Anishinabek Police Service says a video showed a handgun being fired across a lake. A 46-year-old man now faces three firearm-related charges, including possessing a firearm or ammunition while prohibited
FORT WILLIAM FIRST NATION – CRIME NEWS – September 17, 2026 — A social media video showing what police describe as the careless discharge of a handgun has led to the arrest of a Fort William First Nation man.
The Anishinabek Police Service (APS) says it became aware earlier in September of a video circulating online that appeared to show a handgun being fired across a lake.
Frontline APS officers and the APS Major Crime Unit investigated with assistance from the Ontario Provincial Police Provincial Guns and Gangs Enforcement Team.
Police say investigators identified the person shown firing the weapon. APS further alleges that the individual was wanted in Alberta and was subject to criminal conditions prohibiting him from possessing weapons.
On September 15, officers arrested a 46-year-old man at a residence in Fort William First Nation. Police did not release his name.
He has been charged with:
- Possession of a firearm or ammunition contrary to a prohibition order;
- Careless use of a firearm, weapon, prohibited device or ammunition; and
- Knowing unauthorized possession of a firearm.
The accused was held for a bail hearing. APS says the investigation remains active.
What the Charges Mean
The following explanations describe the general legal elements and maximum penalties set out in the Criminal Code. They do not predict the outcome of this case.
| Charge | What the Crown Generally Must Prove | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Possession contrary to a prohibition order | The Crown must establish that the accused knowingly possessed a firearm, ammunition or another item covered by section 117.01 while legally prohibited from doing so by a valid order. | This is a hybrid offence. If prosecuted by indictment, the maximum is 10 years in prison. If prosecuted by summary conviction, the general maximum is two years less a day in jail, a $5,000 fine, or both, unless another provision applies. |
| Careless use of a firearm | Section 86 applies when a person, without lawful excuse, uses, carries, handles, ships, transports or stores a firearm or other listed item carelessly or without reasonable precautions for the safety of others. The surrounding circumstances – including direction, distance, visibility, the possible presence of people or property, and the availability of a safe backstop – can be important. APS has not publicly provided all of those details. | If prosecuted by indictment, the maximum is two years for a first offence and five years for a second or later offence. The charge may also proceed by summary conviction, which generally carries a maximum of two years less a day in jail, a $5,000 fine, or both. |
| Knowing unauthorized possession of a firearm | Under section 92, the Crown must prove possession and that the accused knew they did not hold the required firearm licence. If the firearm is prohibited or restricted, the provision also addresses knowledge that the person lacked the required registration certificate. | This is an indictable offence with a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. |
Maximum Penalties Are Not Automatic Sentences
A maximum penalty is the highest sentence Parliament permits for an offence. It is not the usual or automatic sentence.
If there is a conviction, a judge considers the proven facts, the level of danger, the offender’s role and record, whether a court order was breached, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the principles of proportionality and totality. The Crown’s choice to proceed summarily or by indictment also affects the available sentencing range for a hybrid offence.
Where an accused is convicted of several offences arising from the same incident, sentences are not simply added together automatically. A court decides whether sentences should be served at the same time or one after another, subject to the totality principle.
Firing a Gun Is Not, by Itself, Proof of Careless Use
The police description says the video showed a handgun being fired across a lake. That allegation prompted the investigation, but a court must consider the full circumstances before deciding whether the conduct met the legal test for careless use.
The prosecution must prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. A social media video may become evidence, but its weight, authenticity, context and admissibility are matters for the court.
Bail Hearing Does Not Determine Guilt
Being held for a bail hearing means the accused remained in custody until a justice considered whether he should be released while the case proceeds. Bail focuses on attendance in court, public safety and confidence in the justice system. It is not a trial and does not determine guilt.
The police statement that the man was wanted in Alberta is also an allegation. APS did not disclose the nature of the Alberta matter, and it should not be treated as a conviction.
None of the charges has been proven in court. The accused is presumed innocent unless and until found guilty.
Police Seek Information
Anyone with information relevant to the investigation is asked to contact the Anishinabek Police Service at 807-625-0232.
Information may also be submitted through the APS online reporting tool.
Anonymous tips may be provided to Crime Stoppers at 1-800-222-TIPS (8477) or through Ontario Crime Stoppers.
