R. v. Arseneault, 2024 ONCJ 56

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE CITATION: R. v. Arseneault , 2024 ONCJ 56 DATE: 2024·01·30 NEWMARKET BETWEEN: HIS MAJESTY THE KING — AND — MICHAEL ARSENEAULT RULING ON s 117.05 APPLICATION Evidence Heard: January 30, 2024. Delivered: January 30, 2024. Mr. Jeremy Mutton.................................................................................. counsel for the Crown Mr. Arseneault did not attend KENKEL J.: Introduction [ 1 ] The Crown applies for orders under s 117.05(4) that: • The firearm seized from Mr. Arseneault be forfeit to the Crown • Mr. Arseneault be prohibited from possessing a firearm or related items set out in s 117.05(4)(

b) for three years. Ex Parte Hearing [ 2 ] A police officer attended Mr. Arseneault’s home and served him with notice of this application. Mr. Arseneault did not attend on the scheduled return date of December 14, 2023. PC Liu called Mr. Arseneault on that date and spoke to him. Mr. Arseneault said he was available to come on January 24, 2024 and the application was adjourned to today’s date on that basis. [ 3 ] Mr. Arseneault did not attend in 202 court today. When the matter was traversed at 2:15 p.m. he had not been seen in the building at any point and he did not respond to pages from this courtroom.

I found it necessary in the circumstances to proceed ex parte in the absence of the respondent under s 117.05(2). Forfeiture s 117.05(4)(a) [ 4 ] PC Liu testified about the incident that led to the seizure of Mr. Arseneault’s firearm. His testimony included reference to information provided by other officers in official reports, made during the course of their duties. I find that information to be credible and trustworthy. [ 5 ] Police were called by Mr. Arseneault’s ex-girlfriend. She had received text messages from him indicating that he was having suicidal thoughts after their recent breakup.

She also mentioned he may be suffering from bi-polar disease. [ 6 ] Officers attended Mr. Arseneault’s residence and were shown his shotgun. There’s no evidence that it was stored in a manner that was unsafe. Mr. Arseneault continued to voice suicidal thoughts, so he was apprehended under the Mental Health Act RSO

1990 c M.7 and taken to hospital. [ 7 ] I find I can place no weight on the mention of bi-polar disease by the girl friend as there was no detail explaining that conclusion and no other evidence on that point. I find the Crown has proved on the balance of probabilities that the rest of the evidence shows that it is not desirable in the interests of the safety of Mr. Arseneault and the safety of his ex-girlfriend that he continues to possess the shotgun. [ 8 ] The shotgun seized by the York Regional Police is forfeit to His Majesty for destruction.

Prohibition s 117.05(4)(b) [ 9 ] The Crown requests a prohibition order of 3 years. The incident described relates to Mr. Arseneault’s reaction to a particular event. There’s no evidence that he has ever posed a risk to public safety in the past. [ 10 ] I agree that the Crown has shown the circumstances require a prohibition order, but considering the time passed to date I find a 2-year prohibition would be sufficient. [ 11 ] Mr. Michael Arseneault is prohibited from possessing any weapon, firearm and related items set out in s 117.05(4) for 2 years. Delivered: January 30, 2024. Justice Joseph F. Kenkel