1     S. RAY J. (orally):-- Okay, as I see it, there's two issues in this case. First I'll deal with the one that was argued, which is that the Crown has not proved that this falls within the definition of a prohibited weapon as in any weapon other than a firearm that is prescribed to be a prohibited weapon, and more specifically the Crown hasn't proved that it's any device that is designed to be capable of injuring, immobilizing or incapacitating a person or an animal by discharging an electrical charge produced by any of the number of means that are listed.

2     Clearly, the device that was found on the accused is a Taser capable of discharging an electrical charge by means of electricity. There's no doubt that that's the case and that's as much as admitted by the accused herself. The issue really is whether this particular Taser is designed to be capable of injuring, immobilizing or incapacitating a person. We know that many Tasers are. We know that the officer who testified is knowledgeable enough about Tasers, based on his police and other experience to be able to tell us what a Taser generally can do. We know that he's tried another Taser on himself, and it's my view that he doesn't have to be an expert to be able to tell us whether Tasers generally fall within this definition.

3     The evidence that's not before the Court is whether that particular object - I accept the evidence that it's a Taser, the officer's evidence coupled with the admission that was made by the accused when it was seized from her. But as far as the lacuna in the evidence really is this that we don't know whether this particular Taser is capable of injuring, immobilizing or incapacitating a person. We know that it may be because it's a Taser. We know that Tasers generally are capable of doing this based on the evidence, but we don't know beyond a reasonable doubt whether this particular Taser - and I accept the evidence that it is a Taser, is capable of injuring, immobilizing or incapacitating a person, this particular object.

4     And I'm mindful that in cases of pepper spray that there are different degrees of potency, and some types of mild pepper sprays for the purpose of repelling dogs are sold quite legitimately in the marketplace, but real pepper spray is a prohibited weapon and that there is a difference, and in a case about pepper spray one would need that evidence to distinguish between them. The most effective way of proving is through the evidence of an expert, but that's the only way of proving it. It could be proved by a police officer, always depending upon the circumstances of the case, but it's more difficult to prove it that way.

5     The other issue as I see it, and it wasn't really argued, is whether this woman had knowledge as to the characteristics of a prohibited weapon, and we don't really have any more evidence before the Court except that she told the officer that - or she seemed to know it was a Taser because when asked about it, that it was the object that was recovered. But we don't know whether she had that knowledge that this particular item had the degree of potency that one would characterize it as a prohibited weapon. So there's also that issue that wasn't even argued, but I don't ever need to go there because I'm persuaded by the Defence submission, and the charge is dismissed.