Justice committee  This one was enacted in 1995 in the Firearms Act amendments.

Justice committee  With the information I have, I don't have any other appellate decisions that have upheld its constitutionality. I have some other, earlier lower court decisions predating Nur and Lloyd that were upheld in Ontario and in British Columbia in 2004, 2010 and 2016. I also have a B.C.

Justice committee  Recklessness is a slightly different mental element. It's similar to wilful blindness. Because the provision doesn't speak to recklessness, it isn't an essential element of the offence. Recklessness requires somebody to appreciate the risk. In this case, they have a strong sense

Justice committee  If the courts have read in recklessness to those distinct elements, then yes. However, as a general matter in criminal law, if essential elements are stipulated—in this case they are knowledge and wilful blindness as a substitute for knowledge—because criminal law is significant

Justice committee  Thank you for the question. Mr. Moore is right in the sense that section 96 has that additional element. The Crown has to establish knowledge on the part of the accused that the thing they possess is illegal and it was obtained by crime. Knowledge includes wilful blindness. Know

Justice committee  Wilful blindness as a mental element requires some evidence that the accused deliberately refused to make further inquiries. A scenario might be where somebody offers to sell this individual a thing and their suspicion is aroused, and they deliberately choose not to inquire furth

Justice committee  I only have limited information. I do have one lower court decision—it's a bit dated—that found the provision unconstitutional, but I don't have the specifics on whether it was for the second or third offence. We'd have to do some more digging on that.

Justice committee  It's a lower Ontario court decision.

Justice committee  I'll be very quick. Mr. Moore accurately described the sentencing implications. On a first offence, there is no mandatory minimum penalty prescribed. On a second offence, there is the mandatory minimum penalty of one year, and on a third offence, there's a term of two years less

Justice committee  In the Nur decision, the Supreme Court struck down the two MMPs for section 95, so there are no MMPs, currently. To go back to an earlier question that was posed, there is constitutional jurisprudence on the other offences listed, with varying results. In some cases, provisions

Justice committee  This is a clause that really provides guidance to the courts as to when they're considering whether to impose a higher MMP because the conviction is a second or subsequent conviction. The offences listed in paragraphs 84(5)(a), (b) and (c) constitute a first offence for the purpo

Justice committee  Section 85 has a mandatory minimum.

Justice committee  Sure. Section 85 does have mandatory minimum penalties. Section 95—

Justice committee  It's one year, and the subsequent is three years. Section 95 did have mandatory minimum penalties, but they were found unconstitutional—

Justice committee  —by the Supreme Court in Nur. Section 99 has mandatory minimum penalties of three and five years, I believe, for first and second or subsequent offences with firearms, and a one-year MMP for other things like prohibited or restricted weapons. Section 100 is the same. It's posse