Ontario challenges Ottawa's firearms ban over 'imprecise' use of regulations

Canada’s top court agreed in March to hear the challenge of the Trudeau government’s decision to ban some 1,500 types of weapons and their unspecified “variants,” just weeks after a gunman killed 22 people in Nova Scotia.

That ban has since expanded to apply to hundreds more models of firearms.

A long-delayed buyback program is currently underway, with just under 70,000 guns declared, far fewer than initial expectations.

At issue is the federal government’s use of cabinet-approved regulations to order the sweeping ban, and whether such a move is constitutional.

Gun owners, including the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, are fighting the ban on the grounds that the Liberal government overreached its authority. Alberta and Saskatchewan, which have added legal roadblocks to the buyback, make similar arguments in their interventions.

According to a brief posted to the Supreme Court website earlier this month, Ontario will argue that while the federal government can pass laws that give it the power to ban firearms using regulations, it is unconstitutional to apply those powers “using imprecise” and vague language, unless the law explicitly gives it that authority.

That’s because the stigma and tough penalties associated with the criminalization of possessing banned weapons require strong safeguards in Ottawa’s use of its criminal law powers, the province argues.

The office of Ontario Attorney General Doug Downey declined to comment because the matter is before the courts.

A spokesperson for Ontario Solicitor General Michael Kerzner referred to a previous statement that charged “the federal government’s gun buyback program has done nothing to address the root causes of gun violence in our communities.” Premier Doug Ford has publicly opposed the ban since 2020.

Ontario’s argument centres on language that bans “any variants or modified versions” of guns included in the prohibition, because there is no definition in the regulations of what constitutes a “variant.”

Since the ban has come in place, the federal government has relied on that language to ban “hundreds of models” not specifically named in the regulations, Ontario’s submission says.

Some of those now-banned guns had no “internal working design features” in common with the rifles they were being described as “variants” of, said A.J. Somerset, author of “Arms: The Culture and Credo of the Gun.”

“It’s a self-inflicted wound by the government,” Somerset said.

Ottawa has defended its use of the regulations, noting that gun owners have other options for hunting and sports shooting, and arguing the firearms in question were banned to address the risk of mass shootings. It also says the “variants” language was used to avoid loopholes in the future, a concern raised by gun control advocates.

Criminal lawyer Frank Addario told the Star Ontario is making a “very narrow argument” based on “intellectually sound constitutional rules.”

“The reason you have regulations to do these things is the obvious one: that you can’t convene Parliament every time somebody starts importing a new kind of gun or you’d be passing a new law every six months,” he said.

But Ontario argues those regulations have to be “precise.”

“The criminal law, being one of the most powerful tools at the hand of the federal government, has to be precisely and clearly expressed so that people can govern their behaviour,” he said.

It’s hard to predict what the Supreme Court will decide, Addario said.

But if it agrees with Ontario while rejecting a broader challenge of the ban, the Carney government might only need to tweak its regulations to make the ban more precise, but otherwise leave it in place.

“I think it’s really narrow, and I think it would be quickly remedied by the government if it succeeded,” added Somerset.

Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree’s office did not reply to a request for comment, but Anandasangaree has told the Star he is “quite confident of our legal position on his.”

Ottawa did, however, push back the amnesty deadline for gun owners until 90 days after the Supreme Court’s decision, which is expected several months after the Nov. 9 and 10 and hearings.