R. v. Durham (C.E.) and Stratigeas (P.), (1992) 58 O.A.C. 126 (CA)

• Judge: Brooke, Arbour and Doherty, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: September 22, 1992
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1992), 58 O.A.C. 126 (CA)

R. v. Durham (C.E.) (1992), 58 O.A.C. 126 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Cameron Edward Durham (respondent)

Her Majesty The Queen (applicant/appellant) v. Peter Stratigeas (respondent)

(Nos. 670/91; 791/91)

Indexed As: R. v. Durham (C.E.) and Stratigeas (P.)

Ontario Court of Appeal

Brooke, Arbour and Doherty, JJ.A.

September 22, 1992.

Summary:

Stratigeas was charged with careless stor­age of a firearm contrary to s. 86(2) of the Criminal Code. Durham was charged sepa­rately with careless use of a firearm also contrary to s. 86(2). In both cases the charges were stayed on the basis that s. 86(2) infringed s. 7 of the Charter and could not be saved by s. 1. The Crown appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, holding that s. 86(2) was not con­trary to s. 7 of the Charter. The court set aside the stays of proceedings and remitted the cases to trial.

Civil Rights - Topic 3107.01

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Fault doctrine - Mens rea - The Criminal Code, s. 86(2), made it an offence to carry, use, handle, ship or store firearms in a "careless" manner - It was argued that s. 86(2) was unconstitu­tional because it did not meet the mini­mum fault requirement of s. 7 of the Charter, since the word "careless" in the section set the standard of fault at the negligence level - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that s. 86(2) was not contrary to s. 7 because either: (1) proof of negli­gent conduct may be sufficient to meet the constitutional requirement of fault for all criminal offences, except for murder etc., or (2) s. 86(2) created an offence with a regulatory component which did not carry sufficient stigma to require a subjective mental element.

Civil Rights - Topic 4943

Presumption of innocence - Evidence and proof - Burden of proof in criminal cases - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3107.01 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4955

Presumption of innocence - Evidence and proof - Regulatory offences - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3107.01 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1175

Firearms - Careless use of firearm - Elements of offence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3107.01 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Stratigeas (1990), 61 C.C.C.(3d) 146 (Ont. Prov. Ct.), affd. (1991), 66 C.C.C.(3d) 94 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [paras. 1, 7].

R. v. Durham (1991), 66 C.C.C.(3d) 66 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [paras. 1, 29].

R. v. Finlay (1990), 83 Sask.R. 191; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 548 (Q.B.), revd. (1991), 91 Sask.R. 228; 64 C.C.C.(3d) 557 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7 et seq.].

R. v. Jocelyn (1990), 90 Sask.R. 45; 9 W.C.B.(2d) 519 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Ward (1991), 91 Sask.R. 272; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 374 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Derkosh (1979), 21 A.R. 243; 52 C.C.C.(2d) 252 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc. and Chedore, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154; 130 N.R. 1; 49 O.A.C. 161, 67 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 8 C.R.(4th) 145, refd to. [para. 8 et seq.].

R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society (No. 2) (1992), 139 N.R. 241; 114 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 313 A.P.R. 91 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 8 et seq.].

Reference Re s. 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 481; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 48 C.R.(3d) 289; 69 B.C.L.R. 145; 36 M.V.R. 240; 18 C.R.R. 30; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 536, refd to. [paras. 18, 40].

R. v. Vaillancourt, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 636; 81 N.R. 115; 10 Q.A.C. 161; 68 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 281; 209 A.P.R. 281; 60 C.R.(3d) 289; 39 C.C.C.(3d) 118, refd to. [paras. 15, 18, 40].

R. v. Logan, Logan and Johnson, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 731; 112 N.R. 144; 41 O.A.C. 330; 58 C.C.C.(3d) 391; 79 C.R.(3d) 169; 73 D.L.R.(4th) 40; 50 C.R.R. 152, refd to. [paras. 15, 18].

R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299; 21 N.R. 295; 85 D.L.R.(3d) 161; 40 C.C.C.(2d) 353; 3 C.R.(3d) 30; 7 C.E.L.R. 53, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. City of Sault Ste. Marie - see R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City).

Beaver v. The Queen, [1957] S.C.R. 531; 118 C.C.C. 129; 26 C.R. 193, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Buzzanga (1979), 25 O.R.(2d) 705; 101 D.L.R.(3d) 488; 49 C.C.C.(2d) 369 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Metro News Ltd. (1986), 16 O.A.C. 319; 56 O.R.(2d) 321; 29 C.C.C.(3d) 35 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Schwartz, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 443; 88 N.R. 90; 56 Man.R.(2d) 92; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 97; [1989] 1 W.W.R. 289; 66 C.R.(3d) 251; 55 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [paras. 29, 36, 37].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1, sect. 7 [para. 1 et seq.].

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 91(27) [paras. 28, 36]; sect. 92(15) [para. 28].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 86(2) [para. 1 et seq.].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Friedland, Gun Control: The Options (1975-76), 18 C.L.Q. 29, p. 58 [paras. 32, 33].

Counsel:

David Finley and Ian Smith, for the appel­lant;

B. Clive Bynoe, for Durham;

Marc Rosenberg, for Stratigeas.

This appeal was heard on April 13 and 14, 1992, before Brooke, Arbour and Doherty, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following decision was released for the court by Arbour, J.A., on September 22, 1992.