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

Nov21: Defence questions officers about search of hidden room in Montague home

News Archive Index
Source: Kenora Daily Miner and News

By Garett Williams
Wednesday November 21, 2007

During cross-examination of Const. Andrew Bulmer in a Kenora courtroom Tuesday, Bruce Montague’s lawyer Doug Christie attacked the credibility of an OPP search of a hidden room in Montague’s home.

Bulmer said he and another officer counted $405 American and $2,105 Canadian dollars, money recovered from the room. Christie suggested there was well over $3,000 and presented a photo showing a sum of money in a large paper clip, with more money wrapped in a piece of paper beneath it.

“That ($2,105) is not what is depicted in those photos and you must have known that,” Christie said.

“No sir, I can only refer to the money I counted,” Bulmer replied.

During re-examination by Crown attorney Peter Keen, Bulmer said he hadn’t taken any money out of the room.

Christie continued to press the issue of the search when he cross examined Const. Randy Belluz, the arresting officer and member of the Provincial Weapons Enforcement Unit.

Belluz was the officer who recovered the guns from the room, unloading them, if necessary, before passing them along to another officer, Bulmer, who made them safe and handed them to a third officer, who applied identification numbers and tags. Belluz said Montague told him there was nearly $1,500 in the room, which belonged to his son and asked him to leave it there. Belluz relayed the message, but couldn’t recall if he said it should be left in the room.

Christie also pressed him on the arrest, which occurred at a gun show in Dryden in 2004.

Belluz approached Montague while he was looking at a saddle and asked him to come outside, so he wouldn’t be arrested in front of a crowd.

Montague turned back toward the saddle dealer and reached into his pocket, which raised a safety concern to Belluz, so he grabbed Montague by his wrist and elbow, asked him not to make a scene and directed him outside. Christie argued that when approached by Belluz, Montague said he wanted to buy the saddle first and reached into his pocket for money.

Belluz said it wasn’t possible Montague was wearing a rifle at the time of his arrest and it wasn’t until he was questioned outside that the officers learned he brought a .22-calibre riffle to the show.

Next, the Crown called an expert witness in Stephen Horwood from Ontario’s Provincial Weapons Enforcement Unit. Horwood testified serial numbers are used to track guns and the most common reason to remove it is to eliminate the history of the gun, so it won’t be traced back to the seller.

During cross-examination Horwood said it’s possible to trace a gun back to a seller without the serial number and there is no law requiring a gunsmith to call the authorities if they are working on a gun without a number.

The final witness of the day was Const. Mark Sharpe, an OPP forensic identification officer in Kenora.

Sharpe was responsible for making a video of the Montague house, before anything was touched by investigators, during the first search and making a video of the hidden room on the second search, before the firearms were removed.

The primary function of making a video is to document the scene as it is found, so it can be re-created in a courtroom, he said. There is a 20-minute gap in the video when the hidden room was first opened and the first officer entered to take photos. Christie argued the first officer in the room was out of sight of anyone else, including the video camera for nearly 20 minutes. “Did he take anything,” Christie asked.

“I don’t know,” replied Sharpe.

Montague is facing 53 firearms related offenses, including the unauthorized possession and careless storage of non-restricted firearms, explosives and restricted firearms. His wife, Donna, is facing three charges -- the unauthorized possession of a firearm and two counts of careless storage of a firearm.

Montague’s constitutional challenge of the federal Firearms Act -- which aimed to strike out sections of the Criminal Code of Canada related to the act, to have their criminal charges dismissed and to have the Firearms Act declared unconstitutional -- was dismissed by Justice John Wright a week before the criminal trial began.


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.