness fired multiple .22-calibre rounds at a hollow door from around 20 yards away.

“All bullets completely penetrated the door (passed through, leaving a bullet hole on both sides of the door),” the decision said.

The door was brought into court, and photographs of the bullet holes were filed as an exhibit.

The Crown argued that the complainant was a credible witness and there was “strong circumstantial evidence” regarding the discharge-firearm charge. The Crown said that while it’s not common, it is possible the firearm didn’t function properly, causing it to not fully penetrate the door.

Defence conceded that the case around the assault was strong but argued that the hole in the door could have been made by a small sharp object.

Leven said he accepted the complainant’s evidence that the man pushed her when he came into the bathroom, causing her to fall into the tub, which constituted an assault.

For the discharge-firearm charge, he said the complainant didn’t see the man fire the gun and police didn’t check if there was a bullet still inside the door.

“If there had been a bullet, the police might have searched the bullet for fingerprints and DNA, to see if there was any physical evidence linking the bullet to the accused,” Leven said. “We shall never know. The police chose not to remove the door from its hinges and chose not to cut open the door to search inside.”

He said neither the complainant nor any police officer could rule out the possibility that the hole was caused by something else.

This is supported by the fact that the complainant didn’t see or smell smoke and didn’t associate any of the banging with a gunshot until after she had seen the hole, he said.

For the possession charges, Leven said he didn’t have evidence the accused was under any sort of weapons prohibition when he allegedly possessed the firearm and ammunition.

The man was sentenced to two months in custody for the assault charge, followed by two years of unsupervised probation.

» sanderson@brandonsun.com