Blog

OTTAWA – The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) is appearing before the Supreme Court of Canada today and tomorrow, November 9 and 10, intervening in a case challenging the legality of a May 2020 federal order reclassifying certain firearms as prohibited. The hearing will be webcast live by the Supreme Court starting at 9:30 a.m. EST here.

The case, Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, et al. v. Attorney General of Canada and Jennifer Eichenberg, et al. v. Attorney General of Canada, arises from regulations introduced by the Trudeau government in 2020 prohibiting hundreds of models of firearms described as “military-style assault weapons,” along with their “variants.”

The order has led to confusion over whether particular guns count as “variants” and are therefore illegal. The RCMP maintains a Firearms Reference Table that identifies models it considers prohibited, but the federal government argues that the table is a non-binding interpretive aid without independent legal force, leaving gun owners without clarity about whether their guns are illegal.

The Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights and several individuals challenged the regulations on various grounds, including that the government improperly delegated its lawmaking authority to the RCMP by allowing it to determine which firearms qualify as prohibited variants.

The CCF is intervening to propose a clearer framework for determining when government policies and guidelines are law, regardless of how they are labelled. To help courts make that determination, the CCF is proposing a three-part test to assess instruments such as the Firearms Reference Table:

1. Does the instrument assign a legal position, such as classifying something as prohibited or permitted?
2. Would a reasonable person affected by the instrument, using publicly available information, understand this before acting?
3. Do legal consequences follow from that assigned position?

CCF Interim Executive Director Christine Van Geyn warned that Canadians risk losing their lawfully acquired property or facing criminal prosecution because of uncertainty surrounding firearms laws.

“Canadians deserve to know exactly what the law requires of them, especially when their property and freedom are on the line,” said Van Geyn. “When police refer to a list identifying prohibited firearms, people naturally take it seriously. It is unacceptable for the government to leave Canadians guessing about whether keeping their own property could expose them to criminal charges.”

The CCF is being represented in this case by George Avraam of Baker McKenzie.