Toronto Firearms Offence Lawyer

Home › Criminal Defence › Toronto Firearms Offence Lawyer

Two people are stopped in Toronto with the same pistol. One is charged under section 91, the Crown proceeds summarily, and he keeps working while the case resolves. The other faces a straight indictable count under section 92, or the 14 year exposure of section 95, and a bail fight at 2201 Finch Avenue West. Same gun, very different roads. The difference is a set of Crown choices: which count, which election, which onus. Each of those choices can be influenced early and attacked later, and that is what this page maps. For what counts as a weapon in the first place, and for the search and Charter side of these files, start with our Toronto weapons defence page in the criminal defence group.

By Fadi Matthew Kazandji, Founding Partner, Kazandji Law. Serving Toronto. Updated July 2026.

Choice one: five counts the Crown can hang on one gun

Possession charges are the workhorse of firearms prosecution in Toronto, and the Criminal Code hands the Crown a menu. The same pistol, found in the same place, can support any of five different counts depending on what the Crown believes it can prove about knowledge, location, loading and court orders. The count that gets picked sets the ceiling, decides whether a summary route even exists, and shapes the bail hearing. It is the first of the three choices that give a firearms file its shape, and the first thing we scrutinize on every new information.

Notice what the table implies. The gap between section 91 and section 92 is a mental element, which is exactly the kind of thing early defence work can put in issue before the count hardens. The gap between section 91 and section 95 is a set of physical facts, where the magazine was, what the classification report says, that get tested rather than assumed. Prosecutors choose counts from a synopsis written by police in the first hours. The synopsis is not evidence, and counts get amended in both directions. The province-wide statutory picture is set out on our Ontario weapons offence page.

A note on how these files reach the courthouse: some begin with a targeted investigation, but most begin with something ordinary, a traffic stop, a noise complaint, a landlord visit, a call about an argument, that turns into a search. The count the Crown ultimately picks is downstream of those first minutes, which is why the defence review starts with how the gun was found rather than with the gun itself.

Choice two: indictment or summary conviction

Four of the five possession counts are hybrid, which means the Crown decides whether to proceed summarily or by indictment. That decision moves real things: the sentencing ceiling, the procedure, the pace of the case, and how the file is perceived by everyone who touches it afterwards. Section 92 is the outlier, straight indictable with no summary route at all, which is one reason the choice between laying section 91 and section 92 matters so much at the charging stage.

People assume the election is fixed the day the charge is laid. It is not. Crown offices screen files continuously, and a defence that engages early, with something concrete to say about the knowledge element, the strength of the search, or the client's circumstances, can influence whether a borderline file runs summary or indictable. That conversation has to happen before positions harden, which in practice means weeks after arrest rather than months. It is unglamorous work with no courtroom drama, and it changes outcomes more often than cross-examination does.

The election also interacts with the count itself. A Crown who cannot prove knowledge for section 92 may accept section 91 summarily. A section 95 count with a shaky loading element may end as a section 91 resolution. None of that happens by default. It happens when someone makes it happen, early, with the disclosure in hand.

There is no fixed deadline by which the election must be made, and Crowns often hold it open while disclosure assembles. That cuts both ways: it leaves room for persuasion, and it leaves uncertainty hanging over the client. Part of case management is forcing the question at the right moment instead of letting it drift.

Choice three: who has to win the bail hearing

The third choice is not formally the Crown's, but the charges the Crown lays determine it: who carries the onus at the bail hearing. The default in Canadian law is that the Crown must justify detention. On firearms files that default flips in defined situations: where the allegation is a firearm offence committed while the person was already under a weapons prohibition order, where the charge is robbery or another serious offence with a firearm alleged, and where the person was already on release for an indictable matter when the new charge arrived. Those reversals are why two people with similar guns can have completely different first weeks, and the robbery-with-a-firearm version is a large part of how home invasion prosecutions get their bail posture, which we cover on our Toronto home invasion page. And an allegation of breaking into a home to steal firearms reverses the onus on its own, one of several places where gun files and entry files intersect; our Toronto break and enter page covers that territory.

Some people charged with firearm offences are released at the division on an undertaking with conditions. Those who are held go to the Toronto Regional Bail Centre at 2201 Finch Avenue West, where Toronto's adult bail hearings run, while appearances on the charges themselves continue at the Ontario Court of Justice at 10 Armoury Street. The Code also directs bail courts to address specific conditions in firearms files, so expect terms about weapons and firearms possession regardless of how the hearing goes.

What actually wins a contested firearms bail is preparation: sureties who understand what they are signing up for, a plan for where the client lives and works, an answer on any firearms already in the home, and strict terms proposed before the court has to invent them. Our Toronto bail lawyers page covers the hearing mechanics, the grounds of detention and the review routes.

One more piece of the first-week picture: if you were released at the division on an undertaking, the conditions on it are enforceable from the moment you sign, and they often include weapons terms and no-go areas. Unworkable conditions are not something to quietly breach; they can be varied on application. And if you were held and the hearing went badly, a detention order can be reviewed in the Superior Court on fresh material. Neither fix starts by itself.

Possession is not presence: knowledge and control

Every count on the menu shares one foundation: possession. It is worth being precise about what that means, because the public idea, that whoever is closest to the gun possesses it, is not the law. Possession requires knowledge and a measure of control. The Crown has to prove the person knew the firearm was there and had some ability to deal with it, and that requirement does real work in the two places Toronto firearm files most often come from: apartments and cars.

In a shared apartment, a gun in a closet is not automatically everyone's gun. Constructive possession turns on who used the space, who had access, whose belongings surround the item, whose DNA or fingerprints appear, and what the messages say. In a car with four occupants, the Crown's theory often amounts to proximity, and proximity is not knowledge. Section 94 exists precisely to reach occupants of a vehicle, but it still requires knowledge that the firearm was present, and it contains its own escape hatch for an occupant who realized the gun was there and tried to leave or made clear they wanted no part of it.

Joint possession theories get run when the Crown cannot say whose gun it was, and they fail where the evidence shows nothing more than presence in the wrong place. These are not technicalities. They are the difference between conviction and acquittal in a large share of the possession files Toronto courts actually hear, and they are the first thing we test against the disclosure.

Timing matters in these contests. Fingerprint and DNA results arrive months into a file, stop and search videos surface late, and the theory of who possessed what can shift as they do. A defence that commits itself to a story before disclosure is complete gives that advantage away, which is one more reason the first conversations with counsel matter so much.

Licensed and still charged: the statutory exits

The possession offences are authorization offences. The question is never simply whether you had a gun; it is whether you were authorized to possess that firearm, in that place, in that way. That framing matters most for the people who least expect to be charged: licence holders. A PAL holder facing an expired term, a storage allegation or a transport issue is in a completely different legal position than an unlicensed carry, and the distance between an administrative lapse and criminal knowledge is exactly where these files get defended.

Parliament built exits directly into the charging sections. Sections 91(4) and 92(4) carve out possession held under the authority of the licensing system, and section 95(3) does the same work for its heavier count. Section 84(3) deems certain situations outside the offence definitions entirely. These are not loopholes. They are the boundaries Parliament drew, and counsel's first job on a licence-holder file is to check every one of them against the paperwork. Licensing itself runs through the RCMP Canadian Firearms Program, and the full walkthrough of licences, classifications and the paper system lives on our Markham firearms offence page.

Two practical points. First, gather the paper immediately: licence, authorizations, correspondence, renewal notices, anything that shows status or a pending application. Second, do not explain to police how you understood the storage rules. The statutory exits are legal arguments for counsel to make, not conversation topics for an interview room.

Classification deserves a single line here, because it feeds the paper analysis: under section 84(1) every handgun is at least restricted, some are prohibited by barrel length or calibre, automatic and sawed-off firearms are prohibited, and ordinary long guns are generally non-restricted. Which box the item falls into decides which authorizations could ever have covered it, and whether section 95 is even available. The deeper sorting exercise belongs to the Markham page linked above; the point here is that the box gets proven, not presumed.

Section 95: the count that changes the whole file

Among the possession counts, section 95 stands alone. It targets a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm, or one with ammunition readily accessible, and by indictment it carries a 14 year ceiling, the heaviest in the possession lane. When a section 95 count appears, everything else on the file organizes itself around it: the Crown election becomes the main event, the bail hearing hardens, and resolution discussions change their tone.

But the count has elements, and every one of them is contestable. Loaded means loaded. Where the magazine actually was, whether it sat in the same compartment or bag or room, and what readily accessible means on the real geometry of a car or an apartment are litigated questions, not assumptions. So is classification: prohibited and restricted are legal categories proven through expert reports on barrel length, calibre and configuration, and those reports can be challenged rather than accepted. A section 95 count that survives scrutiny is a serious problem. A surprising number do not survive it intact.

The history matters too, and it is told in the box near the top of this page: the mandatory minimums that once attached to this count are gone, struck down in Nur and repealed by Bill C-5. The ceiling stayed. That combination, no floor but a very high ceiling, is why outcomes on section 95 files vary so widely and why the litigation is worth doing properly.

Section 95 also colours bail. It is the count most likely to push a file into a contested hearing, and the one where the release plan has to answer the loaded allegation directly: who holds any other firearms in the home, where the client will live, what supervision looks like day to day. Treating the bail hearing and the section 95 elements as one problem rather than two is how the first month gets managed properly.

The prohibition order problem: s. 109, s. 110 and the fresh count

A meaningful share of Toronto firearm files involve people who were already banned from possessing weapons when they were arrested. That is because prohibition orders are everywhere: section 109 makes them mandatory on conviction for a list of offences, at least ten years for non-restricted firearms and life for restricted or prohibited ones, with life across the board on a repeat, while section 110 gives courts a discretionary power in other cases. Bail releases carry weapons conditions as well, so the universe of people under some form of firearms restriction is far larger than the number of people with criminal records.

Possession contrary to an order is its own offence under section 117.01, hybrid with a ten year ceiling, and it arrives with a bail consequence: a firearm offence allegedly committed while under a prohibition order is one of the reverse onus situations described earlier. The practical result is that the same conduct produces a heavier file and a much harder first week for someone with an order in place.

The defence work here is unglamorous and effective: read the order. Orders have start dates, end dates, defined scope and sometimes built-in exceptions, and the order must actually have been in force and must actually cover the item alleged. Files turn on exactly those lines. If you are subject to an order and police want to talk to you about a weapon, the time to call counsel is before that interview, not after it.

Section 85: when the allegation is use, not possession

Everything above concerns having a gun. Using one is a different lane with different arithmetic. Section 85 makes it a separate offence to use a firearm, or an imitation firearm, in the commission of an indictable offence, with a maximum of 14 years and no minimum in the current text. Two features give the count its weight. The sentence must be served consecutively to the sentence for the underlying offence, so it stacks rather than blends. And the imitation branch means a replica produces the same exposure as the real thing, because the terror it creates is the same.

Use counts travel with robbery more than with anything else, and the interaction between section 85 and the robbery minimums, five years where a restricted or prohibited firearm is used, is covered properly on our Toronto robbery page. If your charge sheet pairs a possession count with a use count, the two get defended together, because the same evidence usually feeds both.

One drafting quirk is worth checking on every charge sheet. The real-firearm branch of section 85 contains an exclusion list: offences that carry their own built-in firearm treatment, robbery among them, cannot also ground a section 85 count. The imitation branch carries no such list. So which branch was charged, and what the underlying offence is, are the first two questions counsel asks when a use count appears, because the answer sometimes removes the count entirely.

The defence map: where Toronto firearm files are won

Strip away the section numbers and firearm prosecutions are won and lost in four places.

• Possession itself. Knowledge and control, as described above: the shared apartment problem, the car problem, joint possession theories that reduce to proximity. If the Crown cannot connect the person to the gun, nothing else matters.
• The search. Most firearm files begin with a stop or a search of a car, a person or a home, and the Charter governs all of it. If the stop was arbitrary or the search unreasonable, exclusion of the firearm is on the table, and without the firearm there is usually no case. That ground, stops, searches and exclusion, is covered in depth on our Toronto weapons defence page.
• The exhibit trail. A firearms count needs continuity from seizure to property locker to laboratory, and it needs a classification opinion that holds up. Gaps in either are defence terrain, and a defence expert can answer the Crown's report where classification is genuinely in issue.
• Disclosure and time. Firearms files generate technical disclosure, and the constitutional clock keeps running while it is produced: 18 months to trial in the provincial court and 30 months in the Superior Court under Jordan. Delay is not a technicality. It is a right, and it gets enforced.

Not every argument exists on every file, which is the point of a map: it tells you where to look before you decide where to fight. The first review of disclosure happens against all four of these fronts at once.

After a conviction: what follows you out of the courtroom

Sentences end. Orders do not, or not quickly. Conviction for the listed firearm offences brings a mandatory section 109 prohibition, at least ten years for non-restricted items and life for restricted or prohibited ones, with life across the board on a repeat. Forfeiture of the seized firearm and related items typically follows. And the order itself becomes a tripwire for the future: possessing anything it covers afterwards is a fresh section 117.01 count, with its own ten year ceiling and its own bail consequences.

For non-citizens, firearms convictions raise immigration consequences that operate independently of the sentence imposed. For everyone, they shape records, travel and employment in ways that deserve attention before resolution rather than after it. How a file ends determines what follows you out of the courtroom, which is why resolution design on a firearms file is a planning exercise and not a signature.

None of this is reason for despair. It is reason for planning. Prohibition terms get litigated at sentencing within the limits the statute sets, forfeiture positions get negotiated, and the shape of a resolution can protect employment and travel in ways a rushed plea never will. The time to raise all of it is before anything is agreed, not after.

Why Kazandji Law for a firearms file

Firearms files are technical, and they are unforgiving of delay. The classification report, the continuity chain, the lawfulness of the stop and the wording of a prohibition order all reward a defence that starts digging in week one, while the count and the election are still in play. Fadi Matthew Kazandji is the founding partner of Kazandji Law and defends firearms allegations across the Greater Toronto Area from four offices:

• Toronto head office, 180 John Street, Unit 320, minutes from the Ontario Court of Justice at 10 Armoury Street, where Toronto firearm charges are prosecuted.
• Thornhill office, 7191 Yonge Street, Suite 310, serving Markham and York Region.
• North York and Oakville offices for clients across the rest of the GTA.

Consultations are free and the phone is answered around the clock. Past results are collected on our success stories page. No two firearm files are alike and nothing on this page is a promise, but the pattern in the good outcomes is consistent: the earlier the defence starts, the more of the Crown's three choices are still open to challenge.

This page is legal information for people facing firearms allegations in Toronto, not legal advice about any specific case. Criminal Code provisions are summarized as of the July 2026 update of this page, and every file turns on its own facts. For advice about your situation, contact Kazandji Law for a free consultation at 647-588-3234.