R. v. Montague; Attorney General of Ontario v. Montague et al. (civil forfeiture)

Concluded2 min readShare
R. v. Montague; Attorney General of Ontario v. Montague et al. (civil forfeiture)

Bruce Montague was a licensed gunsmith and firearms dealer who believed that Canada’s gun licensure laws were unconstitutional. He deliberately allowed his firearms licences to expire in 2003 so that he would be charged with an offence and could challenge the constitutionality of the law in court. However, the Ontario courts rejected his constitutional arguments, and he was convicted of…

Now, the Ontario government is trying take Bruce and Donna’s house through the administrative processes of the Civil Remedies Act. Ontario alleges the properties are either “proceeds of unlawful activity” or “instruments of unlawful activity”. This process sidesteps due process, lowers the burden of proof and is an assault on individual rights. It bizarrely places the onus on the property owner to prove their property is “not guilty’, in place of the fundamental legal principle of a “presumption of innocence”. This practice has no place in Canada. The government has already taken Bruce and Donna’s of his livelihood and life’s savings, support the CCF so we can save the Montagues’ home!

Important Update (August 8, 2016): Bruce and Donna Montague Reach Settlement that Saves Their Home. See the Press Release.

Related Cases

Property

Financial Assistance for Mandatory Archaeological Costs (Reio case)

The CCF is supporting Christine and Daniel Reio after the Ontario government refused to provide financial assistance following the April 2024 discovery of approximately 1,000-year-old human remains on their Port Colborne property. The discovery triggered a mandatory archaeological investigation and Indigenous consultation process, with costs estimated at hundreds of thousands of dollars – potentially more…

Property

Police search powers case (R v. Singer)

The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) intervened before the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Singer, arguing that police powers to enter private property without a warrant under the doctrine of “implied license” must be narrowly defined.