Floyd's Case — careless storage of Firearms — Dismissed

Between
Her Majesty the Queen, and
Floyd H.

[2003] O.J. No. 2915

Ontario Court of Justice
Brampton, Ontario
Judge Ready

Dismissed:  21 May 2003
(7 paras.)

¶ 1     READY J. (orally):  I note a number of the cases cited by your counsel in respect to the issue of careless storage were all decided before the regulations came in force in respect to s. 5(1) of the regulations that involve what is known as storage of non-restricted firearms. And that section, I think, gives the Court some guidelines in how the Court should be interpreting what is careless and what is the appropriate standard that the Court should be looking at when one is dealing with the issue of carelessness.

¶ 2     And, having seen that section and been not unmindful that the officer found two unloaded, non-restricted long guns under a bed, on top of which you were sleeping, and that they were not loaded, but that he indicated they had a lack of a trigger locking device on each of them, and that he was able to fire them at the range at Peel Regional Police at a later time, and that he examined them after he insured that they were safe to examine. And this was at your residence.

¶ 3     Bearing in mind all of that evidence, I think that that would have, subject to my next comments, would have established to the Court that there was storage that was careless in that regard. We next come to the issue of the storer, and you have to be found beyond a reasonable doubt to be the individual that stored those guns under that bed, and certainly it's not necessary in these types of offenses. Anybody can store guns in a careless fashion. They need not be the owner of the gun, they need not be the owner of the place in which the guns were stored in order to be found to have stored firearms.

¶ 4     But, given the way in which this trial has evolved, the original statement not being admitted into evidence on a Khan type application, and then the Charter evidence voir dire, in which certain aspects of the various types of evidence were found to be either admissible or inadmissible in evidence. I am left — and I think that counsel is accurate when he says that I really can rely on very little that occurred outside of that bedroom by way of admissible hearsay, reliable hearsay, or any utterances in respect to who provided the key.

¶ 5     And we have the police being provided a key by an elderly female going in and finding you asleep on a bed, in a bedroom, and I'm satisfied your clothes were on the floor. Underneath the bed were two long guns, and in the room was a fishing rod, partially drunk bottle of rum. You had alcohol on your breath and appeared to be under the influence when the officers roused you from your sleep and tried to get you dressed and walk. And it's certainly clear that there were hunting, fishing type paraphernalia in the room consistent with the objects that were under the bed.

¶ 6     Having said all that, and the evidence of the ammunition in the den, down the way is inadmissible. The evidence about utterances that you made about other guns in the residence being down in the safe, which you couldn't open, all of that is inadmissible. I cannot consider it. When I consider and look at the very narrow amount of evidence that I can look at — is you asleep on a bed underneath which two long guns are located, and some of your clothes at the side of the bed. But apart from that, that is all the evidence that I can rely on and I am in reasonable doubt about the issue of whether or not you were the person who it could be reasonably inferred was the storer of those guns. It's just not established beyond a reasonable doubt to the Court based upon the particular and peculiar way in which this prosecution has moved along and the way in which the evidence was found to be either admissible or inadmissible.

¶ 7     So, accordingly, the charges of unsafe storage, careless storage of the firearms pursuant to s. 86 of the Criminal Code against you are dismissed.

BACK TO FLOYD'S CASE