When a regulation changes which conduct can carry criminal consequences, how closely should a court examine the authority used to make it? That question is before the Supreme Court of Canada in four appeals challenging Ottawa’s 2020 firearms regulation.
The Court scheduled the appeals together on November 9 and 10. The counsel sheet allocated the first day to the appellants and the Attorney General of Canada, with oral submissions from interveners and a reply scheduled for the second day. The public record reviewed on November 10 did not show a Supreme Court judgment.
The regulation prohibited more than 1,500 previously lawful firearm models. Challenges failed in the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the issues include whether the Governor in Council acted within the authority Parliament delegated under section 117.15 of the Criminal Code, as well as Charter arguments.
The BC Civil Liberties Association, an intervener, says its submissions concern how courts should scrutinize executive rules that expand exposure to criminal liability. That is the association’s position. It does not tell us how the Court will decide the appeals.
For administrative and criminal lawyers, the appeal is worth following beyond its immediate subject. A regulation’s policy objective and the legal authority to adopt it are separate questions. When the regulation helps define the boundary of prohibited conduct, the wording and limits of Parliament’s delegation deserve close attention.
The hearing is the development. The judgment, when released, will determine what guidance the case offers beyond firearms regulation.
Sources: Supreme Court counsel sheet, files 41858-41861 · Supreme Court docket and case summary, file 41859 · BCCLA statement, November 9