In a significant development, Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal has dismissed objections to the federal government’s 2020 prohibition of assault-style firearms. The court upheld the legality of the government’s decision to ban more than 1,500 models deemed unsuitable for civilian usage. The challenge to this decision was spearheaded by the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights (CCFR), along with individual gun owners and firearm retailers, who argued that the federal cabinet overstepped its authority under the Criminal Code by failing to adhere to section 117.15(2), which exempts firearms considered reasonable for hunting or sporting from prohibition (Federal Court of Appeal ruling).
The court, led by Chief Justice Yves de Montigny, maintained a unanimous stance in rejecting the appellants’ arguments. It ruled that the cabinet had reasonably concluded that the banned firearms were not suited for hunting or sports, an assessment supported by evidence regarding their technical features, such as semi-automatic actions, high magazine capacities, military-style designs, and their use in mass shootings. The panel emphasized that the cabinet, rather than firearm users, is best placed to evaluate such assessments within the framework of wider policy considerations.
Furthermore, the decision also addressed public safety concerns as inherently relevant and necessary in evaluating the suitability of firearm usage. The court underscored the rationale laid out in the government’s Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement accompanying the 2020 regulations. This document highlighted the potential risks posed by the firearms due to their design and capacity for harm, deeming them unfit for civilian purposes.
The CCFR, however, raised alarms about the implications of such a decision, cautioning that it potentially enables the cabinet to exercise broad powers to ban firearms that are lawfully utilized by Canadians. They argued this could result in arbitrary regulatory overreach with minimal parliamentary scrutiny (CCFR statement).
The court also dismissed claims that the government improperly transferred law-making authority to the RCMP through the Firearms Reference Table (FRT), classifying it as an administrative tool rather than a legal instrument. The appellants’ Charter of Rights and Freedoms allegations, regarding the supposed vagueness and overbreadth of the regulations, were also rejected, with the court asserting these terms were not unjustly vague and that any potential rights limitations were justifiable in a free and democratic society under Section 1 of the Charter.
The ruling confirms that regulations enacted through delegated authority are presumed valid and subject to a reasonableness review, affirming the cabinet’s role in addressing public safety risks through lawful delegated powers (source).