R. v. Hasselwander, (1993) 152 N.R. 247 (SCC)

• Judge: Cory and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: May 19, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1993), 152 N.R. 247 (SCC);1993 CanLII 90 (SCC);[1993] SCJ No 57 (QL);81 CCC (3d) 471;JE 93-1006;[1993] ACS no 57;20 CR (4th) 277;[1993] 2 SCR 398;14 OR (3d) 800;62 OAC 285;19 WCB (2d) 544;152 NR 247

R. v. Hasselwander (1993), 152 N.R. 247 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Bernhard Hasselwander (respondent)

(22725)

Indexed As: R. v. Hasselwander

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, Gonthier,

Cory and Major, JJ.

May 19, 1993.

Summary:

The Ontario Provincial Court ruled that a Uzi machinegun was a "prohibited weapon" under s. 84(1) of the Criminal Code and ordered that it be forfeited to the Crown. The decision was confirmed on appeal. The owner of the gun appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, Tarnopolsky, J.A., dissenting, in a judgment reported 50 O.A.C. 186, allowed the appeal. The gun had been destroyed, so the court, lacking specific authority to order payment of com­pensation, urged the Crown to compensate the owner. The Crown appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Major, J., and Lamer, C.J.C., dissenting, allowed the appeal and restored the order of the Provin­cial Court judge.

Criminal Law - Topic 1144

Prohibited weapons - What constitute - Section 84(1)(c) of the Criminal Code defined "prohibited weapon" as a firearm "capable of firing bullets in rapid suc­cession with one pressure of the trigger" - A semi-automatic Uzi machinegun was, by manufacture, incapable of firing bullets in rapid succession, but could be easily adapted to do so - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that whether "capable" meant "immediately capable" or "readily capable" depended upon the purpose and goals of the prohibited weapons provisions - The court stated that restricting the meaning of capable to immediately capable would defeat the intention of the legisla­tion, because simple removal of a part from an automatic weapon could take it out of the definition - The court stated that a firearm that had the potential to be readily converted to a fully automatic weapon in a relatively short period of time with relative ease was a prohibited weapon.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Global Armaments Ltd. et al. (1990), 105 A.R. 260 (C.A.), agreed with [para. 8].

Montréal (Cité) v. Bélec, [1927] S.C.R. 535, refd to. [para. 11].

Winnipeg Film Society v. Webster, [1964] S.C.R. 280, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Bélanger, [1970] S.C.R. 567, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Goulis (1981), 125 D.L.R.(3d) 137 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Johnston (1977), 3 A.R. 181; 37 C.R.N.S. 234 (N.W.T.C.A.), affd. [1978] 2 S.C.R. 391; 19 N.R. 476; 9 A.R. 22, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Philips Electronics Ltd. (1980), 116 D.L.R.(3d) 298 (Ont. C.A.), affd. [1981] 2 S.C.R. 264, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Leroux, [1974] C.A. 151 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Nittolo, [1978] C.A. 146 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Covin and Covin, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 725; 50 N.R. 378; 61 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 133 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Haines (1981), 45 N.S.R.(2d) 428; 86 A.P.R. 428 (C.A.), agreed with [para. 26].

R. v. Ferguson (1985), 10 O.A.C. 5; 20 C.C.C.(3d) 256 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Zeolkowski, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1378; 95 N.R. 149; 58 Man.R.(2d) 63, refd to. [para. 41].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 84(1)(c) [para. 9]; sect. 90 [para. 10]; sect. 102(3) [para. 9].

Criminal Code, Restricted Weapons Order, SOR/92-467, generally [para. 42].

Export and Import Permits Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-19, generally [para. 43].

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, sect. 12 [para. 12].

Restricted Weapons Order - see Criminal Code, Restricted Weapons Order.

Authors and Works Noticed:

Côté, Pierre-André, The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (2nd Ed. 1991), pp. 397, 398 [para. 11].

Grand Robert de la langue française, 2é éd., 1986 [para. 21].

Maxwell, The Interpretation of Statutes (7th Ed. 1929), p. 573 [para. 13].

Oxford English Dictionary (2nd Ed. 1989) [para. 20].

Counsel:

Brian McNeely, for the appellant;

Calvin Martin, Q.C., for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto, Ont., for the appellant;

Calvin Martin, Q.C., Toronto, Ont., for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on February 5, 1993, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, Gon­thier, Cory and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On May 19, 1993, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

Cory, J. (La Forest and Gonthier, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 30;

Major, J., dissenting (Lamer, C.J.C., concurring) - see paragraphs 31 to 45.