Bruce Montague
Bill C-68 Court Challenge
CCF Takes Montague Case | News | Sign-Up for email-updates | donate Donate
This Case Epilogue written February 1, 2017 is intended to provide context to this web site as it documents a Canadian constitutional challenge spanning from 2004 to 2016. Bruce Montague determined to expose the constitutional violations in the Canadian Firearms Act. After being charged, mounting a constitutional challenge and appealing to the Supreme Court of Canada, Montague's case was dismissed without reasons. With Bruce in jail, the Montagues then faced an another twist of injustice -- the confiscation of their home and property by the Ontario government. The Montagues fought the civil forfeiture of their home for years until, in the summer of 2016, the Canadian Constitution Foundation was instrumental in negotiating with the Ontario Civil Forfeiture department to drop the lien against the Montague home. The Canadian Constitution Foundation deserves our support as they continue to fight other cases of injustice around the country. YOU COULD BE NEXT! Canada is undergoing a quiet revolution and your fundamental rights and freedoms are at stake!
What's Wrong with Civil Forfeiture» | Write to Stop Civil Forfeiture»

News Archive


Site Map

Oct 6: Crown puts lien on Montague's home

News Archive Index

A Dryden gunsmith and his wife, already facing numerous criminal charges for violating the federal Firearms Act, were in Kenora Superior Court Wednesday for a separate civil motion by the Crown that put a lien on their home and property.

By Dan Gauthier

Miner and News

Thursday October 06, 2005

A Dryden gunsmith and his wife, already facing numerous criminal charges for violating the federal Firearms Act, were in Kenora Superior Court Wednesday for a separate civil motion by the Crown that put a lien on their home and property.

The lawyer for Bruce and Donna Montague, Calvin Martin, who was not in court, said in an interview from his Toronto office the Crown has alleged the Montagues’ property is the proceeds of crime, a claim he says is ludicrous.

“It’s a form of harassment, that’s all it is,” said Martin, noting Montague bought the property years ago and built his home there.

Justice Robert Zelinski approved an order, agreed to by Martin and Crown attorney James McKeachie, to stay the civil proceedings and place a lien on the Montagues’ property until after their criminal trial is over.

Bruce Montague, who has no firearms possession licence and has never registered a firearm, was arrested along with his wife Donna by the Ontario Provincial Police on Sept. 11, 2004 at a Dryden gun show.

He is facing numerous criminal charges – 53 in total – for a variety of weapons-related offences including the unauthorized possession and careless storage of firearms, explosives and restricted firearms.

Donna Montague was also charged with unauthorized possession of a firearm and two counts of careless storage of a firearm. The Montagues have steadfastly said they will challenge the Firearms Act under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

They received the notice of motion to place a lien on their home, under the Remedies for Organized Crime and Other Unlawful Activities Act, last month. One of the purposes of the Act is to prevent those who engage in unlawful activities from keeping property acquired as a result of crime.

Following a trial, if the Montague’s property was shown to be paid for by the proceeds of crime, the court could order the forfeiture of the property to the Crown.

“I think it’s pretty obvious to the Crown I’m not in that business, I’m not in organized crime,” said Bruce Montague following Wednesday’s decision.

“I think this is purely a tactic to prevent us from fighting them. I think the Crown is scared out of their minds,” suggested Montague.

Another order approved by Zelinski was for the preservation of the Montagues’ property. However, at the request of Martin, and agreed to by McKeachie, the order was amended so the Crown has to pay for insurance on the home – should they deem it necessary – and the trial judge would decide who pays the insurance costs following the trial.

Martin said because the Montagues’ residence is a log home with only wood heat, they have never had insurance, due to not being able to pay the high insurance premiums. As a result, Martin proposed that if the Crown wanted insurance on the home, they would have to pay it themselves.

Those entering the courtroom were met by two OPP officers and subjected to a security search with a metal detecting wand. Martin said the added security was unnecessary and was concerned with the perception it may have created that the Montagues and their supporters are dangerous.

“I was a little disturbed about that,” said Martin of the security measures. “That was a ploy by the Crown.”

While Wednesday’s decision gives them one less thing to worry about as they begin their criminal trial and Constitutional challenge, Montague said they now have fewer financial options.

“It buys us some breathing room, but it doesn’t allow us to liquidate our assets to fund this challenge,” said Montague.

“We agreed to it for now, only because we can’t afford to fight two battles at a time.”

Montague said their next date for the criminal proceedings is Dec. 20 in Kenora for a judicial pretrial which is not open to the public.

back to top | search | home | site map
DISCLAIMER: is maintained by friends and supporters of Bruce Montague.
It is NOT an official mouth-piece for Bruce Montague's legal defense.