R. v. D.A.C., (2007) 428 A.R. 355 (PC)

• Judge: Dalton, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: April 03, 2007
• Citations: (2007), 428 A.R. 355 (PC);2007 ABPC 171

R. v. D.A.C. (2007), 428 A.R. 355 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] A.R. TBEd. OC.037

Her Majesty The Queen v. D.A.C. (060423274Y101001-02; 2007 ABPC 171)

Indexed As: R. v. D.A.C.

Alberta Provincial Court

Dalton, P.C.J.

June 19, 2007.

Summary:

A youth was transporting a 14.5 inch long ornate Japanese-styled dagger from his home to his uncle's home using the bus system. The dagger was hidden in his pants. The youth was charged with possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace and carrying a concealed weapon.

The Alberta Provincial Court acquitted the youth of possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, but found him guilty of carrying a concealed weapon.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Criminal Law - Topic 1156

Offensive weapons - Weapon possessed for a dangerous purpose or to commit an offence - Intention - A youth transported a 14.5 inch long ornate Japanese-styled dagger from his home to his uncle's home using the bus system - The dagger was hidden in his pants - The Alberta Provincial Court acquitted the youth of possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace - There was no evidence that the youth possessed the dagger for a purpose dangerous to the public peace - He acted peaceably while on the buses and co-operated with security personnel - His explanation that the dagger was a gift from his father and that he was transporting it to his uncle's home for storage was not seriously challenged by the Crown - Nor was there much evidence from which such possession could be inferred - The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the dagger was possessed for a dangerous purpose - See paragraphs 20 to 22.

Criminal Law - Topic 1166

Offensive weapons - Carrying concealed weapon - A youth transported a 14.5 inch long ornate Japanese-styled dagger from his home to his uncle's home using the bus system - The dagger was hidden in his pants - The youth neither used the dagger to cause death or injury, nor intended to use it for such purpose - Accordingly, the dagger was a concealed "weapon" for the purpose of s. 2 of the Criminal Code only if it was "designed to be used" for causing death or bodily harm - The Alberta Provincial Court found the youth guilty of carrying a concealed "weapon" - The court stated that the objective test to be applied was "(1) 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? (2) 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?" - The youth's intention was not relevant and the test precluded an object that was merely "capable of being used as a weapon" - See paragraphs 23 to 85.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Constantine (G.) (1996), 137 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 85; 428 A.P.R. 85; 46 C.R.(4th) 105 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Felawka, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 199; 159 N.R. 50; 33 B.C.A.C. 241; 54 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Kerr (J.R.), [2004] 2 S.C.R. 371; 322 N.R. 91; 354 A.R. 114; 329 W.A.C. 114, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Arrance (1971), 3 C.C.C.(2d) 341 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Blondell (1972), 8 C.C.C.(2d) 130 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Acoose (1982), 17 Sask.R. 240 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Mantee (1982), 7 W.C.B. 175 (Sask. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Starr (1983), 24 Sask.R. 161 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Martin (1986), 17 W.C.B. 363 (B.C. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Ayotte (1985), 14 W.C.B. 230 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. J.B. (1990), 11 W.C.B.(2d) 161 (B.C. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Iwaskow (A.) (1994), 154 A.R. 397 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. S.K. (1995), 66 B.C.A.C. 311; 108 W.A.C. 311; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 572 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Crawford (1980), 54 C.C.C.(2d) 412 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Wees (T.A.), [1992] B.C.T.C. Uned. 257; 15 W.C.B.(2d) 335 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Dickson, [1998] S.J. No. 907 (Sask. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. D.M.M. (1999), 20 B.C.T.C. 330; 46 W.C.B.(2d) 324 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. C.S. (2003), 230 Sask.R. 161 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Bear, [2004] M.J. No. 133 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Meatface (B.C.) (2004), 373 A.R. 387 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. S.K., [2005] B.C.J. No. 2540 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. M.P. (2001), 282 A.R. 198 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. T.J., [2001] B.C.J. No. 2004 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Roberts (1990), 99 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 270 A.P.R. 81; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 509 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Ramirez, [1991] J.Q. No. 1689 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Kilpatrick (1986), 31 C.C.C.(3d) 334 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Coleman (1987), 81 A.R. 208; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 568 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Appleby (M.W.) (1990), 109 A.R. 40 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Collette (1991), 118 A.R. 207 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Murray (1991), 50 O.A.C. 317; 4 O.R.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Formosa, [1993] O.J. No. 20 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Tiedeman (L.J.) (1994), 154 A.R. 370 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. W.M. and A.N. (1996), 182 A.R. 168 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Clement (A.S.) (1997), 197 A.R. 376 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Toews, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 119; 61 N.R. 349, refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Crawford (1980), 54 C.C.C.(2d) 412 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 87].

R. v. Hanabury (1970), 1 C.C.C.(2d) 438 (P.E.I.S.C.), refd to. [para. 89].

Counsel:

Dave Hill, for the Crown;

Charles Seto, for the defence.

This case was heard on September 5 and 21, 2006 and April 3, 2007, at Edmonton, Alberta, before Dalton, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on June 19, 2007.