Possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm, Possession of a firearm knowing its possession is unauthorized, Occupant of a motor vehicle knowing there is a firearm, Careless use or storage of a firearm

R. v. Grace

  • Below the Crown's ask

Sentence and the Crown's position

Crown asked30 months in custody1
Judge imposedTwo years less a day conditional sentence (house arrest for one year, then curfew), concurrent 90-day CSOs on other counts; s. 109 prohibition1
30 months less custody than the Crown asked

A conditional sentence is served in the community, usually under house arrest. It counts as no custody here.

What the law allows

Maximum14 years
Crown asked30 months in custody
Judge imposed2 years less a day conditional sentence
Defence asked2 years less a day conditional sentence
For possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm (CC 95(1)), the Criminal Code currently allows up to 14 years when the Crown proceeds by indictment, with no mandatory minimum. The sentence imposed is 14% of the maximum. Read the section.

Brydon Cole Grace was convicted after trial of four firearms offences, including possessing a loaded restricted firearm, after a conservation officer found a loaded handgun in his backpack at a lake near Vernon. The Crown sought 30 months in jail for the s. 95(1) offence; the defence sought a conditional sentence of two years less a day. Justice Ahmad imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, finding his possession of the handgun was not linked to any criminal activity.

In the judge's words

As set out above, in this case, I am satisfied that Mr. Grace's possession of the handgun was not linked to any criminal activity of any nature. Although not entirely benign, and definitely reckless, Mr. Grace lacked any malicious intent, only wanting to feel safe in the bush.

1

The record

Prior convictions
0 prior convictions1
At the time of the offence
Not stated1
Defence asked for
2 years less a day conditional sentence1
Mandatory minimum
Found unconstitutional or not applied under a binding ruling1
Appeal
Not yet checked
Counsel
Crown: J. Bagan
Defence: D. Verdurmen

Sources

  1. R. v. Grace, 2022 BCSC 475 Court decision, CanLII, March 10, 2022[34] It argues that the sentencing guidelines established in the case law dictate that a sentence of 30 months for Count 4, being the s. 95(1) offence, is appropriate. … Based on Holt, it argues that a 30-month jail term is appropriate.[39] In respect of Count 4, the s. 95(1) offence, he submits that his individualized circumstances warrant a sentence of two years less a day and that it is appropriate that the term of imprisonment be served in the community under a conditional sentence order with strict conditions.[41] In striking down what was then a mandatory three year minimum sentence under s. 95(1), in Nur, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that there is a wide spectrum of conduct caught by that section.Brydon Cole Grace[21] Prior to these convictions, Mr. Grace did not have a criminal record and has not had any involvement in criminal activities since.[101] As set out above, in this case, I am satisfied that Mr. Grace's possession of the handgun was not linked to any criminal activity of any nature. Although not entirely benign, and definitely reckless, Mr. Grace lacked any malicious intent, only wanting to feel safe in the bush.[130] … c) On Count 4, possessing a loaded restricted firearm contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code, I sentence you to a conditional sentence of two years less a day; … [131] Those conditional sentences are to be served concurrently.
  2. R. v. Grace, 2022 BCSC 475 Court decision, Courts of British Columbia

publicly
Sentence Watch is part of Publicly: sites built from government and court records, with every fact linked to its source. Publicly is not affiliated with any government. Visits are counted with Google Analytics, which sets cookies.