J.C. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2021 ONCJ 118

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE CITATION: J.C. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2021 ONCJ 118 DATE: March 3, 2021 COURT FILE No.: 20-2808 BETWEEN: J.C. — AND — ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA (REGISTRAR OF FIREARMS) Before Justice Scott Latimer Heard on March 2, 2021 Reasons for Decision released on March 3, 2021 Emily Atkinson........................................... counsel for the Attorney General of Canada J.C. ................................................................................................................. on his own behalf LATIMER J.: [ 1 ] J.C. has brought an application for a reference hearing under

section 74 of the Firearms Act , regarding a legislative reclassification of a rifle that he owns. This rifle, as of May 2020, has been reclassified as a prohibited firearm. J.C. was notified of this change in writing by the Registrar, as well as the fact that his continued possession falls under a temporary amnesty period.

It appears as well, based on proposed federal legislation filed by the respondent on this application, that “grandfathering provisions” may be forthcoming to address affected firearm owners in the applicant’s position: See Bill C-21 (tabled February 16, 2021 in the House of Commons for first reading). [1] [ 2 ] After hearing argument in this case, I advised the parties that I do not believe the provincial court has authority to hear the application. In these brief reasons, I endeavor to explain why. [ 3 ] This result turns on jurisdiction. I am a provincial court judge.

My office permits me to do only what I am expressly authorized to do. For example, only a Superior Court judge can grant someone a divorce. If a couple came before me and asked for such an order, I could not do it, no matter how reasonable their request was. I do not have the authority, or jurisdiction, to make such an order.

As a provincial court judge, my powers flow from the statutory instruments that I am responsible for adjudicating under, such as the Criminal Code , CDSA , and − relevant here − the Firearms Act . [ 4 ] J.C. applies for a determination that his ability to lawfully possess a certain rifle was unjustifiably restricted or removed. I understand that he is one of many Canadians affected by this recent change in the law. He believes that change unfair and seeks redress from the courts. Unfortunately, much like my hypothetical couple seeking a divorce, I do not have the power to do as he requests.

Section 74 of the Firearms Act provides only for judicial review of certain specified decisions made by a public official. [2] When individuals are subjected to one of these discretionary decisions – specific to their personal circumstances − they are able to ask a provincial court judge to review that decision under this provision. [ 5 ] What occurred in 2020 with the Firearms Regulations was not an individualized decision, it was a statutory change that impacted an entire class of individuals – owners of certain types of firearms. Such a decision is not caught by

Section 74 of the Firearms Act . A

provincial court judge has no jurisdiction to comment on, or interfere with, legislative decisions made by Parliament in this context. [3] [ 6 ] A final word on how this matter has proceeded. I made the decision to bifurcate this hearing and address the jurisdictional question at the outset. We have not heard an entire evidentiary hearing, only for me to rule on this jurisdictional issue at the end. If there is no jurisdiction, there can be no hearing. I believe this approach is consistent with what the Supreme Court of Canada told all justice system participants in R. v. Cody, 2017 SCC 31 , at para 38 .

The need for judicial case management is now greater than ever, with the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic. The present circumstances put a strain on the criminal justice system and our ability to adjudicate the volume of matters that require court time and judicial focus. Now, more than ever, judges should jealously guard court time. Approaching this issue in the manner I have has ultimately saved court time, while at the same time providing a fair hearing to the applicant. I have heard ninety minutes of submissions on a legal issue.

I thereafter determined that a lengthier evidentiary hearing was not justified or available. Upon concluding that the Ontario Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction over this matter, the individual facts of J.C.’s case are regrettably moot. At the risk of overusing my divorce analogy, I do not need to hear how the marriage failed in order to conclude that I do not have the authority to end it. [ 7 ] The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Released: March 3, 2021 Justice Scott Latimer