... My first thought was bear mace. It's perfectly legitimate to carry in the woods [...] here in BC and Alberta...
Whether you can legally carry bear spray in Canada is complicated and depends on a variety of factors. It unfortunately is not a simple topic.
In Canada, pursuant to s 91(27) of the
Constitution Act, 1867, "the criminal law" is under exclusive federal jurisdiction and provinces do not have the ability to create crimes. However, provinces are responsible for prosecuting crimes and administering courts for that purpose pursuant to s 92(14) of the same document. In Canada, "criminal law" has a far more narrow meaning than in most countries, with the result that provinces often do enact laws that would be considered criminal law in other countries, pursuant to s 92(15), with authorises provinces to impose "Punishment by Fine, Penalty, or Imprisonment for enforcing any Law of the Province" so long as the underlying law is within provincial competence.
The net effect of the constitutional provisions is that a full analysis would have to consider both federal and provincial laws that may apply. I am not going to consider provincial law, however.
In terms of federal law, ss 88-92 of the
Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-4, could each potentially criminalise carrying bear spray, in the woods or otherwise, if the various requirements are met.
Section 88 makes it a crime to possess a weapon "for a purpose dangerous to the public peace". For the purpose of this provision, a "weapon" is defined in s 2 as "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". You could argue that bear spray is not "designed to be" for either of those purposes, but it would still be a weapon if it was
actually used or
intended for use for causing injury to a person
or actually used for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person. If you brandished or intended to bradish bear spray to fend off a threatening person, a prosecutor could argue that the spray is a weapon by virtue of having been "used...or intended for use...for the purpose of threatening or intimidating...". If the prosecutor proves the bear spray was a weapon, they still need to prove that you possessed it "for a purpose dangerous to the public peace". If the purpose was self-defence, you may be in the clear as far as s 88 is concerned.
Section 90 is less generous. This section makes it a crime to to "carry" a "weapon" "concealed". To prevail here, the prosecutor would have to show that (1) you were carrying the bear spray, (2) the bear spray was concealed, and (3) the bear spray was a weapon because it was used or intended for use in causing injury or for the purpose of threatening or intimidating, etc. The prosecutor does not need to show that you actually made use of the bear spray so long as it was used or intended to be used for purpose of threatening, intimidating, etc., or if it was intended to be used in causing injury. As a practical matter, if all the person does is carry the bear spray, it might be difficult for the prosecution to prove the intent of the accused. Browsing the case law, it appears the usual way this is done is that the accused is an idiot and admits to the police that they are carrying the bear spray to defend against people. The police then testify at trial to prove the necessary criminal intent.
Section 91(2) could also be relevant, although I think it would be harder to prove. This section makes it a crime to "possess[] ... a prohibited weapon". To prevail here, the prosecution only needs to show that you (1) possessed the bear spray, and (2) that the bear spray was a "prohibited weapon". Section 84 says that a "prohibited weapon" means (among other things) a "weapon" that is prescribed by the regulations to a prohibited weapon. So the prosecution needs to show that the bear spray is (i) a weapon (like before), but also that it is (ii) prescribed to be a prohibited weapon by some validly-enacted regulation. SOR/98-462 is a regulation that prescribes prohibited weapons in Part 3, including, in paragraph 1 of Part 3, "[a]ny device designed to be used for the purpose of injuring, immobilizing or otherwise incapacitating any person" through liquid, spray, powder, or similar substance. I would think prosecutors would have a hard time proving this charge because the accused would argue that bear spray was not "designed to be used" on people (keep in mind that this is
not a requirement for the other charges discussed). However, the potential use of this charge is not purely academic. In
R. v. Bagnulo, [2012] OJ No 6328, the accused plead guilty to possessing a prohibited weapon, namely bear spray, contrary to s 91(2). Since it was a guilty plea, the Court did not discuss the merits of the charge.
I have reviewed some case law and that review mainly makes me question the competence of the lawyers who defended these accused persons, because it does not appear that any defence lawyer ever challenged whether bear spray was a "weapon" or a "prohibited weapon". This was just taken for granted. In
R. v. Weston, 2012 ONCJ 811, the judge comments on this and notes that counsel made no attempt to help him understand whether the bear spray met the requirements of the statute. However, the judge satisfied himself that the statutory requirements were met. Since the accused did not make any arguments on this topic, this review would not be as thorough as if the accused were represented by competent defence counsel (which is apparently rare in Canada; see also pleading guilty to the dubious charge above).
That is just federal law. Provinces also have laws that may make bear spray illegal under various conditions.
In summary, it's complicated whether carrying these sprays is legal in Canada -- it's not a simple "yes" or "no" answer.
[By the way, for anybody who might be curious, the section symbol (§) is not used in Canadian legal writing, which is why I use it in my US posts but not my Canadian ones. I also follow other Canadian stylistic conventions in my Canadian posts like bold-italics for case names.]