L’actus reus de l'infraction d’entreposage, au sens du par. 86(1) du Code criminel

R. v. Carlos, 2001 YKCA 6 (CanLII)

[33] In my view, establishing the actus reus of the offence is a more straightforward exercise than is indicated by the analysis set out in Joe and in Bickford. A firearm has been "stored" when it has been put aside and the accused is not making any immediate or present use of it. There is no need to establish that the firearm has been put aside for a "lengthy period." Such a requirement is ambiguous, and does not provide any guidance as to when "use" has ended and "storage" has begun.

[34] When an accused is charged with careless storage of a firearm under s. 86(1), the actus reus is established by proof that the firearm was not in immediate or present use by the accused. Whether the accused is guilty of the offence will therefore largely depend on proof by the Crown of the applicable mens rea. As set out in Finlay, supra, this requires proof of conduct by the accused that shows a marked departure from the standard of care that would be exercised by a reasonably prudent person in the circumstances. As stated by Lamer C.J.C. at p. 117:

If a reasonable doubt exists either that the conduct in question did not constitute a marked departure from that standard of care, or that reasonable precautions were taken to discharge the duty of care in the circumstances, a verdict of acquittal must follow.

b. Section 86(2) – storage of a firearm in a manner that contravenes the Storage, Display, Transportation and Handling of Firearms by Individuals Regulations

[35] Counts 2 and 3 of the Information charged Mr. Carlos with offences under s. 86(2) of the Code, that is, storage of firearms in a manner that contravened the applicable regulations. As is the case with an offence under s. 86(1) of the Code, the actus reus of this offence, "storage" of the firearm, will be established by proof that the firearm had been put aside by the accused and the accused was not making any immediate or present use of it. With respect to the question of what constitutes the applicable mens rea for offences under s. 86(2) of the Code, the British Columbia Court of Appeal addressed that issue directly in R. v. Smillie 1998 CanLII 7050 (BC C.A.), (1998), 129 C.C.C. (3d) 414, as follows (at paras. 20-21):

The standard by which the manner of storage is measured must be objectively determined by reference to the regulations. This language does not import any level of subjective intention. An examination of the language of the section and the purpose of the provision leads to the conclusion that this element of the offence consists of an objective rather than subjective test.

The offence is established once the Crown has proved to the requisite standard that the accused stored firearms in a manner contrary to the requirements of the regulations. For purposes of this appeal the important point is that the Crown does not need to prove that the accused was negligent per se, the Crown need prove only a failure to abide by the standard prescribed by the regulations. With respect to the mental element the accused may defend the charge by raising a reasonable doubt with respect to a mistake of fact or by raising a doubt that he or she was duly diligent in his efforts to comply with the regulation in question. The offence is therefore one of strict liability.

The Court continued, at para. 23:

I agree . . . that evidence that the accused rendered the weapons inoperable in some way not provided by the regulations is not a defence to the charge. But I do not agree that the element of storing requires full mens rea. I do not think it is possible to separate the act of storing from the manner of storing. To use the language of s. 86(3) [now s. 86(2)] – "stores . . . in a manner contrary to a regulation" is one element, not two. This does not mean that it is not open to the accused to defend the charge on the basis that he did not know that what he was storing was a gun, or that in the process of storing the gun he had a heart attack, or any other defence which goes to voluntariness. Such defences are always open as they address the actus reus rather than the mens rea of the offence.