<%@ Page Language="C#" ContentType="text/html" ResponseEncoding="iso-8859-1" %> Untitled Document
   
 

FIREARMS FACTS UPDATE

FIREARMS ACT SECTION 12(6)
REFERENCE HEARINGS JUDGEMENTS & KEY QUOTES

UPDATED: February 12, 2007

(1) FEBRUARY 2, 2007 - TERRITORIAL COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES Yellowknife, NWT - File No. T-1-CR-2006000019) - Firearms Act, s.74(2) Reference Hearing - Patrick Robert Ehnes, Applicant - Reasons for Decision of the Honourable Judge A.J. Brown.
http://www.rfcsask.ca/nwt-12.6-decision.pdf

  • [27] Were I to find, in this situation, that the Registrar's discretionary decision was justified and Mr. Ehnes' only remedy was a further legislative amendment, it would bring to mind the famous words of the Mr. Bumble character in Charles dickens' Oliver Twist: "If the law supposes that, the law is an ass."

CONCLUSION

  • [28] As the Registrar knew of the changing grandfather date and deliberately delayed processing registration applications to take into account the changed date, I conclude that the refusal of Mr. Ehnes' registration was not justified and direct that his Savage handgun be registered.

 

(2) JUNE 1, 2006 - PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA - Kamloops, BC - File No. 78582-1 (Registry: Kamloops) - Firearms Act, s.74(2) Reference Hearing – J. Demchuk, Applicant - Reasons for Judgement of the Honourable Judge Cleaveley
Page 2: “The crucial time, in my view, is June 29, 1996, when Mr. Demchuk signed this notice. I understand that the notice was subsequently changed to remove the phrases referring to individuals who acquire for the first time. But when Mr. Demchuk reacquired this gun, he was entitled to view himself as being grandfathered because of his previous ownership.
Page 3: “The legal test with regard to this is that I must find that the decision of the handgun officer was unreasonable. It is not for me to substitute my opinion with regard to that decision. When I consider the unique facts in this particular case, I am satisfied that the decision of the firearms officer to refuse Mr. Demchuk a licence in regards to this weapon was unreasonable and not justified.
Page 4: “This is the order I am making, then, pursuant to s. 76(c) of the Act that the order canceling the revocation of the licence is made, and it is up to Mr. Demchuk, at this point to register the gun.

(3) MAY 23, 2006 - PROVINCIAL COURT OF ALBERTA - Barrhead, Alberta - Transcript No. 060071602H101001 - Firearms Act, s.74(2) Reference Hearing - James Knapp, Applicant

  • Page 50: “There is no evidence that the current government is considering any amendments to the legislation that would allow for the 1,433 prohibited weapons in this category to achieve a grandfathering status and their owners become entitled to register such handguns.”
  • Page 51: “There is no constitutional argument raised regarding the legislation, and no legislative rescue imminent.”
  • Page 52: “It may be discriminatory on the part of Parliament to exclude those firearms from the amending legislation, grandfathering many other guns, but that is not something over which I have any control. The only solution to this problem, for Mr. Knapp and others in his position would have been to urge a legislative amendment, and that has not, to date, happened.”

(4) SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 - PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA - Vancouver, BC - File No. 169267-1 (Registry: Vancouver) - Firearms Act, s.74(2) Reference Hearing - Dragan Ruzic, Applicant - Reasons for Judgement of the Honourable Judge J. Watchuk

(5) JUNE 15, 2006 - PROVINCIAL COURT OF ALBERTA - Brooks, Alberta – Docket: 060048824H101001 (Registry: Medicine Hat) Firearms Act, s.74(2) Reference Hearing – Wayne Anderson, Applicant – Oral Judgment of the Honourable Judge T.J. Hironaka

  • Page 4: “The Crown argues that only Parliament can grant the relief the Applicant seeks by way of statutory amendment to the Firearms Act.”
  • Page 5: “I think I may have already made it clear that my sympathies lie with the Applicant.”

(6) JUNE 2, 2006 – PROVINCIAL COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND – Charlottetown, PEI, Firearms Act, s.74(2) Reference Hearing – Michel Jean Arsenault, Applicant – Judgment of the Honourable Judge Nancy K. Orr

  • Page 8: “If changes to the law are needed to correct and inequity of perceived inequity, then that is the responsibility of Parliament to address, not the courts.”
  • Page 13: “I have a great deal of sympathy for the position that Mr. Arsenault finds himself in.”
  • Page 13: “I cannot make a decision based on what I would like to do, nor based on whether I feel that Mr. Arsenault has been treated fairly or unfairly by the legislation.”
  • Page 13: “When section 12(6) was subsequently amended and finally came into effect on April 10, 2005, because of other provisions of the Firearms Act (specifically section 127), Mr. Arsenault’s registration certificate had expired and he could not, and was not issued any registration certificate for that intervening period.”


(7) MAY 29, 2006 – PROVINCIAL COURT OF NEW BRUNSWICK – Hampton, NB – Case #03896403 - Firearms Act, s.74(2) Reference Hearing – Roger Patrick Sullivan, Applicant – Judgment of the Honourable Judge Henrik Tonning.

  • Page 1: “I mean it’s an unfortunate situation and certainly one that leaves kind of a sour taste in everyone’s mouth in some respects through no fault of any of the parties here. Don’t get me wrong. It’s a Legislative conundrum here.”
  • Page 5: “Again, it’s not my job to do anything other than say it’s unfair. I think anyone would suggest that, I mean looking at it reasonably. I mean one can’t argue with the aims of the Firearms Legislation. I mean the way in which they’re trying to get there obviously leaves something to be desired as far as some people are concerned and this is another example of the confusion that exists. But again that’s the law and I have to apply it notwithstanding the fact it seems to be somewhat unfair.”
  • Page 6: “As I say, anyone can’t help but be somewhat sympathetic but having said that I – in the circumstances and what was done is completely proper.”

(8) JUNE 13, 2006 - PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA - Kamloops, BC - File No. 78570 (Registry: Kamloops) - Firearms Act, s.74(2) Reference Hearing – Michele Cianci, Applicant - Reasons for Judgement of the Honourable Judge Cleaveley

  • Page 2: “In this particular case, while I have great sympathy for Mr. Cianci, in my view, he is caught by the legislation, and it would be in error for me to hold, given the facts of this case and the legislative peculiarities, to find that the registrar’s decision was wrong.”
  • Page 3: “The judge in the Knapp decision makes mention of an applicant, such as Mr. Cianci, seeking some type of Charter relief or a legislative amendment. That is not something that is before me today, and obviously it is not within my jurisdiction to make new law with regard to this. I must apply the law.”

(9) JUNE 2, 2006 – PROVINCIAL COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND – Charlottetown, PEI, Firearms Act, s.74(2) Reference Hearing – Mark David Bevan, Applicant – Judgment of the Honourable Judge Nancy K. Orr

  • Page 5: “Section 127(2) of the Firearms Act provided that all registration certificates which have been issued under the former provisions of Part III of the Criminal Code, were deemed to have expired on December 31, 2002.
  • Page 5: “There is no evidence before me that “any other date has ever been prescribed.”
  • Page 6: “By operation of section 127 of the Firearms Act, Mr. Bevan’s registration certificate automatically expired on December 31, 2002.
  • Page 8: “Amendments that were designed to widen the group of those grandfathered are essentially ineffective, because Parliament, in considering the legislation, took a long time to pass the amendments, and there was then a further lengthy period before those amendments actually took effect.”
  • Page 8: “There is no basis on which anyone could stop the expiration, other than Parliament or other legislative authority prescribing another date, as set out in section 127. They chose not to do so. Mr. Bevan acknowledged that he has no evidence to suggest that there was “any other date prescribed by law.” Counsel for the Registrar confirmed that no other date was prescribed.”

(10) AUGUST 3, 2006 - PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA – Duncan, B.C. – File No. 28501 - Firearms Act, s.74(2) Reference Hearing – John E. Allen, Applicant
Page 6: “Consequently I have no alternative but to confirm the decision of the firearms officer and direct that the firearm be surrendered to a local RCMP or as directed by the firearms officer, say within 10 days.”

(11) August 31, 2006 - COURT OF QUEBEC - Transcript No. 200-38-008172-054 - Firearms Act, s.74(2) Reference Hearing – Laimonis Gailis, Applicant - Judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice Pierre Verdon, J.C.Q.
Page 3: “The court determined that despite all the applicant’s skills and personal qualifications, the Registrar of Firearms could not, under the law as it exists, issue the requested registration certificate in his favour.
Page 4: “The Court gives the applicant 60 days from the date of this judgment to comply with the relevant provisions of the law with regard to the weapons in question.