In the April 15 decision in Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FCA 82, the appellants comprised of a not-for-profit advocacy organization, firearm owners, businesses, hunters and recreational and sport shooters. The appellate court noted that the arguments on appeal were “merely a reiteration” of what was before the lower court.
The appellate court noted that the Federal Court made “thorough, well-reasoned and legally sound reasons” that were persuasive. It did not find that the lower court erred in any of its determinations.
The appellants claimed that the governor-in-council (GIC) “did not form the opinion that the newly banned firearms are not ‘reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes’ and, therefore, failed to comply with the requirement of subsection 117.15(2) of the [Criminal] Code,” and such an opinion would not have been reasonable regardless.
They argued that if the only prerequisite to the GIC proscribing certain firearms was a public safety consideration, its discretion “would be nearly unfettered” since all firearms are inherently deadly if in the wrong hands. Further, public safety could not be a relevant consideration per the subsection and only Parliament itself could prohibit firearms reasonable for hunting or sport.
Reasonableness for hunting or sport should be assessed by considering factors such as whether a firearm was designed for military use rather than being designed for hunting or sport, they added. They contended that in promulgating the regulations, the GIC violated a mandatory limit on discretion because the opinion was not and could not have been reasonably formed.
Further, the existence of an amnesty order showed “lack of internal coherence,” the appellants argued, as simply the existence of an amnesty period demonstrated that the firearms prohibited were reasonable for use for hunting or sport — and that the regulations were therefore inconsistent.
The appellate court was not persuaded that the GIC erred in considering public safety and found the opinion was reasonable and supported by the record before the Federal Court.
“Surely, the inherent danger that some firearms pose to public safety because of their lethality and their ability to injure or kill a large number of people in a short period of time, the fact that they have been used in mass shootings in Canada and abroad, the fact that they are disproportionate for civilian use, and the increasing demand for measures to address gun violence, are all valid considerations in determining whether their use is reasonable for hunting and sporting purposes,” said Justice Yves de Montigny.
“To conclude otherwise would run counter to the text, context and purpose of section 117.15 of the Code and would be oblivious to the broad policy considerations that the GIC, in its role at the apex of the executive branch, must be attuned to in fulfilling its delegated authority.”
The appellate court did not find that the GIC rested the opinion only on the inherent deadliness of firearms. Characteristics of the banned firearms were considered, which included tactical/military design, quickly re-loadable, capable of holding large-capacity magazines, capable of semi-automatic action, and present in large volumes in the marketplace.
“Similarly, the fact that other less dangerous firearms remain available was certainly a factor that could legitimately be considered by the GIC in coming to its opinion as to whether the prohibited firearms were reasonable for hunting and sporting,” Justice de Montigny added.
“It appears from the record that there are indeed numerous alternative firearms available on the market for these activities.”
The amnesty order also did not undermine the reasonableness of the GIC’s opinion, the court said, as the order was of a transitory nature for the protection of lawful firearms owners who acted in good faith when their firearms were originally purchased, allowing them to continue hunting until they can buy other ones.
The appellants therefore failed to rebut the presumption of validity of the regulations.
Justice de Montigny further agreed with the Federal Court that the regulations did not breach principles of fundamental justice and did not contravene any section of the Charter or the Bill of Rights that were argued.
“Regulations do not involve an adjudicative setting for individual rights or the application of discretion to a specific set of facts,” he said. “They apply to all firearms owners in Canada, based on public safety considerations, and their application is non-discretionary and contingent on facts.”
“The situation would obviously be different in the context of a criminal prosecution for unlawful possession of a prohibited firearm or in a forfeiture proceeding. ... On the same basis, the GIC did not owe a duty of procedural fairness to individual owners who may be affected by the Regulations.”
He added that what matters in administrative law is “substance, not form” and that regulations are general in nature just like legislation, applying to a large group of people. Courts also often regard regulations as legislative in nature. The due process clause in the Bill of Rights does not apply to executive acts or processes before the minister of justice and the GIC.
The appeals were dismissed. Justices David Stratas and Anne Mactavish agreed.
Parties’ counsel were not immediately available for comment.
Counsel for the appellants the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, Rodney Giltaca, Ryan Steacy, Maccabee Defense Inc. and Wolverine Supplies Ltd., were Sarah Miller of Jensen Shawa Solomon Duguid Hawkes LLP and Michael Loberg of Loberg Ector LLP.
Counsel for the appellants Jennifer Eichenberg, David Bot, Leonard Walker, Burlington Rifle and Revolver Club, Montreal Firearms Recreation Centre, Inc. and O’Dell Engineering Ltd. were Thomas Slade, Eugene Meehan and Cory Giordano of Supreme Advocacy.
Counsel for the appellants Michael John Doherty, Nils Robert Ek, Richard William Robert Delve, Christian Rydich Bruhn, Philip Alexander McBride, Lindsay David Jamieson, David Cameron Mayhew, Mark Roy Nichol and Peter Craig Minuk was Arkadi Bouchelev of Bouchelev Law.
Appellant Christine Generoux appeared on her own behalf.
Counsel for the intervener Attorney General of Saskatchewan was Mitch McAdam.
Counsel for the intervener Attorney General of Alberta was Aleisha Bartier.
Counsel for the respondent Attorney General of Canada were Robert MacKinnon, Kerry Boyd, Jordan Milne, Jennifer Bond, Sarah Jiwan and Katherine Creelman.
If you have information, story ideas or news tips for Law360 Canada on business-related law and litigation, including class actions, please contact Anosha Khan at anosha.khan@lexisnexis.ca or 905-415-5838.