In Canadian criminal law, “other offensive weapons” (historically tracked under UCR Code 3350) refers to a broad range of situations where a person possesses, carries, or conceals a weapon in a way that threatens public safety. Today, these offences are mainly prosecuted under Sections 88 (possession of a weapon for dangerous purpose) and 90 (carrying a concealed weapon) of the Criminal Code. Both are hybrid offences, meaning the Crown can choose to proceed summarily or by indictment. Because the statutory definition of a “weapon” is wide, many everyday objects can become “offensive weapons” in Canada if they are used or intended to be used to hurt, threaten, or intimidate someone.
The Legal Definition
Criminal Code, s. 2 – Definition of “weapon”
“weapon” means any thing used, designed to be used or intended for use
(a) in causing death or injury to any person, or
(b) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person
and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, includes a firearm and, for the purposes of sections 88, 267 and 272, any thing used, designed to be used or intended for use in binding or tying up a person against their will.
This definition, found in Section 2 of the Criminal Code (federal statute), is the foundation for offensive weapons offences in Canada. It covers three main ideas: objects actually used as weapons, objects designed as weapons (such as certain knives or clubs), and objects that are intended to be used as weapons in the future. It also specifically includes firearms and, for some offences (including Section 88), even things used to bind or tie someone up against their will.
In plain language, the law looks not only at what the object is, but what you are doing with it and why. A kitchen knife, hammer, or baseball bat is normally just a tool or sports equipment. But if you carry it around to scare people or to be ready to fight, the same item may become a “weapon” in the legal sense. That is why “other offensive weapons” in Canada is such a broad and flexible category: it captures both conventional weapons and ordinary items used or intended for harmful or intimidating purposes.
Penalties & Sentencing Framework
- Relevant offences: Section 88 (possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose); Section 90 (carrying a concealed weapon).
- Offence type: Hybrid (can be prosecuted summarily or by indictment).
- Mandatory minimum penalty: None.
- Maximum penalty – Section 88 (indictable): Up to 10 years’ imprisonment.
- Maximum penalty – Section 90 (indictable): Up to 5 years’ imprisonment.
- Maximum penalty – Summary conviction (both sections): Up to 2 years less a day in jail and/or a fine of up to $5,000 (via s. 787 of the Criminal Code).
Under Section 88, a person commits an offence if they carry or possess a weapon, imitation weapon, prohibited device, or certain ammunition “for a purpose dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence.” This is a hybrid offence with a very high maximum penalty—up to 10 years in prison if the Crown elects to proceed by indictment. There is no mandatory minimum, so a judge can impose anything from a discharge or probation (where permitted) up to lengthy custody, depending on the facts and the offender’s record.
Section 90 focuses on concealment. A person commits an offence if they carry a weapon, prohibited device, or prohibited ammunition concealed, unless they are authorized under the Firearms Act to do so. This, too, is a hybrid offence. If prosecuted by indictment, it carries a maximum of five years’ imprisonment; if prosecuted summarily, it is subject to the ordinary summary conviction limits in Section 787. The law treats concealed carrying as inherently suspicious, because hiding a weapon often signals an intention to use it unlawfully or to avoid detection by police.
Because these offences are hybrid, the Crown’s election is a critical sentencing driver. Proceeding summarily is generally reserved for less serious cases (for example, no actual violence, minimal record, a relatively less dangerous item). Indictable proceedings are more likely where the weapon is particularly dangerous (e.g., a prohibited knife or a loaded gun), the circumstances are alarming (near schools, public events), or the accused has a serious criminal history. Within these ranges, judges must weigh public safety and deterrence against rehabilitation and proportionality.
Common Defenses
-
Self-defense
Self-defense is a complete defence where the accused’s possession or even use of a weapon is genuinely for protection and is reasonable in the circumstances. Under Section 34 of the Criminal Code, a person is not guilty if they reasonably believe force is being used or threatened against them or another person, they act for the purpose of defending themselves or the other person, and their response is reasonable. In the context of offensive weapons offences, this does not mean that merely claiming “I carried it for self-defense” is enough. The court examines whether there was an actual or reasonably perceived threat, how imminent it was, what alternatives existed (such as retreat or contacting police), the nature of the weapon, and whether carrying or concealing that weapon was a proportionate and reasonable response. If the accused simply arms themselves in anticipation of possible street trouble with no specific, imminent threat, courts are often reluctant to accept self-defense as a justification for Section 88 or 90 charges.
-
Lack of intent (no dangerous or criminal purpose)
For Section 88 in particular, the Crown must prove that the weapon was carried or possessed “for a purpose dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence.” If the accused possessed the object for an innocent purpose—work, sport, cultural use, or lawful collection—and there is no evidence they intended to use it to harm, threaten, or intimidate, then an essential element of the offence is missing. For example, a chef transporting knives to a catering job, or a camper carrying an axe for woodcutting, will usually not meet the legal threshold if the circumstances support that lawful explanation. Lack of intent can also attack the claim that the item was a “weapon” at all: if it was never used, designed, or intended to be used to cause injury or intimidation, it may not fall within the statutory definition.
-
Authorized possession or lawful excuse
Section 90 provides a built-in exception where the person is authorized under the Firearms Act to carry a weapon concealed. Specialized security personnel or law enforcement operating under valid licences or authorizations may rely on this. More broadly, some weapons provisions in the Criminal Code include the concept of “lawful excuse,” which can cover situations such as transporting weapons under strict regulatory rules, or possessing them in a way consistent with licensing and storage regulations. If the accused can show they were acting within the scope of a valid licence or authorization, or consistent with specific permissions (such as airline or workplace conditions), that can undermine the Crown’s case. However, exceeding the terms of the authorization—carrying at the wrong place, wrong time, or in a prohibited manner—can turn otherwise lawful possession into an offence.
Real-World Example
Consider the example of a person found with a prohibited knife in a public park late at night, claiming it was for self-defense. Under Canadian law on offensive weapons, police will first assess whether the knife fits the statutory or regulatory definitions of a prohibited or restricted weapon, and whether it is being carried in circumstances suggesting a dangerous or criminal purpose. A concealed, prohibited knife in a public place raises serious red flags. The Crown could lay a Section 88 charge if they allege the person possessed it for a purpose dangerous to the public peace (for instance, being “ready” to fight), a Section 90 charge for carrying it concealed, or both. The accused’s explanation—“I carried it for protection”—does not automatically justify the conduct. The court will ask: was there an actual, imminent threat? Could the person reasonably have sought protection in another way (avoidance, police assistance)? Is carrying a prohibited knife reasonably necessary and proportionate as self-defense? If not, the self-defense claim may fail, and the knife will be treated as an offensive weapon. Sentencing would then depend on whether the Crown proceeds summarily or by indictment, the person’s record, and whether there were aggravating factors like gang involvement, intoxication, or proximity to vulnerable areas such as schools.
Record Suspensions (Pardons)
Offences involving other offensive weapons in Canada are generally eligible for a record suspension under the Criminal Records Act, so long as the applicant has completed all parts of their sentence (custody, probation, fines, surcharges, and any weapons prohibitions) and has remained crime-free for the required waiting period. For this category of hybrid offences, the waiting period depends on how the Crown proceeded. If the person was prosecuted summarily, they are typically eligible to apply for a record suspension five years after completing their entire sentence. If the offence proceeded by indictment, the waiting period is ten years after sentence completion. A record suspension does not erase the conviction but sets it aside and makes it inaccessible in most criminal record checks, significantly easing employment, travel, and housing barriers. However, repeat or serious weapons offending, breaches of court orders, or new charges during the waiting period can jeopardize eligibility or lead to refusal of an application.
Related Violations
- Assault with a Weapon (s. 267 of the Criminal Code)
- Carrying a Concealed Weapon (s. 90 of the Criminal Code)
- Possession of Prohibited or Restricted Firearm with Ammunition (various provisions under Part III of the Criminal Code)
Because the concept of a “weapon” in Canadian law is so broad, anyone facing charges involving offensive weapons in Canada should take the allegations very seriously. Understanding how Sections 88 and 90 work, how intent is proven, and how defenses like self-defense and authorized possession operate is critical for assessing risk, mounting a proper defence, and planning for long-term consequences like record suspensions.