r v. CHRISTOPHER JOHN DAIGLE, 2022 QCCQ 4980

R. c. Daigle 2022 QCCQ 4980 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Criminal and Penal Division No: 500-01-224420-213 DATE: July 22, 2022 PRESIDED BY THE HONOURABLE LORI RENÉE WEITZMAN, J.C.Q. HER MAJETSY THE QUEEN Prosecutor v. CHRISTOPHER JOHN DAIGLE Accused JUDGMENT [ 1 ] Mr. Daigle is charged with one count of storing a firearm contrary to the regulations adopted under the Firearms Act , [1] thus committing a

summary conviction offence pursuant to section 86 (2) of the Criminal Code . On October 20, 2020 Detective Sgt. Gagné obtained a search warrant [2] allowing him to seize a Remington rifle with a scope, 500 bullets as well as the permit authorizing Christopher John Daigle to possess these items. [ 2 ] The search was executed in accordance with the judicial authorization, on the same day, in the apartment of Mr.

Daigle on Sherbrooke Street East. [ 3 ] According to the prosecution, the rifle and ammunition were improperly stored, contravening the regulation governing the “Storage, Display, Transportation and Handling of Firearms by Individuals”. [3] The specific regulation at issue reads as follows: Storage of Non-Restricted Firearms 5

(1) An individual may store a non-restricted firearm only if (

a) it is unloaded; (

b) it is: (

i) rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device, (ii) rendered inoperable by the removal of the bolt or bolt-carrier, or (iii) stored in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into; and (

c) it is not readily accessible to ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into. […] [ 4 ] Detective Sgt. Hubert testified about the seizure of the rifle and ammunition, referring to photographs [4] that were taken at the time of the search. [ 5 ] The photographs confirmed the testimony of Detective Sgt. Hubert that the rifle and ammunition were found in a small living room. Photographs number 19 and 20 show the rifle in its case.

Although the case is open in the photograph, Detective Sgt. Hubert explained that the case was not open when they arrived, but that it was unlocked. Photographs 19 and 22 show a hard-shell carrying case next to the firearm and photographs 23 and 24 show the hundreds of bullets that were found once the case was opened.

[ 6 ] Detective Sgt. Hubert testified that there was a proper locking mechanism on the rifle, and the trigger was in fact locked. The keys to unlock the trigger are seen in photograph number 19, placed atop the ammunition carrying case, which itself was not locked, according to this witness. [ 7 ] Detective Sgt. Gagné also testified to explain that once at the station, he unlocked the trigger mechanism with one of those keys. [ 8 ] The prosecution’s evidence does not specifically address where the rifle and the ammunition were found when the officers entered the apartment.

The photographs were produced and described as seemingly representing the initial placement of the items except for the fact that although the case was closed when they arrived, it had been opened before the photographs were taken. [ 9 ] Mr. Daigle testified in his defence. According to him, the photographs taken of his living room do not represent the actual placement of the rifle and ammunition box before the police arrived. He stated that the rifle was placed against the wall next to a couch, whereas the box of ammunition was behind a reclining chair, on the other side of the living room. According to Mr.

Daigle, the ammunition box was locked and the keys, which unlocked both the trigger of the rifle and the ammunition box, were placed on a bookcase in the living room, which bookcase is also captured in the photographs. He denies that the keys for the rifle and the box were left on the box as shown in the photographs. [ 10 ] Mr. Daigle testified that he was aware of the regulations involving proper storage and was concerned with abiding by them.

He believes that he followed the instructions learnt at his firearms safety course and that he properly stored the rifle and ammunition in accordance with the regulations. [5] [ 11 ] The testimony of Mr. Daigle contradicts that of Detective Sgt. Hubert, however, the Court notes that no effort was made by the officer to distinguish between what he found when he arrived at the apartment and items that had been moved and/or opened in order to take the photographs. [6] The Court accepts the testimony of Mr. Daigle with respect to the placement of the rifle, the ammunition box, and the keys to unlock them.

His testimony is straightforward and the Court has no reason to disbelieve him. The Court does not accept that the keys were left on top of the ammunition box as seen in the photographs, and further concludes that the ammunition box was locked. [ 12 ] The prosecutor admits that the first two requirements of

section 5 of the regulation are met, as the rifle was unloaded and rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device. He submits, however that the storage of the rifle and ammunition did not comply with

section 5)1)

c) of the regulation because in his view, the rifle was “readily accessible to ammunition”, and the ammunition was not “stored in a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked”. [7] According to the prosecutor, even if the rifle and ammunition were stored as Mr. Daigle contends, with the keys on the bookshelf in the same room, this does not comply with the requirements of storage. [ 13 ] The prosecutor underscores that the legislation does not require only that the ammunition box be locked , but specifies that it must be “ securely locked”.

Thus, he argues that a container cannot be said to be “securely locked” when the keys to that lock are close by. He argues that the term “securely” must import something more than simply locking the box, in order to meet the purpose of the legislation. Otherwise, he notes, an obviously unsecure storage, for example leaving the keys in the lock, would nevertheless be statute compliant, yet permit unsafe storage, which the statute aims to prohibit. [ 14 ] The Court does not agree.

The language of the regulation is clear and although it is true that the requirements must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the aim of the legislation, an individual must not be convicted for contravening a regulation where his actions fall squarely within the clear wording of the requirements imposed. [ 15 ] The appropriateness of interpreting these regulations following their clear words and ordinary meaning is exactly what was decided in the matter of R. v .

Porter. [8] In that case, the accused argued that the manner in which he stored his firearm was “secure” even though it was not locked with a locking device, since it was fastened with screws, thus providing even more protection than a lock. The B.C. Supreme Court refused to accept the argument that this secure storage method was acceptable, because that would require an

interpretation of the legislation contrary to its plain wording, which would encompass noncompliant, although equally safe, manners of storage. This decision was confirmed by the B.C. Court of Appeal, [9] which stated that “the regulations were intended to set out, and did set out, a certain and clear method of storage by way of conventional locking, and that other methods to storage were simply noncompliant.” [10] [ 16 ] The Court finds that the ammunition box was securely locked on these facts.

Perhaps storing the keys in a different location would increase the safety precautions for storage, but it is not for the Court to rewrite nor to interpret legislation beyond its plain meaning when the words are not ambiguous. [ 17 ] Moreover, it should be noted that in a situation where statute-compliant storage nevertheless creates an unsafe situation (I refer to the example given by the prosecutor of leaving the keys in the lock), this may well form the basis of a charge under section 86 (1) Cr.

C. which governs the careless storage of firearm (requiring proof of a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonably prudent person. [11] ). [ 18 ] As pointed out by the Nova Scotia Provincial Court in R. v. Harvey , [12] failure to comply with the provisions of the storage regulations under section 86 (2) does not necessarily mean that an offence has been committed under section 86 (1) Cr.

C . [13] The converse is also true: careless storage of a firearm pursuant to s. 86 (1), will not necessarily lead to a conviction for failing to comply with the storage regulations pursuant to s. 86 (2) . [ 19 ] In the present matter, Mr. Daigle is charged only with improper storage, following section 86 (2) Cr. C . As in every criminal matter, the burden rests on the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the essential elements of the crime charged, namely here that he “stored firearms in a manner contrary to the requirements of the regulations.

" [14] On these facts, the prosecution has not established beyond a reasonable doubt that the ammunition was not in a container “kept securely locked”.

FOR THESE REASONS , Mr. Daigle is acquitted of the count charged. __________________________________ LORI RENÉE WEITZMAN, J.C.Q. Me Hassan Hussein For the Prosecutor John Christopher Daigle Self-represented Date of hearing: July 12, 2022