Definition of Weapons: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==General Principles== | ==General Principles== | ||
{{seealso|Definition of Firearms}} | {{seealso|Definition of Firearms}} | ||
A number offences in the Criminal Code concern "weapons". Those offences include: | A number offences in the Criminal Code concern "weapons". Those offences include: | ||
Line 44: | Line 43: | ||
Proof of an item as a weapon depends on all of the circumstances. The determination involves a subjective test of whether the accused intended to use the item as a weapon. | Proof of an item as a weapon depends on all of the circumstances. The determination involves a subjective test of whether the accused intended to use the item as a weapon. | ||
<ref> | <ref> | ||
R v Roberts, [http://canlii.ca/t/1mss8 1990 CanLII 2524] (NS CA), (1990), 60 CCC (3d) 509 (NSCA) | R v Roberts, [http://canlii.ca/t/1mss8 1990 CanLII 2524] (NS CA), (1990), 60 CCC (3d) 509 (NSCA){{perNSCA|Jones JA}} | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Whether an object is a weapon is a subjective test and depends on all the circumstances. The accused must have intended to use of the object as a weapon.<ref> | Whether an object is a weapon is a subjective test and depends on all the circumstances. The accused must have intended to use of the object as a weapon.<ref> | ||
Roberts{{ibid}}<br> | |||
R v Murray, [http://canlii.ca/t/g1g1g 1991 CanLII 7116] (ON CA), (1991) 65 CCC (3d) 507 (ONCA)<br> | R v Murray, [http://canlii.ca/t/g1g1g 1991 CanLII 7116] (ON CA), (1991) 65 CCC (3d) 507 (ONCA){{TheCourtONCA}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
A weapon includes: <ref>R v Califoux, 14 CCC (2d) 526 (BCCA){{ | A weapon includes: <ref>R v Califoux, 14 CCC (2d) 526 (BCCA), [http://canlii.ca/t/g96w3 1973 CanLII 1355] (BC CA){{perBCCA|Branca JA}} at 13</ref> | ||
# anything designed to be used as a weapon; | # anything designed to be used as a weapon; | ||
#anything that a person uses as a weapon, whether that thing is designed as a weapon or not; and | #anything that a person uses as a weapon, whether that thing is designed as a weapon or not; and | ||
Line 58: | Line 57: | ||
A suggested general analytical approach to determine whether an object is a "weapon" under s. 2 requires the Court to ask the following three questions: | A suggested general analytical approach to determine whether an object is a "weapon" under s. 2 requires the Court to ask the following three questions: | ||
<ref>R v DAC, [http://canlii.ca/t/1rvx9 ABPC 171] (CanLII)</ref> | <ref>R v DAC, [http://canlii.ca/t/1rvx9 2007 ABPC 171] (CanLII){{perABPC|Dalton J}}</ref> | ||
#Did the accused ''in fact use'' the object to cause death or injury, or to threaten or intimidate any person? | #Did the accused ''in fact use'' the object to cause death or injury, or to threaten or intimidate any person? | ||
#Did the accused ''intend to use'' the object to cause death or injury or to threaten or intimidate any person? | #Did the accused ''intend to use'' the object to cause death or injury or to threaten or intimidate any person? | ||
#Was the object being carried by the accused ''designed to be used'' in causing death or injury to any person, or for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person? | #Was the object being carried by the accused ''designed to be used'' in causing death or injury to any person, or for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person? | ||
If the answer to any of these questions is in the affirmative, the Crown has proven that the object was a weapon."<ref>DAC at para 75</ref> | If the answer to any of these questions is in the affirmative, the Crown has proven that the object was a weapon."<ref>DAC{{ibid}} at para 75</ref> | ||
The third question was considered in greater detail. The judge stated that the test for determining whether the object was designed to be used requires the following questions: | The third question was considered in greater detail. The judge stated that the test for determining whether the object was designed to be used requires the following questions: | ||
#Is the object’s design such that it could be readily usable to cause death or injury to any person or to threaten or intimidate any person? | #Is the object’s design such that it could be readily usable to cause death or injury to any person or to threaten or intimidate any person? | ||
Line 71: | Line 70: | ||
Weapons do not need to be restricted to inanimate objects. A dog can be found to be a weapon.<ref> | Weapons do not need to be restricted to inanimate objects. A dog can be found to be a weapon.<ref> | ||
R v McLeod, (1993), 84 CCC (3d) 336 (Y.T.C.A.), [http://canlii.ca/t/gbtrv 1993 CanLII 14674] (YK CA) | R v McLeod, (1993), 84 CCC (3d) 336 (Y.T.C.A.), [http://canlii.ca/t/gbtrv 1993 CanLII 14674] (YK CA){{perYKCA|Toy JA}} | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
The focus is generally not on the nature of the object but on its use and capacity to cause bodily harm or death.<ref> | The focus is generally not on the nature of the object but on its use and capacity to cause bodily harm or death.<ref> | ||
R v McLeod ("focus of the definition has been shifted from the character of the instrumentality in question to the result of its use or the purpose for which it was used.")<br> | R v McLeod ("focus of the definition has been shifted from the character of the instrumentality in question to the result of its use or the purpose for which it was used.")<br> | ||
R v Richards, [http://canlii.ca/t/1mrxg 1992 CanLII 2601] (NS CA), (1992), 72 CCC (3d) 349 (NSCA) ("an object may become a weapon whether designed for that purpose or not, if it is used to cause death or injury or alternatively if the possessor intended to use it to cause death or injury.")<br> | R v Richards, [http://canlii.ca/t/1mrxg 1992 CanLII 2601] (NS CA), (1992), 72 CCC (3d) 349 (NSCA){{perNSCA|Hallett JA}} ("an object may become a weapon whether designed for that purpose or not, if it is used to cause death or injury or alternatively if the possessor intended to use it to cause death or injury.")<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Line 85: | Line 84: | ||
===Other types of Guns=== | ===Other types of Guns=== | ||
Any device that fits the definition of firearm will be a weapon.<ref> | Any device that fits the definition of firearm will be a weapon.<ref> | ||
R v Felawka, [1993] 4 SCR 199, [http://canlii.ca/t/1frx0 1993 CanLII 36] (SCC)<br> | R v Felawka, [1993] 4 SCR 199, [http://canlii.ca/t/1frx0 1993 CanLII 36] (SCC){{perSCC|Cory J}}<br> | ||
R v Formosa (1993) 79 CCC 3d | R v Formosa (1993) 79 CCC 3d 95, [http://canlii.ca/t/gc29n 1992 CanLII 12828] (ON CA){{TheCourtONCA}} ("all objects which are firearms as defined in s. 84 come within the definition of "weapon" found in s. 2 of the Criminal Code")<br> | ||
c.f. R v James, [http://canlii.ca/t/fkpqr 2011 ONCJ 125] (CanLII)<br> | c.f. R v James, [http://canlii.ca/t/fkpqr 2011 ONCJ 125] (CanLII){{perONCJ|Duncan J}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Pellet guns, paint guns and the like are variable: | Pellet guns, paint guns and the like are variable: | ||
* a starting pistol is an imitation of a weapon.<Ref>R v Boutilier [1977] 4 W.W.R. 443 (BCCA){{NOCANLII}}</ref> | * a starting pistol is an imitation of a weapon.<Ref>R v Boutilier [1977] 4 W.W.R. 443 (BCCA){{NOCANLII}}</ref> | ||
* pellet gun not necessarily a weapon<ref>R v Labrecque, [http://canlii.ca/t/fl909 2011 ONCA 360] (CanLII)</ref>. One suggestion is that a pellet gun can be a firearm where it passes the "pig's eye test", which considers whether the pellet's velocity surpasses 246 feet per second, which is sufficient to cause serious bodily harm.<ref> | * pellet gun not necessarily a weapon<ref>R v Labrecque, [http://canlii.ca/t/fl909 2011 ONCA 360] (CanLII){{TheCourtONCA}}</ref>. One suggestion is that a pellet gun can be a firearm where it passes the "pig's eye test", which considers whether the pellet's velocity surpasses 246 feet per second, which is sufficient to cause serious bodily harm.<ref> | ||
R v Crawford, [http://canlii.ca/t/gj2fv 2015 ABCA 175] (CanLII)<br> | R v Crawford, [http://canlii.ca/t/gj2fv 2015 ABCA 175] (CanLII){{perABCA|Martin JA}}<br> | ||
R v Maguire, [http://canlii.ca/t/frqc7 2012 ONCJ 366] (CanLII) at para 12 ("it can still be a firearm for non-registration and non-licensing offences if it is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death, and this threshold is met when the muzzle velocity is 246 feet per second or greater. At this speed the projectile can puncture an eye, and this is the standard used to measure “serious bodily harm.” A learned paper is attached to this Firearm Examination Report, which reveals that pig eyes, not human eyes, were used in the scientic experiment which was conducted.")<br> | R v Maguire, [http://canlii.ca/t/frqc7 2012 ONCJ 366] (CanLII){{perONCJ|Cooper J}} at para 12 ("it can still be a firearm for non-registration and non-licensing offences if it is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death, and this threshold is met when the muzzle velocity is 246 feet per second or greater. At this speed the projectile can puncture an eye, and this is the standard used to measure “serious bodily harm.” A learned paper is attached to this Firearm Examination Report, which reveals that pig eyes, not human eyes, were used in the scientic experiment which was conducted.")<br> | ||
R v Sather, [http://canlii.ca/t/1w17m 2008 ONCJ 98] (CanLII), at para 13<br> | R v Sather, [http://canlii.ca/t/1w17m 2008 ONCJ 98] (CanLII){{perONCJ|Blouin J}}, at para 13<br> | ||
</reF> | </reF> | ||
Line 104: | Line 103: | ||
(b) the device known as “Brass Knuckles” and any similar device consisting of a band of metal with finger holes designed to fit over the root knuckles of the hand. </ref> | (b) the device known as “Brass Knuckles” and any similar device consisting of a band of metal with finger holes designed to fit over the root knuckles of the hand. </ref> | ||
The crown must prove that the holder of the brass knuckles used or intended to use the item to cause death or injury to persons or intended to use for threats or intimidation.<ref> [1991] O.J. No. 405, 12 W.C.B.(2d) 487 (Gen.Div.)</ref> | The crown must prove that the holder of the brass knuckles used or intended to use the item to cause death or injury to persons or intended to use for threats or intimidation.<ref> [1991] O.J. No. 405, 12 W.C.B.(2d) 487 (Gen.Div.){{NOCANLII}}</ref> | ||
The intent must be proven subjectively and objectively.<ref> | The intent must be proven subjectively and objectively.<ref>R LBS, [1993] S.J. No. 512, 21 W.C.B. (2d) 279 (Q.B.), [http://canlii.ca/t/gbtvn 1993 CanLII 8843] (SK QB){{perSKQB|Lawton J}} - case uses new definition of weapon under s.2</ref> | ||
{{reflist|2}} | {{reflist|2}} | ||
===Knife=== | ===Knife=== | ||
Where a knife is used to intimidate or threaten a person, it becomes a weapon.<Ref>R v MacDonald (2002), 170 CCC (3d) 46 (ONCA), [http://canlii.ca/t/1cf10 2002 CanLII 14251] at para 28 </ref> | Where a knife is used to intimidate or threaten a person, it becomes a weapon.<Ref>R v MacDonald (2002), 170 CCC (3d) 46 (ONCA), [http://canlii.ca/t/1cf10 2002 CanLII 14251] (ONCA){{perONCA|Doherty JA}} at para 28 </ref> | ||
{{reflist|2}} | {{reflist|2}} | ||
===Bear Spray=== | ===Bear Spray=== | ||
In certain courts, bear spray has | In certain courts, bear spray has been established as a weapon. It is usually necessary to have forensic expert testimony.<ref>R v Meier, [http://canlii.ca/t/fqtt9 2012 SKPC 41] (CanLII){{perSKPC|Morgan J}} at 101</ref> | ||
{{reflist|2}} | {{reflist|2}} | ||
Line 122: | Line 121: | ||
===Stun Gun=== | ===Stun Gun=== | ||
A stun gun or taser is a weapon that is prohibited.<ref> | A stun gun or taser is a weapon that is prohibited.<ref> | ||
e.g. R v Greening, [http://canlii.ca/t/fw1w6 2013 CanLII 5319] (NL PC) at para 1 | e.g. R v Greening, [http://canlii.ca/t/fw1w6 2013 CanLII 5319] (NL PC){{perNLPC|Gorman J}} at para 1 | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Such weapons generate electrical current which, when in contact with skin, creates "pain compliance".<ref> | Such weapons generate electrical current which, when in contact with skin, creates "pain compliance".<ref> | ||
see R v Lambert, [2011] O.J. No. 3665 (S.C.), [http://canlii.ca/t/fmlvh 2011 ONSC 4740] (CanLII) at para 24<br> | see R v Lambert, [2011] O.J. No. 3665 (S.C.), [http://canlii.ca/t/fmlvh 2011 ONSC 4740] (CanLII){{perONSC|Kelly J}} at para 24<br> | ||
R v Krawcar, [http://canlii.ca/t/fl90d 2011 ONCJ 236] (CanLII), [2011] O.J. No. 2056 (C.J.), at paras 34 and 35<br> | R v Krawcar, [http://canlii.ca/t/fl90d 2011 ONCJ 236] (CanLII), [2011] O.J. No. 2056 (C.J.){{perONCJ|Watson J}}, at paras 34 and 35<br> | ||
R v Dhaliwal, [2007] BCJ No. 2874 (S.C.), [http://canlii.ca/t/1vq8z 2007 BCSC 1936] (CanLII), at paras 1 to 5<br> | R v Dhaliwal, [2007] BCJ No. 2874 (S.C.), [http://canlii.ca/t/1vq8z 2007 BCSC 1936] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Groberman J}}, at paras 1 to 5<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Line 146: | Line 145: | ||
A variety of items have been found to be a weapon in certain circumstances: | A variety of items have been found to be a weapon in certain circumstances: | ||
*A broken piece of glass<Ref> R v Allan (1971), 4 CCC (2d) 521 (NBCA), [http://canlii.ca/t/htvsl 1971 CanLII 1229] (NB CA)</ref> | *A broken piece of glass<Ref> R v Allan (1971), 4 CCC (2d) 521 (NBCA), [http://canlii.ca/t/htvsl 1971 CanLII 1229] (NB CA){{perNBCA|Bulgold JA}}</ref> | ||
* A vehicle <ref>see R v McLeod, (1993), 84 CCC (3d) 336 (Y.T.C.A.), [http://canlii.ca/t/gbtrv 1993 CanLII 14674] (YK CA)<br> | * A vehicle <ref>see R v McLeod, (1993), 84 CCC (3d) 336 (Y.T.C.A.), [http://canlii.ca/t/gbtrv 1993 CanLII 14674] (YK CA){{perYKCA|Toy JA}}<br> | ||
R v Lamy, [http://canlii.ca/t/51t2 2002 SCC 25] (CanLII), [2002] 1 SCR 860</ref> | R v Lamy, [http://canlii.ca/t/51t2 2002 SCC 25] (CanLII), [2002] 1 SCR 860{{perSCC|Arbour J}}</ref> | ||
* Any sort of bomb<ref> | * Any sort of bomb<ref> | ||
R v Malang, [http://canlii.ca/t/g18q2 1982 CanLII 2029] (ON CA)<br> | R v Malang, [http://canlii.ca/t/g18q2 1982 CanLII 2029] (ON CA){{perONCA|Howland CJ}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
* A bottle of peanut butter that was thrown<ref>R v Vandergraf, (1994), 93 CCC (3d) 286 (Man. C.A.), [http://canlii.ca/t/g97h0 1994 CanLII 16617] (MB CA)</ref> | * A bottle of peanut butter that was thrown<ref>R v Vandergraf, (1994), 93 CCC (3d) 286 (Man. C.A.), [http://canlii.ca/t/g97h0 1994 CanLII 16617] (MB CA){{perMBCA|Philp JA}}</ref> | ||
* a bottle of beer<ref> | * a bottle of beer<ref> | ||
R v Richards [http://canlii.ca/t/1mrxg 1992 CanLII 2601] (NS CA), (1992), 72 CCC (3d) 349 (NSCA)</ref> | R v Richards [http://canlii.ca/t/1mrxg 1992 CanLII 2601] (NS CA), (1992), 72 CCC (3d) 349 (NSCA){{perNSCA|Hallett JA}}</ref> | ||
* a dog <ref> | * a dog <ref> | ||
McLeod{{supra}} | McLeod{{supra}} | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
* The use of a dildo in a sexual assault that causes injuries will be a weapon.<ref> | * The use of a dildo in a sexual assault that causes injuries will be a weapon.<ref> | ||
R v Lamy, [2002] 1 SCR 860, [http://canlii.ca/t/51t2 2002 SCC 25] (CanLII) | R v Lamy, [2002] 1 SCR 860, [http://canlii.ca/t/51t2 2002 SCC 25] (CanLII){{perSCC|Arbour J}} | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
* a sewing machine pushed onto the lap of victim.<ref> | * a sewing machine pushed onto the lap of victim.<ref> | ||
R v Hannen-Brown, [http://canlii.ca/t/flvzv 2011 ABCA 180] (CanLII) | R v Hannen-Brown, [http://canlii.ca/t/flvzv 2011 ABCA 180] (CanLII){{TheCourtABCA}} | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Line 169: | Line 168: | ||
==Use of a Weapon== | ==Use of a Weapon== | ||
The "use" of a weapon can include the accused displaying a firearm in his hand to intimidate another<ref> | The "use" of a weapon can include the accused displaying a firearm in his hand to intimidate another<ref> | ||
R v Steele, [http://canlii.ca/t/1s4lr 2007 SCC 36] (CanLII), [2007] 3 SCR 3 at para 27<br> | R v Steele, [http://canlii.ca/t/1s4lr 2007 SCC 36] (CanLII), [2007] 3 SCR 3{{perSCC|Fish J}} at para 27<br> | ||
Rowe v The King, [http://canlii.ca/t/1ttvb 1951 CanLII 7] (SCC), [1951] SCR 713, at p. 717<br> | Rowe v The King, [http://canlii.ca/t/1ttvb 1951 CanLII 7] (SCC), [1951] SCR 713{{perSCC|Kerwin J}}, at p. 717<br> | ||
R v Langevin (1979), 47 CCC (2d) 138, [http://canlii.ca/t/htz5v 1979 CanLII 2999] (ON CA), at p. 145 | R v Langevin (1979), 47 CCC (2d) 138, [http://canlii.ca/t/htz5v 1979 CanLII 2999] (ON CA){{perONCA|Martin JA}}, at p. 145 | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
or merely displaying it.<ref> | or merely displaying it.<ref> | ||
Line 178: | Line 177: | ||
It is suggested that revealing a firearm's presence by word or deed is "use".<ref> | It is suggested that revealing a firearm's presence by word or deed is "use".<ref> | ||
R v Gagnon, [http://canlii.ca/t/6jq6 1995 CanLII 1899] (ON CA)<br> | R v Gagnon, [http://canlii.ca/t/6jq6 1995 CanLII 1899] (ON CA){{TheCourtONCA}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
It can also include discharging a firearm<ref> | It can also include discharging a firearm<ref> | ||
Steele{{supra}} at para 27<br> | |||
R v Switzer, [http://canlii.ca/t/2dl0d 1987 ABCA 23] (CanLII), (1987), 32 CCC (3d) 303 (Alta. C.A.)<br> | R v Switzer, [http://canlii.ca/t/2dl0d 1987 ABCA 23] (CanLII), (1987), 32 CCC (3d) 303 (Alta. C.A.){{perABCA|Laycraft JA}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
or pointing a firearm.<ref> | or pointing a firearm.<ref> | ||
Steele{{supra}} at para 27<br> | |||
R v Griffin [http://canlii.ca/t/1f06g 1996 CanLII 3210] (BC CA), (1996), 111 CCC (3d) 567 (BCCA)</ref> | R v Griffin [http://canlii.ca/t/1f06g 1996 CanLII 3210] (BC CA), (1996), 111 CCC (3d) 567 (BCCA){{perBCCA|Prowse JA}}</ref> | ||
{{reflist|2}} | {{reflist|2}} | ||
Line 193: | Line 192: | ||
==Carrying a Weapon== | ==Carrying a Weapon== | ||
The meaning of "carry" is the same as it applies to s. 10(2) of the CDSA as it is to s. 85 of the Criminal Code.<Ref> | The meaning of "carry" is the same as it applies to s. 10(2) of the CDSA as it is to s. 85 of the Criminal Code.<Ref> | ||
R v Oickle, [http://canlii.ca/t/gldmr 2015 NSCA 87] (CanLII) at para 27<Br> | R v Oickle, [http://canlii.ca/t/gldmr 2015 NSCA 87] (CanLII){{perNSCA|Scanlan JA}} at para 27<Br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
"Carrying" is not restricted to having the weapon on one's person but can include having the weapon within reach in a vehicle for which he has care and control.<ref> | "Carrying" is not restricted to having the weapon on one's person but can include having the weapon within reach in a vehicle for which he has care and control.<ref> | ||
Oickle{{ibid}} at para 25 - in relation to s. 10(2) of CDSA, citing cases relating to s. 85. Court states the meaning is the same<Br> | Oickle{{ibid}} at para 25 - in relation to s. 10(2) of CDSA, citing cases relating to s. 85. Court states the meaning is the same<Br> | ||
R v Myroon, [http://canlii.ca/t/2flb4 2011 ABPC 36] (CanLII) at para 52 to 60<Br> | R v Myroon, [http://canlii.ca/t/2flb4 2011 ABPC 36] (CanLII){{perABPC|Allen J}} at para 52 to 60<Br> | ||
R v Crawford, (1980) 54 CCC (2d) 412 (ONCA), [http://canlii.ca/t/gbv9g 1980 CanLII 2889] (ON CA)<Br> | R v Crawford, (1980) 54 CCC (2d) 412 (ONCA), [http://canlii.ca/t/gbv9g 1980 CanLII 2889] (ON CA)<Br> | ||
R v Hanabury (1971) 1 CCC (2d) 438) ( | R v Hanabury (1971) 1 CCC (2d) 438 (PEISC), [http://canlii.ca/t/htz9w 1970 CanLII 1091] (PE SCTD){{perPEISC|Nicholson J}}<Br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Line 221: | Line 220: | ||
Before anything can be a prohibited weapon it must first be established as a weapon under s. 2.<ref> | Before anything can be a prohibited weapon it must first be established as a weapon under s. 2.<ref> | ||
R v Murray, (1985), 24 CCC (3d) 568 (“Murray #1”), [http://canlii.ca/t/g95vm 1985 CanLII 3498] (ON CA) - spiked wristband found as weapon<br> | R v Murray, (1985), 24 CCC (3d) 568 (“Murray #1”), [http://canlii.ca/t/g95vm 1985 CanLII 3498] (ON CA){{perONCA|Blair JA}} - spiked wristband found as weapon<br> | ||
R v Murray, [http://canlii.ca/t/g1g1g 1991 CanLII 7116] (ON CA), (1991), 65 CCC (3d) 507 (“Murray #2”) - nunchaku sticks not proven as weapons<br> | R v Murray, [http://canlii.ca/t/g1g1g 1991 CanLII 7116] (ON CA), (1991), 65 CCC (3d) 507{{TheCourtONCA}} (“Murray #2”) - nunchaku sticks not proven as weapons<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Line 290: | Line 289: | ||
The ''mens rea'' for offences regarding prohibited weapons, it need only be proven that either knowledge or recklessness with respect to the characteristics of the knife in question which, in fact, makes it a prohibited weapon.<ref> | The ''mens rea'' for offences regarding prohibited weapons, it need only be proven that either knowledge or recklessness with respect to the characteristics of the knife in question which, in fact, makes it a prohibited weapon.<ref> | ||
R v Archer, (1983), 6 CCC (3d) 129 at 132 (Ont. C.A.), [http://canlii.ca/t/g98vb 1983 CanLII 3510] (ON CA)</ref> | R v Archer, (1983), 6 CCC (3d) 129 at 132 (Ont. C.A.), [http://canlii.ca/t/g98vb 1983 CanLII 3510] (ON CA){{perONCA|Martin JA}}</ref> | ||
The test for establishing a weapon as prohibited is an objective one. The Crown does not need to prove that the possessor of the object "used or intended to use" the object as a weapon.<Ref> | The test for establishing a weapon as prohibited is an objective one. The Crown does not need to prove that the possessor of the object "used or intended to use" the object as a weapon.<Ref> | ||
R v Strong, [http://canlii.ca/t/frt17 2012 BCCA 279] (CanLII) at para 35</ref> | R v Strong, [http://canlii.ca/t/frt17 2012 BCCA 279] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Levine JA}} at para 35</ref> | ||
Proof of a weapon that can be opened by centrifugal force may be proven by way of the officer's demonstration.<ref> | Proof of a weapon that can be opened by centrifugal force may be proven by way of the officer's demonstration.<ref> | ||
R v Wlodkowski, [http://canlii.ca/t/1qtq1 2007 ONCA 167] (CanLII) | R v Wlodkowski, [http://canlii.ca/t/1qtq1 2007 ONCA 167] (CanLII){{TheCourtONCA}} | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
{{reflist|2}} | {{reflist|2}} |
Revision as of 14:09, 16 December 2018
General Principles
A number offences in the Criminal Code concern "weapons". Those offences include:
- Possession of a Weapon for a Dangerous Purpose (88)
- Carrying a Concealed Weapon (90)
- Weapons Trafficking (99, 100)
- Possession of a Weapon Contrary to an Order (117.01)
- Assault with a Weapon (267)
Section 2 of the Code includes the definition of weapon:
“Weapon” means any thing used, designed to be used or intended for use
- (a) in causing death or injury to any person, or
- (b) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person
and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, includes a firearm and, for the purposes of sections 88, 267 and 272, any thing used, designed to be used or intended for use in binding or tying up a person against their will;
...
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 2; R.S., 1985, c. 11 (1st Supp.), s. 2, c. 27 (1st Supp.), ss. 2, 203, c. 31 (1st Supp.), s. 61, c. 1 (2nd Supp.), s. 213, c. 27 (2nd Supp.), s. 10, c. 35 (2nd Supp.), s. 34, c. 32 (4th Supp.), s. 55, c. 40 (4th Supp.), s. 2; 1990, c. 17, s. 7; 1991, c. 1, s. 28, c. 40, s. 1, c. 43, ss. 1, 9; 1992, c. 20, s. 216, c. 51, s. 32; 1993, c. 28, s. 78, c. 34, s. 59; 1994, c. 44, s. 2; 1995, c. 29, ss. 39, 40, c. 39, s. 138; 1997, c. 23, s. 1; 1998, c. 30, s. 14; 1999, c. 3, s. 25, c. 5, s. 1, c. 25, s. 1(Preamble), c. 28, s. 155; 2000, c. 12, s. 91, c. 25, s. 1(F); 2001, c. 32, s. 1, c. 41, ss. 2, 131; 2002, c. 7, s. 137, c. 22, s. 324; 2003, c. 21, s. 1; 2004, c. 3, s. 1; 2005, c. 10, s. 34, c. 38, s. 58, c. 40, ss. 1, 7; 2006, c. 14, s. 1; 2007, c. 13, s. 1; 2012, c.1, s. 160, c. 19, s. 371; 2013, c. 13, s. 2; 2014, c. 17, s. 1, c. 25, s. 2.
– CCC
s. 2
...
“offensive weapon” has the same meaning as “weapon”;
...
– CCC
Similarly in s. 2.1:
Further definitions — firearms
2.1 In this Act, ammunition, antique firearm, automatic firearm, cartridge magazine, cross-bow, handgun, imitation firearm, prohibited ammunition, prohibited device, prohibited firearm, prohibited weapon, replica firearm, restricted firearm and restricted weapon, as well as authorization, licence and registration certificate when used in relation to those words and expressions, have the same meaning as in subsection 84(1).
2009, c. 22, s. 1.
– CCC
Proof of an item as a weapon depends on all of the circumstances. The determination involves a subjective test of whether the accused intended to use the item as a weapon. [1]
Whether an object is a weapon is a subjective test and depends on all the circumstances. The accused must have intended to use of the object as a weapon.[2]
A weapon includes: [3]
- anything designed to be used as a weapon;
- anything that a person uses as a weapon, whether that thing is designed as a weapon or not; and
- anything that one intends to use as a weapon regardless of its design.
A suggested general analytical approach to determine whether an object is a "weapon" under s. 2 requires the Court to ask the following three questions: [4]
- Did the accused in fact use the object to cause death or injury, or to threaten or intimidate any person?
- Did the accused intend to use the object to cause death or injury or to threaten or intimidate any person?
- Was the object being carried by the accused designed to be used in causing death or injury to any person, or for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person?
If the answer to any of these questions is in the affirmative, the Crown has proven that the object was a weapon."[5] The third question was considered in greater detail. The judge stated that the test for determining whether the object was designed to be used requires the following questions:
- Is the object’s design such that it could be readily usable to cause death or injury to any person or to threaten or intimidate any person?
- In all of the circumstances, would the carrying of the concealed object cause the reasonable person to fear for his own safety or for the public safety, if he were aware of the presence of the object?
If the answer to both of these questions is "yes", then the object will be considered a weapon. This requires looking at the object itself and the context of it being possessed.
Weapons do not need to be restricted to inanimate objects. A dog can be found to be a weapon.[6]
The focus is generally not on the nature of the object but on its use and capacity to cause bodily harm or death.[7]
- ↑ R v Roberts, 1990 CanLII 2524 (NS CA), (1990), 60 CCC (3d) 509 (NSCA), per Jones JA
- ↑
Roberts, ibid.
R v Murray, 1991 CanLII 7116 (ON CA), (1991) 65 CCC (3d) 507 (ONCA), per curiam
- ↑ R v Califoux, 14 CCC (2d) 526 (BCCA), 1973 CanLII 1355 (BC CA), per Branca JA at 13
- ↑ R v DAC, 2007 ABPC 171 (CanLII), per Dalton J
- ↑ DAC, ibid. at para 75
- ↑ R v McLeod, (1993), 84 CCC (3d) 336 (Y.T.C.A.), 1993 CanLII 14674 (YK CA), per Toy JA
- ↑
R v McLeod ("focus of the definition has been shifted from the character of the instrumentality in question to the result of its use or the purpose for which it was used.")
R v Richards, 1992 CanLII 2601 (NS CA), (1992), 72 CCC (3d) 349 (NSCA), per Hallett JA ("an object may become a weapon whether designed for that purpose or not, if it is used to cause death or injury or alternatively if the possessor intended to use it to cause death or injury.")
Specific Items
Other types of Guns
Any device that fits the definition of firearm will be a weapon.[1]
Pellet guns, paint guns and the like are variable:
- a starting pistol is an imitation of a weapon.[2]
- pellet gun not necessarily a weapon[3]. One suggestion is that a pellet gun can be a firearm where it passes the "pig's eye test", which considers whether the pellet's velocity surpasses 246 feet per second, which is sufficient to cause serious bodily harm.[4]
- ↑
R v Felawka, [1993] 4 SCR 199, 1993 CanLII 36 (SCC), per Cory J
R v Formosa (1993) 79 CCC 3d 95, 1992 CanLII 12828 (ON CA), per curiam ("all objects which are firearms as defined in s. 84 come within the definition of "weapon" found in s. 2 of the Criminal Code")
c.f. R v James, 2011 ONCJ 125 (CanLII), per Duncan J
- ↑ R v Boutilier [1977] 4 W.W.R. 443 (BCCA)(*no CanLII links)
- ↑ R v Labrecque, 2011 ONCA 360 (CanLII), per curiam
- ↑
R v Crawford, 2015 ABCA 175 (CanLII), per Martin JA
R v Maguire, 2012 ONCJ 366 (CanLII), per Cooper J at para 12 ("it can still be a firearm for non-registration and non-licensing offences if it is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death, and this threshold is met when the muzzle velocity is 246 feet per second or greater. At this speed the projectile can puncture an eye, and this is the standard used to measure “serious bodily harm.” A learned paper is attached to this Firearm Examination Report, which reveals that pig eyes, not human eyes, were used in the scientic experiment which was conducted.")
R v Sather, 2008 ONCJ 98 (CanLII), per Blouin J, at para 13
Brass Knuckles
Under the Ontario Prohibited Weapons Order No.8 SOR/79-583, brass knuckles are classified as prohibited.[1]
The crown must prove that the holder of the brass knuckles used or intended to use the item to cause death or injury to persons or intended to use for threats or intimidation.[2]
The intent must be proven subjectively and objectively.[3]
- ↑ 2. The following devices are hereby declared to be prohibited weapons:
...
(b) the device known as “Brass Knuckles” and any similar device consisting of a band of metal with finger holes designed to fit over the root knuckles of the hand. - ↑ [1991] O.J. No. 405, 12 W.C.B.(2d) 487 (Gen.Div.)(*no CanLII links)
- ↑ R LBS, [1993] S.J. No. 512, 21 W.C.B. (2d) 279 (Q.B.), 1993 CanLII 8843 (SK QB), per Lawton J - case uses new definition of weapon under s.2
Knife
Where a knife is used to intimidate or threaten a person, it becomes a weapon.[1]
- ↑ R v MacDonald (2002), 170 CCC (3d) 46 (ONCA), 2002 CanLII 14251 (ONCA), per Doherty JA at para 28
Bear Spray
In certain courts, bear spray has been established as a weapon. It is usually necessary to have forensic expert testimony.[1]
- ↑ R v Meier, 2012 SKPC 41 (CanLII), per Morgan J at 101
Stun Gun
A stun gun or taser is a weapon that is prohibited.[1]
Such weapons generate electrical current which, when in contact with skin, creates "pain compliance".[2]
- ↑ e.g. R v Greening, 2013 CanLII 5319 (NL PC), per Gorman J at para 1
- ↑
see R v Lambert, [2011] O.J. No. 3665 (S.C.), 2011 ONSC 4740 (CanLII), per Kelly J at para 24
R v Krawcar, 2011 ONCJ 236 (CanLII), [2011] O.J. No. 2056 (C.J.), per Watson J, at paras 34 and 35
R v Dhaliwal, [2007] BCJ No. 2874 (S.C.), 2007 BCSC 1936 (CanLII), per Groberman J, at paras 1 to 5
Cross-Bow
Definitions
84 (1) In this Part,
...
cross-bow means a device with a bow and a bowstring mounted on a stock that is designed to propel an arrow, a bolt, a quarrel or any similar projectile on a trajectory guided by a barrel or groove and that is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person; (arbalète)
...
– CCC
Misc Items
A variety of items have been found to be a weapon in certain circumstances:
- A broken piece of glass[1]
- A vehicle [2]
- Any sort of bomb[3]
- A bottle of peanut butter that was thrown[4]
- a bottle of beer[5]
- a dog [6]
- The use of a dildo in a sexual assault that causes injuries will be a weapon.[7]
- a sewing machine pushed onto the lap of victim.[8]
- ↑ R v Allan (1971), 4 CCC (2d) 521 (NBCA), 1971 CanLII 1229 (NB CA), per Bulgold JA
- ↑ see R v McLeod, (1993), 84 CCC (3d) 336 (Y.T.C.A.), 1993 CanLII 14674 (YK CA), per Toy JA
R v Lamy, 2002 SCC 25 (CanLII), [2002] 1 SCR 860, per Arbour J - ↑
R v Malang, 1982 CanLII 2029 (ON CA), per Howland CJ
- ↑ R v Vandergraf, (1994), 93 CCC (3d) 286 (Man. C.A.), 1994 CanLII 16617 (MB CA), per Philp JA
- ↑ R v Richards 1992 CanLII 2601 (NS CA), (1992), 72 CCC (3d) 349 (NSCA), per Hallett JA
- ↑ McLeod, supra
- ↑ R v Lamy, [2002] 1 SCR 860, 2002 SCC 25 (CanLII), per Arbour J
- ↑ R v Hannen-Brown, 2011 ABCA 180 (CanLII), per curiam
Use of a Weapon
The "use" of a weapon can include the accused displaying a firearm in his hand to intimidate another[1] or merely displaying it.[2]
It is suggested that revealing a firearm's presence by word or deed is "use".[3]
It can also include discharging a firearm[4] or pointing a firearm.[5]
- ↑
R v Steele, 2007 SCC 36 (CanLII), [2007] 3 SCR 3, per Fish J at para 27
Rowe v The King, 1951 CanLII 7 (SCC), [1951] SCR 713, per Kerwin J, at p. 717
R v Langevin (1979), 47 CCC (2d) 138, 1979 CanLII 2999 (ON CA), per Martin JA, at p. 145 - ↑
R v Neufeld, [1984] O.J. No. 1747 (C.A.)(*no CanLII links)
- ↑
R v Gagnon, 1995 CanLII 1899 (ON CA), per curiam
- ↑
Steele, supra at para 27
R v Switzer, 1987 ABCA 23 (CanLII), (1987), 32 CCC (3d) 303 (Alta. C.A.), per Laycraft JA
- ↑
Steele, supra at para 27
R v Griffin 1996 CanLII 3210 (BC CA), (1996), 111 CCC (3d) 567 (BCCA), per Prowse JA
Carrying a Weapon
The meaning of "carry" is the same as it applies to s. 10(2) of the CDSA as it is to s. 85 of the Criminal Code.[1]
"Carrying" is not restricted to having the weapon on one's person but can include having the weapon within reach in a vehicle for which he has care and control.[2]
- ↑
R v Oickle, 2015 NSCA 87 (CanLII), per Scanlan JA at para 27
- ↑
Oickle, ibid. at para 25 - in relation to s. 10(2) of CDSA, citing cases relating to s. 85. Court states the meaning is the same
R v Myroon, 2011 ABPC 36 (CanLII), per Allen J at para 52 to 60
R v Crawford, (1980) 54 CCC (2d) 412 (ONCA), 1980 CanLII 2889 (ON CA)
R v Hanabury (1971) 1 CCC (2d) 438 (PEISC), 1970 CanLII 1091 (PE SCTD), per Nicholson J
Prohibited Weapon
The Criminal Code distinguishes "prohibited weapons" and "restricted weapons" as subclasses of "weapons" generally. Additional weapons-related offence apply to those weapons classified as "prohibited" or "restricted".
s. 84(1)
...
“prohibited weapon” means
- (a) a knife that has a blade that opens automatically by gravity or centrifugal force or by hand pressure applied to a button, spring or other device in or attached to the handle of the knife, or
- (b) any weapon, other than a firearm, that is prescribed to be a prohibited weapon;
...
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 84; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), ss. 185(F), 186; 1991, c. 40, s. 2; 1995, c. 39, s. 139; 1998, c. 30, s. 16; 2003, c. 8, s. 2; 2008, c. 6, s. 2; 2009, c. 22, s. 2; 2015, c. 3, s. 45, c. 27, s. 18.
– CCC
Before anything can be a prohibited weapon it must first be established as a weapon under s. 2.[1]
Under section 4 of the Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and Other Weapons, Components and Part of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited or Restricted, SOR/98-462, provides:
4 The weapons listed in Part 3 of the schedule are prohibited weapons for the purposes of paragraph (b) of the definition “prohibited weapon” in subsection 84(1) of the Criminal Code.
– Reg
Part 3 of the Schedule, Prohibited Weapons, Former Prohibited Weapons Order, No. 8 states:
PART 3
Prohibited Weapons
Former Prohibited Weapons Order, No. 1
1 Any device designed to be used for the purpose of injuring, immobilizing or otherwise incapacitating any person by the discharge therefrom of
- (a) tear gas, Mace or other gas, or
- (b) any liquid, spray, powder or other substance that is capable of injuring, immobilizing or otherwise incapacitating any person.
Former Prohibited Weapons Order, No. 2
2 Any instrument or device commonly known as “nunchaku”, being hard non-flexible sticks, clubs, pipes, or rods linked by a length or lengths of rope, cord, wire or chain, and any similar instrument or device.
3 Any instrument or device commonly known as “shuriken”, being a hard non-flexible plate having three or more radiating points with one or more sharp edges in the shape of a polygon, trefoil, cross, star, diamond or other geometrical shape, and any similar instrument or device.
4 Any instrument or device commonly known as “manrikigusari” or “kusari”, being hexagonal or other geometrically shaped hard weights or hand grips linked by a length or lengths of rope, cord, wire or chain, and any similar instrument or device.
5 Any finger ring that has one or more blades or sharp objects that are capable of being projected from the surface of the ring.
Former Prohibited Weapons Order, No. 3
6 Any device that is designed to be capable of injuring, immobilizing or incapacitating a person or an animal by discharging an electrical charge produced by means of the amplification or accumulation of the electrical current generated by a battery, where the device is designed or altered so that the electrical charge may be discharged when the device is of a length of less than 480 mm, and any similar device.
7 A crossbow or similar device that
- (a) is designed or altered to be aimed and fired by the action of one hand, whether or not it has been redesigned or subsequently altered to be aimed and fired by the action of both hands; or
- (b) has a length not exceeding 500 mm.
Former Prohibited Weapons Order, No. 4
8 The device known as the “Constant Companion”, being a belt containing a blade capable of being withdrawn from the belt, with the buckle of the belt forming a handle for the blade, and any similar device.
9 Any knife commonly known as a “push-dagger” that is designed in such a fashion that the handle is placed perpendicular to the main cutting edge of the blade and any other similar device other than the aboriginal “ulu” knife.
10 Any device having a length of less than 30 cm and resembling an innocuous object but designed to conceal a knife or blade, including the device commonly known as the “knife-comb”, being a comb with the handle of the comb forming a handle for the knife, and any similar device.
Former Prohibited Weapons Order, No. 5
11 The device commonly known as a “Spiked Wristband”, being a wristband to which a spike or blade is affixed, and any similar device.
Former Prohibited Weapons Order, No. 6
12 The device commonly known as “Yaqua Blowgun”, being a tube or pipe designed for the purpose of shooting arrows or darts by the breath, and any similar device.
Former Prohibited Weapons Order, No. 7
13 The device commonly known as a “Kiyoga Baton” or “Steel Cobra” and any similar device consisting of a manually triggered telescoping spring-loaded steel whip terminated in a heavy calibre striking tip.
14 The device commonly known as a “Morning Star” and any similar device consisting of a ball of metal or other heavy material, studded with spikes and connected to a handle by a length of chain, rope or other flexible material.
Former Prohibited Weapons Order, No. 8
15 The device known as “Brass Knuckles” and any similar device consisting of a band of metal with one or more finger holes designed to fit over the fingers of the hand.
– Regs
The mens rea for offences regarding prohibited weapons, it need only be proven that either knowledge or recklessness with respect to the characteristics of the knife in question which, in fact, makes it a prohibited weapon.[2]
The test for establishing a weapon as prohibited is an objective one. The Crown does not need to prove that the possessor of the object "used or intended to use" the object as a weapon.[3]
Proof of a weapon that can be opened by centrifugal force may be proven by way of the officer's demonstration.[4]
- ↑
R v Murray, (1985), 24 CCC (3d) 568 (“Murray #1”), 1985 CanLII 3498 (ON CA), per Blair JA - spiked wristband found as weapon
R v Murray, 1991 CanLII 7116 (ON CA), (1991), 65 CCC (3d) 507, per curiam (“Murray #2”) - nunchaku sticks not proven as weapons
- ↑ R v Archer, (1983), 6 CCC (3d) 129 at 132 (Ont. C.A.), 1983 CanLII 3510 (ON CA), per Martin JA
- ↑ R v Strong, 2012 BCCA 279 (CanLII), per Levine JA at para 35
- ↑ R v Wlodkowski, 2007 ONCA 167 (CanLII), per curiam
Restricted Weapon
s. 84
...
“restricted weapon” means any weapon, other than a firearm, that is prescribed to be a restricted weapon;
– CCC