Today the Supreme Court of Canada announced they will not hear Bruce Montague’s appeal.
This does not mean the Montague’s legal troubles are over, however. Still outstanding is the Ontario Provincial Government’s threat to take the Montague family home under Ontario’s Proceeds of Crime Act. They were “kind” enough, in their letter threatening the house seizure, to allow the Montagues to stay in their home until the criminal proceedings were finished.
With the SCC deciding not too hear the Montague case, the way is now clear for the Ontario justice department to make good on their threat to take the family home “regardless of the outcome” of the criminal proceedings.
Such is the Ontario Proceeds of Crime act. You don’t actually have to be convicted of a crime for them to steal your property.
Montague’s lawyer, Doug Christie, is confident the home seizure will not proceed. Donna Montague, however, is not so sure.
We should know shortly whether Christie’s confidence is correct.
In the meantime, Bruce and Donna Montague ask for your prayers for them and for the people making these decisions.
Donna will be issuing a statement later today.
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA — JUDGMENTS TO BE RENDERED IN LEAVE APPLICATIONS
33623 William Bruce Montague, Donna Jeanne Montague v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.) (Criminal) (By Leave)
Charter of Rights – Criminal law – Constitutionality of firearms legislation – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by holding that the sections of the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code under which charges were laid were constitutionally valid and within the power of Parliament, or in breach of ss. 7 and 26 of the Charter and not saved by s. 1 – Whether the Court of Appeal erroneously ignored the Crown’s inflammatory address to the jury – Whether the Court of Appeal erroneously ignored the amendment of the indictment after the close of the defence case – Whether the Court of Appeal erroneously imposed a harsh sentence and mandatory minimum sentence – Whether the Court of Appeal erroneously imposed an unlawful conditional and jail sentence.
William Bruce Montague is a firearms dealer and manufacturer. He allowed his firearms licence to expire in November 2002 without renewal. His Firearms Acquisition Certificate expired in November 2003. His wife, Donna Jeanne Montague’s firearms licence expired without renewal in March 2004. In September, 2004, acting on the authority of two search warrants, the police seized more than 200 firearms and related devices, together with in excess of 20,000 rounds of ammunition and boxes of military-related books and associated paraphernalia from the Montagues’ home. Many of these weapons were discovered in a hidden storage room in the basement of the house. The evidence at trial established that Mr. Montague believed himself to be preparing to defend himself, and others, in the event of a war. Mr. Montague was charged with various firearms-related offences under the Criminal Code on a 53-count indictment. Mrs. Montague was charged with one count of unlicensed possession of a firearm.
Mr. Montague was convicted of 26 firearms-related offences. Mrs. Montague was convicted of one count of unlicensed possession of a firearm. Mr. Montague was sentenced to a global sentence of 18 months’ incarceration, followed by 90 days imprisonment to be served in the community, plus probation for one year. A lifetime weapons prohibition order was also made. Mrs. Montague received a suspended sentence and was placed on probation for six months. The Montagues both appealed against conviction and Mr. Montague appealed as well against sentence. Their appeals were dismissed however it was ordered that the issue of forfeiture was to be addressed by the trial judge.
December 6, 2007
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Application challenging the constitutionality of legislation controlling firearms, dismissed
February 25, 2010
Court of Appeal for Ontario
(Moldaver, MacPherson and Cronk JJ.A.)
2010 ONCA 141
April 26, 2010
Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed
September 16, 2010
DISMISSED WITHOUT COSTS / REJETÉES SANS DÉPENS
William Bruce Montague et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.) (Criminal) (By Leave) (33623)
Coram: McLachlin / Abella / Cromwell
Leave a Reply