Ontario Court of Appeal orders appointment of counsel in lifetime weapons ban appeal

After the refusal of legal aid coverage, the Ontario Court of Appeal deemed it in the interests of justice to assign counsel to a man who pleaded guilty to possessing ammunition and explosive substances to appeal his lifetime weapons prohibition. 

In R. v. Haughton, 2025 ONCA 633, the appellant received a conviction in April 2022 for possessing firearms in an unauthorized place. This conviction subjected him to a discretionary weapons ban under s. 110 of the Criminal Code, 1985. 

In January 2023, the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) intercepted a parcel addressed to the appellant’s residence and containing a Polymer 80 Sig Sauer Grip Module. This item’s common purpose was to create a firearm. 

The CBSA contacted the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), which arranged for the parcel’s delivery to the address of the appellant, who confirmed that he was the intended recipient. 

The OPP and York Regional Police executed a search warrant at the appellant’s home. Officers saw 500 grams of sodium nitrate, one pound of ammonium nitrate, 454 grams of rifle powder, nitroglycerin, five meters of safety fuse, 200 rounds of ammunition, a Sig Sauer 9-millimetre 10-round magazine, a handgun-carrying case, a black balaclava, and a duffle bag. 

Upon securing judicial authorization, officers looked at the appellant’s computer and saw online searches regarding converting and using weapons. 

The appellant pleaded guilty to possessing ammunition while subject to a s. 110 prohibition order in breach of s. 117.01(1) of the Code and possessing explosive substances in violation of s. 82(1) of the Code. 

In May 2024, the trial judge imposed a lifetime weapons prohibition under s. 109(3) of the Code. The appellant also received one year’s imprisonment for the s. 117 offence and two years’ probation for the s. 82 offence, considering presentence custody. 

On appeal, the appellant challenged the lifetime weapons ban. He unsuccessfully applied for legal aid and appealed the refusal of coverage. However, the Eligibility Review Office affirmed the denial. 

The appellant applied for an order appointing counsel to act for him under s. 684 of the Code. He alleged that he could not represent himself on the appeal and lacked the funds needed to retain counsel. 

Counsel to be appointed

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted the appellant’s application and issued a s. 684(1) order assigning counsel to represent him on his appeal of the lifetime weapons prohibition. 

The appeal court ruled that the appellant met his burden of showing that appointing counsel to act on his behalf would serve the interests of justice. The appeal court saw arguable issues of mixed fact and law that he could not raise without counsel’s assistance.

First, the appeal court found it unclear whether: 

• The Crown considered the lifetime weapons ban mandatory or discretionary on the trial judge’s part 
• The Crown relied on s. 109(3) 
• The case complied with the notice requirement under s. 727(1) of the Code 

The appeal court noted that the Crown’s sentencing submissions merely asked for a lifetime weapons prohibition due to the prior s. 110 prohibition. The appeal court added that the trial judge’s sentencing reasons did not mention his basis for imposing a lifetime weapons ban. 

Second, the appeal court determined that the appeal raised the issue of whether breaching a discretionary s. 110 prohibition amounted to a first offence sufficient to engage s. 109(3), which would entail the proper interpretation of ss. 109(1) and (2). 

The appeal court explained that only somebody with legal training could appropriately address these statutory interpretation issues. 

The appeal court noted that the Crown acknowledged that the appellant did not have the means to hire counsel.