R. v. Yates, 2021 BCPC 68

Citation: R. v. Yates 2021 BCPC 68 Date: 20210406 File No: 22213 Registry: Western Communities IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. JAY LOUIS YATES REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE GOUGE Counsel for the Crown: G. Stark Appearing in person: Mr. Yates Place of Hearing: Colwood , B.C. Date of Hearing: March 1, 2021 Date of Judgment: April 6, 2021 The Issue

[1] Mr. Yates seeks to appeal a decision which he alleges to have been made by the Registrar of Firearms. He relies upon section74(1) of the Firearms Act SC 1995, c 39, which provides: Subject to subsection (2), where (

a) a chief firearms officer or the Registrar refuses to issue or revokes a licence, registration certificate, authorization to transport,authorization to export or authorization to import, (

b) a chief firearms officer decides under

section 67 that a firearm possessed by an individual who holds a licence is not being used for apurpose described in

section 28, or (

c) a provincial minister refuses to approve or revokes the approval of a shooting club or shooting range for the purposes of this Act, the applicant for or holder of the licence, registration certificate, authorization or approval may refer the matter to a provincial courtjudge in the territorial division in which the applicant or holder resides [2] Mr. Stark, for the Crown, says that the Registrar made no decision. Rather, he says, the Registrar simply notified Mr. Yates ofthe existence and consequences of an order-in-council enacted by the Governor-General in Council on May 1, 2020. Mr. Stark pointsout that: (

i) an order-in-council is not a decision of the Registrar; and (ii) the Firearms Act makes no provision for an appeal from anorder-in-council. For that reason, he says that this court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine Mr. Yates’ application on its merits. The Jurisprudence [3] This jurisdictional issue has been considered in a number of cases, each of them addressing a factual matrix indistinguishablefrom that in the case at bar. To take only a few examples: a. In each of Re Section 74(1) of the Firearms Act [2020] NJ 218 and R v.

Wyville 2020 ONCJ 555; [2020] OJ No. 5186, the courtconcluded that it had no jurisdiction to hear the application. b. In each of Attorney-General of Canada v. Stark 2020 ABPC 230; [2020] AJ No. 1300 and Attorney-General of Canada v. Cridland2020 ABPC 233; [2020] AJ No.1312 the court reached the opposite conclusion on substantially the same factual matrix. All of the pertinent authorities were carefully considered by my colleague, Her Honour Judge Sacca in Regina v. Schafer 2021 BCPC 64. In that case, Judge Sacca concluded that: (

i) Stark was wrongly decided; and (ii) this court has no jurisdiction to hear the application. [4] None of the exceptions to the principle of stare decisis, as articulated in Re Hansard Spruce Mills Ltd. [1954] 2DLR 590, applyin this case. I am therefore obliged to follow Schafer, and so to conclude that I have no jurisdiction to hear or decide Mr. Yates’application. The issue is no longer open to debate in this court. [5] One further matter deserves mention. In his written submissions on behalf of the Crown, Mr.

Stark asserted that: It is well-established law that nothing is within the jurisdiction of an inferior court except that which is expressly directed to be so, andthat jurisdiction should not be inferred. That is an incorrect statement of law, and should not be repeated. The correct statement of the governing principles is to be found in R v.Cunningham 2010 SCC 10 , [2010] 1 SCR 331 @ paragraph 19. Disposition [6] Mr. Yates’ application is dismissed. _____________________________ T. Gouge, PCJ April 6, 2021