The appellant appealed his conviction for possessing ammunition while subject to a prohibition order under s. 100(2) of the Criminal Code.
He argued the original order was invalid because it failed to specify a reasonable period for surrendering ammunition as required by s. 100(13).
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that challenging the validity of the original order constituted an impermissible collateral attack.
The court also found the actus reus was proven, as possessing ammunition three years after the order exceeded any reasonable time limit, and dismissed a motion to introduce fresh evidence.
