[32-40win]

Mike LOberg released this on the S74 ruling today in AB Prov Superior court, some progress for sure, stiil a ways to go yet to get to the Supreme court, there was a PDF attached to it, but can't post those here, it'll likely be on the CCFR home page shortly;

Re: S. 74 Update - Brendan Miller and Greg Dunn are Kicking Ass

In Alberta Judge Fradsham decided, in a very well-written decision, that he has jurisdiction to hear the s. 74 statutory references about the "Nullification (Revocation) letters": Re Stark 2020 ABPC 230 (I did a post on that back in the day). There are contrary decisions of course, and the SCC is going to sort it out.
Between the courts of first instance (here Judge Fradsham) and the SCC there are the steps of the Superior Courts of each province, and the Courts of Appeal of each province, then the SCC. It's a 4 step process.
Stark won in the first instance, and the Attorney General of Canada applied to the Superior Court (in Alberta, the Court of Queen's Bench) to quash that decision and hold that the provincial courts lacked jurisdiction. Brendan Miller and Greg Dunn opposed that for Stark.
Here's a sampling of the good stuff from Mr. Justice G.H. Poelman (a serious heavy-hitter in his own right):
[45] I conclude that it was reasonable for Fradsham P.C.J. to hold that in substance the registration certificates were revoked. That means that the Registrar’s letter should be read as advising the respondents that the registration certificates issued to them were revoked.
...
[70] In the absence of proper process and an express statement that previously issued registration certificates were revoked, and in the absence of any other provision in the Criminal Code or the Firearms Act mandating revocation in these circumstances, the revocation (nullification or invalidation) of the registration certificates did not occur by operation of law. As indicated above, in substance the Registrar’s letter revoked the registration certificates. In addition to the fact that nullification, making invalid and revoking amount to the same things in these circumstances, I find that the Registrar’s letter represented a decision on what to do with the affected registration certificates. The parameters of the Registrar’s discretionary authority under the Firearms Act is such that the decision was a revocation and subject to the reference provisions in section 74.
...
[84] For the reasons given, I find that the learned Provincial Court judge reached a reasonable decision in concluding that he had jurisdiction to hear the respondents’ references under section 74 of the Firearms Act, although my reasons go beyond his. He thoroughly considered all of the relevant statutory and regulatory provisions in concluding that the registration certificates were, in substance, revoked and that this resulted from an act or decision of the Registrar. Accordingly, section 74(1) gives each of the respondents the right to refer the matter to a Provincial Court judge.

[85] As emphasized above, the way this matter comes before me is:
a) in Provincial Court, Canada applied to strike each of the referral applications for want of jurisdiction;
b) the applications to strike were dismissed by the Provincial Court judge; and
c) Canada applied in Queen’s Bench for certiorari, to quash the dismissal of the applications to strike.

[86] I dismiss Canada’s application for certiorari of the Provincial Court’s dismissal of its application to strike the section 74 references. Those references are therefore remitted to Provincial Court to be heard in accordance with the Firearms Act.
That, my friends, is a full-on victory.
Lawyers Brendan Miller and Greg Dunn are not (to my knowledge) on Facebook, but we owe them a debt of gratitude for knocking it out of the park.
Note: make sure you read paragraph 70 closely: That's a Superior Court Justice TELLING the lower court what the answer will be later on at the s. 74 hearing, and the lower court cannot (normally) do anything but apply that as decided law.