Provincial court is saying they do not have Jurisdiction to hear the S74 court cases. It is sad to read, but their reason is sound.
I still believe we need to fight the OIC. But it is pretty cost prohibitive.
Below is taken from the CANLII site.
[31] The decision in Kurina provides a detailed analysis of how this Court reached the aforementioned conclusion. For the same reasons as expressed in Kurina the applications of Mr. Hulit and Mr. McShane for a s74 reference are struck. The Provincial Court of Alberta does not have jurisdiction to hear a s74 reference in the circumstances presented by either of the Firearms Owners, Hulit or McShane.
[58] The direct consequences of SOR/2020-96 was to extinguish the legal validity of certificates of registration issued previously for prescribed restricted firearms that are now prescribed as prohibited firearms. Effective May 1, 2020, there was in law no registration certificates available for such firearms described as restricted firearms. Such firearms were no longer restricted, so no restricted firearm registration certificates have any validity or could come into being. The nullification, revocation, or invalidation of the Applicants’ registration certificates came into effect on May 1, 2020 by operation of law: that effect was not dependant upon the Registrar of Firearms deciding at some point thereafter to revoke. There was nothing to “revoke”; the registration certificates had no legal validity effective May 1, 2020. This is made even more clear by the fact that SOR/2020-97, the Amnesty Regulation that was issued in conjunction with SOR/2020-96, complements SOR/2020-96, and the two Orders in Council, when read together, (Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v Rex, 2002 SCC 42 at para 46) demonstrate clearly that the subject registration certificates of the Firearms Owners no longer have any legal validity. The amnesty provision comes into effect the moment the nullification of the registration certificate occurs by operation of law, that is, May 1, 2020. The Amnesty Regulation does not perpetuate the certificate of registration, rather it forgives the unlawfulness Noof the possession because no registration certificate exists for the subject firearms any longer, and protects against prosecution for a specific period provided certain circumstances exist. The legislative body, in this case the Governor in Council, is presumed to know that immediately upon the Regulation coming into effect that the registration certificates for all those previous restricted firearms now prescribed prohibited are no longer legally valid and that the holders of those firearms are in unlawful possession thereof, hence the amnesty provisions. There is no need for amnesty if the certificates of registration still have lawful validity after SOR/2020-96 comes into effect.
[59] The registration certificates that the Applicants assert were revoked by the Registrar of Firearms through the letter of July 20, 2020 ceased to exist on May 1, 2020 with the coming into force of the Regulation as described aforesaid. There was after that point nothing to revoke, indeed even if the Registrar purported to be revoking the subject certificates of registration pursuant to s71(a), that mistake would not change the fact that there was nothing of legal validity to revoke, there was nothing to take away as the registration certificates for the former restrictive firearms ceased to have any legal validity or existence other than as pieces of paper.
|