Use of Firearm in Commission of an Offence (s. 85) Charges in Canada: Offences, Defences, Punishments

By Last Updated: March 30, 2023

What is an Use of Firearm in Commission of an Offence charge?

Use of Firearm in Commission of an Offence Charges in CanadaThe offence of use of firearm in commission of an offence are found under s.85 of the Criminal Code.

Offences relating to use of a firearm in commission of an offence are found in Part III of the Criminal Code relating to “Firearms and Other Weapons”.

Offences under s.85 of the Criminal Code are straight indictable offences, which means that the Crown cannot proceed otherwise.

Examples

Some examples of use of firearm in commission of an offence may include the following:

  • Breaking into a home and holding a gun
  • Using a gun while committing a theft

Defences

  • Identity
  • Essential elements of the offence are not met;
  • Any applicable Charter defences.

Punishments

Every person who commits an offence under s.85(1) or s.85(2) of the Criminal Code is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years. The minimum penalty is one year in jail with no prior convictions under s. 85. In situations where no aggravating factors are present the minimum penalty is three years in jail with one or more priors

Have you been charged with Use of Firearm in Commission of an Offence?

Our experienced team of criminal defence lawyers is standing by to help you fight the charge. Contact us today for a free, no-obligation consultation to discuss the specifics of your case and craft a formidable defence.

Call Now 1-866-939-5940

Overview of the Offence 

Under s.85 of the Criminal Code.

(1) Every person commits an offence who uses a firearm, whether or not the person causes or means to cause bodily harm to any person as a result of using the firearm,

(a) while committing an indictable offence, other than an offence under section 220 (criminal negligence causing death), 236 (manslaughter), 239 (attempted murder), 244 (discharging firearm with intent), 244.2 (discharging firearm — recklessness), 272 (sexual assault with a weapon) or 273 (aggravated sexual assault), subsection 279(1) (kidnapping) or section 279.1 (hostage taking), 344 (robbery) or 346 (extortion);

(b) while attempting to commit an indictable offence; or

(c) during flight after committing or attempting to commit an indictable offence.

Using imitation firearm in commission of offence

(2) Every person commits an offence who uses an imitation firearm

(a) while committing an indictable offence,

(b) while attempting to commit an indictable offence, or

(c) during flight after committing or attempting to commit an indictable offence,

whether or not the person causes or means to cause bodily harm to any person as a result of using the imitation firearm.

This section prohibits and punishes use of a firearm, or an imitation firearm, during the actual or attempted commissioned of an indictable offence or flight from it.

The Guilty Act (Actus Reus)

The actus reus that the Crown must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, for the purposes of s.85(1)

  • You committed or attempted to commit an indictable offence, other than a listed offence; and
  • You used a firearm while doing so or during flight afterwards.

Listed offences include the following:

  • Criminal negligence causing death;
  • Manslaughter;
  • Attempted murder;
  • Discharging firearm with intent;
  • Discharging firearm – recklessness;
  • Sexual assault with a weapon;
  • Aggravated sexual assault;
  • Kidnapping;
  • Hostage taking;
  • Robbery; or

For the purposes of s.85(2) the actus reus are parallel to those of s.85(1) except that s.85(2) involves the use of an imitation firearm and is engaged upon the actual or intended commission of any indictable offence or flight thereafter.

The Guilty Mind (Mens Rea)

The mens that the Crown must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, is:

  • Proof of the mental element of the indictable offence attempted or actually committed; and
  • Intention to contemptuously use the firearm.

It is important to notes that there is no need to prove that you actually intended or caused bodily harm to any person as a result of the commission of the offence.

Additionally, the clause “use of a firearm” includes discharging or pointing a firearm or displaying a firearm for the purpose of intimidation while committing an offence.

However, the test in s.85(1) is not satisfied by:

  • Mere possession of a firearm;
  • Idle threat that refer to a firearm; or
  • The proximity of a firearm for future use.

This means that s.85 of the Criminal Code has to do with situations where the firearm is at the ready for present rather than future use.

Defences

A strong defence depends entirely on the individual circumstances of your case. However, the following defences may be applicable:

Identity

The Crown needs to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that the Crown must prove that it was you who committed the offence. This can often be difficult if there are no witnesses, if there were conditions present that prevented a witness from identifying you, or the offence was captured by poor quality surveillance footage. Sometimes mistakes do happen, the authorities could have made a mistake in identifying you as the perpetrator based on the poor quality of the footage. Your defence lawyer may be able to argue that the Crown cannot definitively prove that it was you who committed the offence, resulting in an acquittal.

Essential Elements of The Offence Are Not Met

In order for the Crown to convict you of an offence, the actus reus and the mens reas of the offence need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If the Crown is unable to do so, the essential elements of the offence are not satisfied, and you cannot be convicted of the offence.

Applicable Charter defences

The Charter sets out you rights before and after arrest. In the event the police fail to abide by these rights, you may have an applicable Charter defence to your charge:

Common Charter breaches include:

  • Section 8- Right to be secure from search and seizure;
  • Section 9- Right not to be arbitrarily detained;
  • Section 10- Right to be informed of reasons for detention or arrest:
  • Section 11- General: legal rights apply to those “charged with an offence”
  • Section 12- Cruel and unusual treatment or punishment

If any of your charter rights have been violated, you may be in a position to have any evidence obtained during the breach excluded.

Punishments

Every person who commits an offence under s.85(1) or s.85(2) of the Criminal Code is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years.

The minimum penalty is one year in jail with no prior convictions under s. 85. In cases where no aggravating factors are present the minimum penalty is three years incarceration with one or more priors.

Offences under s. 85 have mandatory minimums. There are no discharges, suspended sentences, stand-alone fines, or conditional sentences available.

Additionally, under s. 85(4), all sentences under s. 85(1) or 85(2) must be served consecutively to any other penalty imposed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can you go to jail for Use of Firearm in Commission of an Offence?

Yes, every person who commits an offence under s.85(1) or s.85(2) of the Criminal Code is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years.

Is Use of Firearm in Commission of an Offence a serious offence?

Yes, use of a firearm in the commission of an offence is a serious offence. These offences are straight indictable offences and are prosecuted harshly.

Is Use of Firearm in Commission of a summary or indictable Offence?

Offences under s.85 of the Criminal Code are straight indictable offences.

Published Decisions

R v. Steele, 2007 SCC 36

The accused and three accomplices forcibly entered a home at night looking for a marijuana grow operation.  The residents heard the intruders say, “We have a gun”, “Get the gun, get the gun”, and “Get the gun out.”  And the residents saw an intruder pull a dark metal object from his inside jacket.  The residents made two 911 calls describing the intruders and their getaway car. The police located the accused’s and searched the car and found several weapons, including a loaded handgun.  The accused was charged with several offences, including using a firearm while committing or the accused was found guilty of the s. 85(1) offence and the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction.

You can read the full decision here.

R v. Andrade, 2015 ONCA 499

The appellant was convicted of possession of an imitation weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, contrary to s. 88(1) of the Criminal Code, and use of an imitation firearm while committing an indictable offence, contrary to s. 85(2)(a) of the Code. On appeal, the issue was whether a conviction for possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, commonly referred to as “weapons dangerous”, can constitute the predicate indictable offence necessary for a conviction under s. 85(2). Ultimately, the trial judge concluded that it could not and that the appellant’s conviction under s. 85(2) was set aside.

You can read the full decision here.

R v. Dodman, 2021 ONCA 543

This was an appeal by accused from the sentence imposed following his guilty pleas to robbery and use of an imitation firearm in the commission of an offence. The appellant, while masked, pointed a semi-automatic type of weapon at a convenience store clerk, repeatedly jabbed him with it and demanded money.

You can read the full decision here.

About The Author

Michael Oykhman

Managing Partner

Michael Oykhman is a senior lawyer and founder of Strategic Criminal Defence, a full-service criminal law firm with central law offices across Western Canada and Ontario.

My professional experience consists of countless court appearances and thousands of successful defences and satisfied clients. Over the last 10 years, I have worked to build a law office where all the lawyers share our collective experience, resources, and passion to help people. Our team approach to legal representation is client–rather than only law–centred. We look for opportunities to add value to our clients through strategic thinking and creative solutions.

Ask A Question

We endeavor to respond to questions within 24 hours. If your matter is urgent, please call our office or submit a request for a free consultation.

Client Reviews

Michael Oykhman is a very professional lawyer and the first time I spoke to him he asked about my situation and he gave me some very helpful advice and assistance and also told me his odds of winning this case. During the days I was in contact with micheal I could feel the level of professionalism of him and his team, he is able to respond back to you with any questions you have within 24 hours. In the end he was as successful in helping me win my case as he had initially promised me.If you are still struggling to find a lawyer, I highly recommend Michael Oykhman.

R.W.

Please give yourself a favour and contact Mr. Michael Oykhman if you need any legal advice or if you are in a terrible situation. Even-tough, the odds are not in your favour, still they will go extra miles to help you out in bad situation and get you favourable outcome. Moreover, They will work on your file even after the business hours. I don’t have words to say thanks to Mr. Michael oykhman and Kiran Cheema who had worked on my file and get me out of trouble. I’m very grateful for your assistance and exceptional service. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.

Y.

I am grateful that Ms. Moira McAvoy was my lawyer, and I remain thankful to her for everything. She made a successful resolution to my case possible. Ms. Moira McAvoy is a professional, trustworthy lawyer, and a compassionate person. She is an excellent listener and knowledgeable of the law. From the start, she was an excellent guide. I did not know anything about the legal system and court, and she outlined everything clearly in advance, so I could understand things. She never rushed me through anything. She spoke clearly, explained everything, considered what I said, and provided options and advice. She kept me up to date on new information, requirements, and deadlines. She was always positive and this helped so much.

C.S.

Ryan Patmore and his team are simply the best. I was bullied by CPS in 2020 and it landed me with three separate charges, assault, refusal to blow and DUI, which all went down as I was parked at a friends. After some research and a conversation with Michael, he directed me towards Ryan and at the time I didn’t know that would be a game changer in my favour! He is honest, transparent, helpful and a brilliant mind. He successfully appealed my license suspension with ATSB and then proceeded to get the crown to dismiss all my charges before trial. I never had to step foot inside a courtroom. If you are in need of a criminal defence lawyer, don’t think twice, get in touch with this firm and ask for Ryan Patmore! The guy is an absolute saviour.

A.P.

Joseph Beller, from the very beginning when I first contacted and then retained Joseph as my representative I felt I was in good hands. When I emailed him with a question. I got a prompt response. We communicated often on the phone as needed. Joseph kept me informed as to the process. He made sure I knew all the potential results so I knew and could plan for the different outcomes. I know this his his job. But appreciate his professionalism and also his ability to not make me feel any extra stress. Well done.

N.B.
READ OUR REVIEWS
GET A FREE CONSULTATION