You are here: / / Possession of Prohibited or Restricted Firearms
  • Vancouver at night

Possession of Prohibited or Restricted Firearms

The Charge

Under s. 95 of the Criminal Code, it is an offence to possess a prohibited or restricted firearm that is either loaded or that has ammunition that is readily accessible, unless the person holds an authorization or licence. A “prohibited” firearm includes any handgun that has a barrel equal to or less than 105mm in length and any firearm that is adapted from a rifle or shotgun by cutting the barrel length to less than 660mm. Prohibited firearms also include automatic firearms. A “restricted” firearm includes any handgun that is not a prohibited firearm, that has a barrel length of less than 470mm and is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner. An authorization under the Firearms Act is required for a person to possess any prohibited or restricted firearm, anywhere in Canada.

The Crown may proceed by indictment and seek a sentence of up to 10 years in jail upon conviction. Alternatively, Crown may elect to proceed summarily, in which case the maximum sentence is up to 2 years less a day. Although there is no longer a mandatory minimum jail sentence for this offence, when the Crown views the offence as having a true “criminal purpose” associated to possessing the prohibited or restricted weapon, Crown will proceed by indictment and will generally seek sentences in the range of 3 years in jail.

The Investigation

A significant number of cases start off at the United States/Canada border with an American visitor who does not understand how seriously different Canadian firearms law is compared to United States laws. While an American may have the right to possess a handgun in the U.S.A., that right becomes a crime with serious consequences in Canada. There are other situations in which the authorities may find a person in possession of illegal firearms. These include situations where vehicles, residences or other places are searched, either with or without a search warrant.

As experienced lawyers defending weapons charges, we understand that in order to prove the offence, customs officials and police have to prove that our client had knowledge and control over the illegal firearm. In the context of a firearm investigation, it is important for a suspect to know that they have the right to remain silent upon arrest. This right is guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A person suspected of possessing an illegal firearm has no obligation to acknowledge that they have knowledge of the weapon or control over it.

Recent Successes

R. v. S.B. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Carrying a Concealed Weapon.
Issue: Given the information Mr. Johnston was able to provide to Crown counsel regarding the circumstances of the incident and our client's background, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnston persuaded Crown counsel that there was insufficient public interest, leading Crown to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. v. M.A. Insurance Fraud Investigation

Charge: Insurance Fraud Under $5000.
Issue: Given our client's rehabilitation and repayment of the disputed funds, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade the insurance company to settle the matter on a civil basis. No criminal charges were forwarded. No criminal record.

R. v. D.S. – Whitehorse Yukon Territorial Court

Charge: Section 810 Recognizance (Peace Bond) Application.
Issue: Whether the Informant could prove her allegations on a balance of probabilities.
Result: After Mr. Gauthier' communications with the Informant, she declined to advance the case and, on the day of the trial, the court withdrew the Application. No record.

R. v. E.N. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Fraud Under $5000.
Issue: Given the information Mr. Gauthier provided to Crown counsel regarding our client's personal circumstances and the circumstances of the alleged offence, whether it was appropriate to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown that there wa sno substantial likelihood of a conviction resulting ultimately in Crown declining to approve a charge. No criminal record.

R. v. E.N. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Mischief Under $5000.
Issue: Given the information Mr. Gauthier provided to Crown counsel regarding our client’s personal circumstances and the circumstances of the alleged offence, whether it was appropriate to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown that there was no substantial likelihood of a conviction resulting ultimately in Crown declining to approve a charge. No criminal record.

R. v. K.D. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Failing to Remain at the Scene of an Accident.
Issue: Whether our client's Charter rights were breached due to unreasonable delay.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to Crown counsel that ultimately caused Crown  to proceed against our client as the owner and not the driver of the vehicle. He plead to the lesser charge of Failing to Remain under the Motor Vehicle Act and received a fine, but no driving prohibition. No criminal record.

R. v. H.C. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Sexual Assault; Sexual Interference.
Issue: Whether the complainant held herself out to be at least 16 years of age and whether our client took reasonable steps to ascertain her age.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to Crown counsel on our client's behalf that established that our client did take reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant's age. In the result, Crown declined to approve any criminal charges. No criminal record.

R. v. A.L. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Tax Evasion (Excise Tax Act); Fraud Over $5000 x2.
Issue: Given our client's cooperation with the investigation, his civil settlement and his genuine remorse, whether a jail sentence was appropriate for this almost one million dollar tax evasion case.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide medical and financial information to Crown counsel that ultimately led Crown to proceed on the fraud charges rather than seeking an almost one million dollar mandatory fine under the Excise Tax Act. The Court accepted the joint submission for a 2 year less a day conditional sentence and probation. No jail.

R. v. A.R. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault (reduced to Peace Bond).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether it was in the public interest continue with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed with a Peace Bond rather than the criminal assault charge. No criminal record.

R. v. T.C. – Fraud Over $5000 Investigation

Charge: Fraud Over $5000.
Issue: Given the civil settlement of this $245,000 misappropriation from employer case, whether there was any interest in pursuing  a criminal investigation and prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to negotiate a civil settlement and obtained a Final Release from the complainant. No criminal investigation occurred. No risk of jail or criminal prosecution.

R. v. Q.D.T. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether it was in the public interest to continue the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to allow our client into the Alternative Measures program. Upon completion of Alternative Measures, Crown enteresd a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. v. A.M. – Possession of Stolen Property Investigation – Squamish RCMP

Charge: Possession of Stolen Property (motor vehicles).
Issue: Whether there was sufficient evidence that our client was aware that the vehicles that he possessed had been obtained by the commission of crimes.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to steer our client through the police investigation. Ultimately, based on insufficient evidence, police declined to forward charges against our client. No prosecution. No criminal record.
View All

The Defence

Unreasonable Search

Section 8 of the Charter guarantees that people must be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The role of defence counsel in any search case is to analyze the actions of the investigating police officers to test whether their search was, in fact, lawful and authorized by the Charter. In some situations, police must obtain pre-authorization from a justice or judge in the form of a search warrant. Where police overreach their authority, and conduct a search based on mere suspicion, rather than probable grounds, we will apply to the court under s.24(2) of the Charter to have the “fruits of the search” excluded from the trial. Without the admission of the firearm into the trial, the court will find insufficient evidence to convict.

Lack of Possession

In many situations, people are arrested on firearms charges with the firearm not directly in their possession. For example, a handgun might be in the glovebox or trunk of the car. It might be that the accused is not driving their own car but, rather, the car of a friend or relative. In these situations, absent any incriminating confession, it may be possible to argue that the accused had no knowledge of the firearm or that they had no control over it. As experienced defence lawyers, we understand the high standard that the law requires when prosecuting weapons offences. We are dedicated to protecting our client’s rights.

Start with a free consultation.

If you are being investigated by police or if you’ve been charged with a criminal or driving offence, don’t face the problem alone. Being accused of an offence is stressful. The prospects of a criminal record or jail sentence can be daunting. Even if you think there is no defence, we may be able to help. To schedule a free initial consultation with one of our Vancouver lawyers, contact us now.

Connect