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

Oct22: Daily Court Reports

News Archive Index

October 22-26, 2007 Court Hearings

Court begins 10:00 AM daily at the Superior Court of Ontario, 216 Water Street, Kenora Ontario.

AcrobatReader Doug Christie's Argument Outline Presented before Justice Wright on Oct 22, 2007 -- Download 8 page Acrobat .PDF file»

Oct 22 - On Monday we had a pretty full day in court. There were no "unexpected delays" so the Montagues' lawyer Doug Christie went right into his arguments. He was clear, concise, logical, and relevant as he outlined the history of Canadian law. In response to Justice Wright's questioning, Mr. Christie was able to interact with diverse constitutional and legal arguments, making several witty remarks along the way.

The crown managed to negotiate that we must respond to his outline of argument before he presents it orally to the court. So Mr. Christie had to do that this afternoon with very little time for preparation. Tomorrow Mr. Christie will complete our response to the crown's arguments to justify the gun laws. Basically they must prove that Section 1 of the charter "saves" the firearms laws because the infringement on freedom and property rights is "reasonable" in a free and democratic society. Then the crown will present his argument that we don't have a right to own firearms, and that the firearms legislation is justified as an infringement on our rights to property and to security of person.

Mr. Christie handled himself with great professionalism and he commanded respect from everyone in the court room. "The man understands the philosophy and principles behind our Canadian rights and freedoms. He takes complex laws and legal cases and explains them in a way that anybody can understand" says Donna Montague.

Oct 23 - Today Mr. Christie finished his response to the crown's attempt to justify the firearms laws.

As a demonstration of the bias against firearms among the police and court system, Mr. Christie asked everyone in the court room who had never been convicted of a violent offense to stand. All the onlookers in the court, some 16 people, stood.

Crown Prosecutor Peter Keen just shook his head. The judge smiled at the display as Mr. Christie asked what it must cost to have four police officers in court to watch 16 peaceful citizens.

It was an excellent display of the paranoia of the all-powerful State.

Keen objected twice to Mr. Christie relating examples of the law's misuse in the real world. An article by National Post columnist George Jonas that related the experiences of John Rew in Craigmyle, Alberta was objected to. Read about that early morning raid at:

The objection was upheld, so Doug Christie talked about "hypothetical situations the law engenders in the real world". "For the sake of argument let's say the following scenario happened under current law", Mr. Christie began, "A man and his family are sleeping, awakened to find a tear gas grenade launched through their bedroom window. Let's say men, clad in balaclavas and holding machine guns break down his door, hurl the man to the ground and handcuff him as a smoke grenade burns a hole in the carpet. Let's say this happened. Is that a reasonable response to a man's firearms license expiring twelve hours before? I say it is not!"

He continued on with other "hypothetical" situations that anyone reading news stories over the past several years would recognize. One such case was where a young man shooting a pellet gun at targets set up in his fireplace. Police received a call about drugs at a residence and the young man, pellet gun in hand, was gunned down by police.

The Crown, however, did not object to the hypothetical situations, contenting himself with his objections to what he called Mr. Christie's "attempt to bring new factual material before the court." The facts before the court are frozen, he said, the time for their introduction being long past.

As the day closed there was a debate about whether Bruce Montague could, at this point of the proceedings, challenge the second search warrant. (The Montague home was searched twice while Bruce was held in jail in Kenora's remand center)

The day ended with the judge ruling that Montague could not challenge the warrant under factual grounds, but he went out of his way to state he could still challenge the search warrant under constitutional grounds. Many in the gallery grumbled about the judges ruling, thinking the matter was closed, even though the constitutional avenue remains open to Montague.

Wednesday Crown Prosecutor Peter Keen is scheduled to begin his attack on the right of Canadians to possess firearms. It should prove an interesting if frustrating day as the defense can do little but sit and listen.

Oct 24 - by Bruce Montague
Just finished our third day in court. Another long day and we're all tired out. But we all feel very good about the presentation that has been made by Mr. Christie.

The judge appears to understand our arguments very well, and demonstrated that in the questions he raised during the crown's presentation.

I feel very comfortable that all the major flaws in the legislation were demonstrated. We pray that Justice Wright will take the information and arguments provided and dare to make a the right decision to uphold our rights and freedoms.

It's been a long, long road, but we all feel honoured to have an opportunity to participate in the history of our nation in this way.

Tomorrow Mr. Keen, the crown prosecutor, hopes to finish his arguments. Then Mr. Christie plans to provide a rebuttal for about two hours.

Justice Wright indicated that his decision on the constitutional application would not be rendered on Friday so we'll have to hear the ruling at a later date, hopefully before the trial begins on Nov 13th.

Oct 25 - by Donna Montague

Oct 25 - by Donna Montague I feel the wear of the emotional roller coaster we've been riding this week. The Crown, Mr. Peter Keen, finished his presentation this morning. Our lawyer, Mr. Doug Christie, responded to the crown. He provided case law from the Supreme Court to display that the English Bill of Rights of 1689 and the Magna Carta of 1215 are accepted and used documents reflecting our rights that were adopted in Canada's 1867 Constitution Act. He also displayed to the court that it was our constitution of 1982 that gave the courts the right to strike down an unconstitutional law.

The attendees in the gallery found Mr. Christie to be very concise and interesting. Everyone woke up with interest and passion about 12:30pm when Mr. Christie began presenting his response to crown arguments. I feel that Mr. Christie clearly displayed the right to arms as stated in the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Violent criminals and the mentally unstable could be prevented from misuse of firearms through prohibition orders, as was in place prior to Bill C68. ("The Firearms Act").

I must share that Steven Bell has a song - "On the Wings of an Eagle". The words of this song echoed in my mind and heart throughout the week. While eating breakfast and humming this song a bald eagle soared towards us and rose above the hotel. This tune gave me strength to run through this week of trial.

Now the decision lay in the hands of the Judge and GOD. Whatever the decision we gave it our best. Our arguments were correlated and presented to the best of our ability.

May God bless the men and women who took part, supported and attended these proceedings. We stand for a free Canada.

On a very personal note, I feel tears as well as I try to think of a way to say thank you..... You are far more dear than I know how to say.

Next we face criminal proceedings starting November 13th, and in the future I'm sure there will be appeals, whatever the outcome.

May God Double Bless You.

Love and Prayers,


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.