La possession d’une arme en vue de se défendre équivaut à la possession d’une arme dans un dessein dangereux pour la paix publique, sauf si une attaque était manifestement inévitable

R v Sakebow, 2012 SKCA 84

Lien vers la décision

[2]        The trial judge made a specific finding of fact that the respondent possessed the weapon in question (a .22 caliber handgun) for self-defence.  The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Kerr, 2004 SCC 44, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 371, held that possession of a weapon for self-defence is possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace unless there is evidence that the perceived attack was unavoidable.  (See para. 38 per Major and Bastarache JJ. and para. 94 per Arbour and LeBel JJ.)  The respondent did not testify at the trial and there was no evidence of an unavoidable attack.

[3]        The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. H. (J.M.), 2011 SCC 45, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 197, at para. 28, held that the legal effect of findings of fact raises a question of law.  In our view, the trial judge made an error of law by holding that the legal effect of finding the respondent had the weapon for a self-defence purpose leads to the legal conclusion the respondent did not possess the weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace.

[4]        The appropriate remedy in this case is to allow the appeal and enter a conviction for the charge under s. 88 of the Criminal Code.  An examination of all of the evidence including the nature of the weapon and the circumstances under which it was possessed leads to the inescapable inference the weapon was possessed for a purpose dangerous to the public peace.