Section 74 Reference Filing for OIC Prohibited firearms.

[Dariouskater]

There was a string of recent Videos and such by Ian Runkle and regarding a verdict by Judge Fradsham recently that might help a lot with this.
Good luck guys. Hope to see a positive outcome!

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[Twisted Canuck]

Update on my S74 case.

We received an oral decision from our Judge this morning regarding our reference hearing (we will get written decision in a week). The upshot was that our Judge dismissed us on jurisdictional grounds. Her decision was based on the AGC's argument that the firearm(s) in question were named specifically in the OIC (as opposed to unnamed variants) and therefore there could be no remedy available for us as they were specifically reclassified in the OIC as prohibited and we are not licensed to possess them. It is entirely appropriate for her to make that decision, as the resources of the court are finite and tying them up for a case that will ultimately not prevail is not a good use of court time.

While that is accurate, the jurisdictional issue should have hinged (according to my understanding of section 74 and 75 of the Firearms Act) solely on a decision of whether or not our certificates were revoked by the registrar having made a decision to revoke, or if they were 'administratively expired' as a function of the law changing because of OIC. The specific firearms in question do not become an issue until the actual hearing, and should not have been the deciding factor for jurisdiction imo.

My lawyer feels that there were several errors in law made in the decision and we have good grounds for an appeal. We are in discussions on that now, and have 30 days to file an appeal.

There is a lot at play here, not least of which is the political aspects of it. I have to say that our judge really did do her homework, and understood the issues and did not dismiss us offhand. Rather she was sympathetic to the situation this OIC has placed us in. If she would have found in our favor and given us a hearing, the AGC would have immediately appealed her decision (as in the Stark case where Judge Fradsham found he had jurisdiction and which is now before appeal court). She probably considered that and expected there was less of a chance that we would appeal because of the costs involved. That is purely speculation on my part, but logic would suggest it was part of the decision.

At this point, we will be considering our options, but my lawyer asked me if I would be willing to go ahead with an appeal if we thought it had the better chance of success then other cases that he is involved with, and I provisionally said I would. There is a bigger picture here then just individual cases, and we have to pick our battles wisely, to see which have the greatest chance of success. As Ian Runkle has said, this will eventually end up (S74 hearings) before the Supreme court. I'm not sure what part I will play in any of this going ahead, but I am still willing to keep going. There are certain aspects of our decision which were actually positive and could have an important bearing on an appeal, and on other cases in Canada going ahead.

I don't want to deep dive into the specifics at this point, until we can properly review the written decision (and because frankly I'm a bit wrung out right now and trying not to be discouraged by the dismissal), but as I have more information and insight, I will update again. If we decide to go ahead with an appeal, I will be in it for a long haul. An expensive long haul. But, at least my case will certainly still be before the courts when the amnesty expires, and that is a big factor for me.

Hopefully that makes some sense and is not too vague for those who have been following and supportive of me (appreciate all of you who have been!). I don't know how much I want to get into specifics on a public forum at this point, but I will post more as we decide if and how we will proceed.

TC

[tranq78]

Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck

Update on my S74 case.

I heard about the results this morning TC. Tough slog but you did (are doing) the right thing.

My group is due in court at end of month to argue jurisdiction as well. As you said, one way or another this is going to the Supreme Court. It will be a heck of a ride if it goes that far. Not a lot of citizens can say they went to the Supreme Court of Canada.

[Twisted Canuck]

Thanks, I also appreciate you and your group fighting this. I'm anxious to see which way your Judge goes on it too, and then how we proceed. 30 days to appeal, clock is ticking.

[Twisted Canuck]

Just a quick update. Will be filing an appeal this week. Not quite ready to roll over just yet.

[JeanCretien]

Good luck and thanks for the update


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Smokinyotes]

Well that’s some good news.

[wally338]

Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck

Just a quick update. Will be filing an appeal this week. Not quite ready to roll over just yet.

Do you have a gofundme or some other way I could help financially with your costs?

[Twisted Canuck]

Originally Posted by wally338

Do you have a gofundme or some other way I could help financially with your costs?

I don't, I have been funding it all out of pocket myself. Thank you for the offer. Depending on how this proceeds, I may take you up on your generous offer, but for now we are good.

There was some good news today, I posted up earlier but then had a mod remove it as there is an appeal window in play for the Crown and I want to be a bit careful about posting too much info and tipping our hands.

Short story, judge Fradsham in Calgary found he had jurisdiction to do an S74 review, and that certificates were revoked. The Crown appealed that, and today a Court of Queens bench judge dismissed the Crowns application and in a lengthy decision agreed with Fradsham. This clears the way for s74 reviews in Alberta, as it is binding on provincial courts, and it should also mean that my appeal may already be won.

More to follow as this goes ahead. But this is a huge win for us. As was an ON judge ruling that the RCMP had to provide all information on the algorithms used to determine which certificates would be revoked. The crown has already appealed that decision as well, but we are getting some strong rulings in our favor.

[32-40win]

It is a step forward, now that the Prov Superior court has made that decision, and with the Ont courts order for info, it is shaping up. Still a ways to go yet, but, is at least getting thru the process and continuing on up the ladder. Alberta courts now have no choice, have to recogize what the Superior court said.
With the way the LIbs have disrepected the courts lately, it may help us down the road.

[Twisted Canuck]

I know for a fact that as we get these rulings in our favor, and as the crown has to keep appealing them, we are becoming a real headache for them. The OIC itself was very poorly done for many reasons, and the Crown has had to pull every procedural trick in the book to try and make this all go away. But it isn't, and with every win we have, their house of cards is in danger of collapsing. It is only a very small minority of gun owners who have engaged the Crown in courts, and it's been a hell of a battle, mentally, emotionally, and financially as well. But today I started to have hope again that we may actually get somewhere with this. We really are fighting for all gun owners, that has become clear at this point. And all these various cases are helpful, as it gives us more to work with.

[Twisted Canuck]

Runkle does a long, but good video on today's decision.

https://youtu.be/t2io1c41g5w

[Twisted Canuck]

This is a good interview on the Gunblog with the lawyer (Dunn) who represents Stark and Dolan. It was their case that the AGC appealed to Queens Bench, and subsequently lost that appeal. Some good info here.

https://thegunblog.ca/2022/01/21/cou...-2020-attacks/

[Dewey Cox]

Thanks for all the effort you're putting out for everyone's benefit.

[IronNoggin]

Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck

https://thegunblog.ca/2022/01/21/cou...-2020-attacks/

That presents rather interesting news.

The original opportunity to file a Section 74 Challenge came with a government issued edict on the amount of time one could do so following the date OIC was let. Quite restrictive actually, and most affected missed the time period as a consequence. This new Decision reverses that, and now allows any who did not previously file the right to do so if they wish. Already there has been a rush of Section 74 Challenges launched in the short time since this ruled was made. Expect a heck of a lot more, now including mine.

I strongly suggest that if you are affected, you file ASAP. The tide is shifting and the more weight we can collectively put behind that the better chance we might yet prevail.

https://thegunblog.ca/2020/08/11/why...ing-cameronss/

Cheers,
Nog

[tranq78]

Originally Posted by IronNoggin

That presents rather interesting news.

The original opportunity to file a Section 74 Challenge came with a government issued edict on the amount of time one could do so following the date OIC was let. Quite restrictive actually, and most affected missed the time period as a consequence. This new Decision reverses that, and now allows any who did not previously file the right to do so if they wish. Already there has been a rush of Section 74 Challenges launched in the short time since this ruled was made. Expect a heck of a lot more, now including mine.

I strongly suggest that if you are affected, you file ASAP. The tide is shifting and the more weight we can collectively put behind that the better chance we might yet prevail.

https://thegunblog.ca/2020/08/11/why...ing-cameronss/

Cheers,
Nog

Agreed, for anyone who received that 'nullification' letter and didn't file a Sec74 this is their chance to do it now. I'm going through the judge's written decision right now and it clearly lays out the case of 'nullification' being a revocation. This is what I would tell the provincial court judge for the reason for the late appeal.

My group in Edmonton lost before Christmas on the jurisdiction argument but we filed an appeal a couple weeks ago. This latest ruling is beautifully timed and makes our path easier.

[Twisted Canuck]

Actually IN, the time frame to file is determined by the date you received the letter of revocation /nullification. It is a 30 day window, as per Firearms Act. You can file after that window, but one must provide a good reason why the judge should hear the reference. In this case, a ruling by the Queens Bench agreeing that it was an (improperly done) revocation is reason enough to get a hearing.

So yes, anyone with an affected firearm who got the July 20 2020 letter of nullification could still file. And if 10,000 people did it would collapse the system, which would play to our favor.

But, in order to file, you are going to need to attach that letter, so you better still have it. And also be prepared to deal with the legal system. I can't tell you how much time I have put into it, and I found out quickly that self representing was not going to work for me, as the government has tried every procedural trick in the book to make this go away. I'm into legal fees already about 4x what my damn M&P 15 is even worth.

Principle.

So yes, people could still file. We may all lose our reference at the end anyway, we need to be in reality about it. So far, we are just fighting to even have our day in court. And yesterday's ruling paved the way for it.

But we can still lose when we have our day in court.

I can send the forms to anyone who wants to file an S74.

[tranq78]

Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck

Actually IN, the time frame to file is determined by the date you received the letter of revocation /nullification. It is a 30 day window, as per Firearms Act. You can file after that window, but one must provide a good reason why the judge should hear the reference. In this case, a ruling by the Queens Bench agreeing that it was an (improperly done) revocation is reason enough to get a hearing.

So yes, anyone with an affected firearm who got the July 20 2020 letter of nullification could still file. And if 10,000 people did it would collapse the system, which would play to our favor.

But, in order to file, you are going to need to attach that letter, so you better still have it. And also be prepared to deal with the legal system. I can't tell you how much time I have put into it, and I found out quickly that self representing was not going to work for me, as the government has tried every procedural trick in the book to make this go away. I'm into legal fees already about 4x what my damn M&P 15 is even worth.

Principle.

So yes, people could still file. We may all lose our reference at the end anyway, we need to be in reality about it. So far, we are just fighting to even have our day in court. And yesterday's ruling paved the way for it.

But we can still lose when we have our day in court.

I can send the forms to anyone who wants to file an S74.

Amnesty period runs out in May 2022, that's only 3 months away. Anyone who received that letter may be considered a criminal because they don't have a registration certificate for that gun.

My case is in front of the court so I can argue that I can't be deemed a criminal as long as I'm in front of a judge. Your case too TC. Everyone else may be SOL fi they don't file right now.

Would not surprise me at all if Government tries to pull a fast one in May. That will leave those 200 or so of us who are still in court as the only ones left standing.

[Twisted Canuck]

Agree. That is one of the primary reasons I went ahead and had appeal filed, to keep my matter before the courts until after the amnesty expires.

I'm sure the government will try something sneaky. There sure won't be any 'buy back' in place (I hate that term, I never bought my guns from the government so they can't buy back what was never theirs!). They may just decide to grandfather the handful of us who filed, who knows?

[Smokinyotes]

I don’t see how the government could make anyone a criminal after May 1st when we were all told to sit on our guns and “do nothing”. The liberals have done absolutely nothing since the oic was introduced and no buy back program will be in place by May1. The only option I see the government having is either to do nothing (which they are very good at) or extending the amnesty.

[Twisted Canuck]

You already are a criminal, as of the day they reclassified your firearm and you didn't have the proper license to possess it. You were just protected by the amnesty. Once it expires, you can be charged for your criminality under section 91 of the Criminal Code.

What, you didn't know you were a criminal this whole time?

[BuzzJr1]

We've all been criminals the whole time in their mind

[Twisted Canuck]

For those not familiar with section 91 of the CC, you can read here:

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/...ection-91.html

Take note of the max sentence.

[Vingiu]

Good on you guys for seeing this through.

[Smokinyotes]

Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck

You already are a criminal, as of the day they reclassified your firearm and you didn't have the proper license to possess it. You were just protected by the amnesty. Once it expires, you can be charged for your criminality under section 91 of the Criminal Code.

What, you didn't know you were a criminal this whole time?

We may be criminals but the way the nullification letter was worded, we were told to wait for the buy back program to be introduced at a later date. Since very few have turned in their restricteds and nothing has been offered as compensation how could anyone be charged when you are just following what we were told to do.

[Twisted Canuck]

Originally Posted by Smokinyotes

We may be criminals but the way the nullification letter was worded, we were told to wait for the buy back program to be introduced at a later date. Since very few have turned in their restricteds and nothing has been offered as compensation how could anyone be charged when you are just following what we were told to do.

I don't expect anyone to be charged, at least not before they cobble together some half assed 'buy-back' scheme and wait an appropriate length of time for all the good citizens to surrender their property. And then there will be mass non-compliance. Not to mention they have no idea where all the tens of thousands of previously non-restricted firearms that are now prohib, are.

Just because you aren't in handcuffs and behind bars doesn't mean you aren't a criminal. Just look at our PM.

[Smokinyotes]

The ones that concern me are previously restricteds now prohibs. The government knows where each and everyone of them are.

If after the government offers some lame compensation and you don’t comply, at some point you will probably receive a registered letter stating you have 30 days to comply or face prosecution. At the end of the 30 days that’s when they may start kicking in doors but who actually knows.

If it’s like everything else that the liberals have done I may die of old age before they do anything.

[Twisted Canuck]

Yes, all we can do is speculate at this point. The whole process has been flawed from the get go. It's bad law, based on feelings and ideology, but not any facts. And if enforcement is of the same degree of competency, we sure could die of old age before they figure out how to accomplish this disarming of citizens.

Our only hope is that all the various court cases can gain traction and start the house of cards falling. We have several significant things happen in our favor. In addition to the Queens Bench confirming Fradsham's initial ruling that it was a revocation and he had jurisdiction to hear the reference, there was also the ON court ruling that the RCMP had to turn over all materials relevant to the algorithm used to determine which certificates were revoked. I'm sure that gets appealed, may already have been.

And in the federal case, there was the ruling by Justice Gagne (?) She ordered that the information used by government to justify the OIC be released to her to review. Of course, the government opposed that as well, and pulled some article 39 buggery so they wouldn't have to comply, because, National Security. Or something to that effect. That's layman's terms....

Point being, there are a few courts now who want to look behind all the smoke and mirrors, and the government is not cooperating at all. Which makes people want to look even more.

I have no idea how it all washes out. Massive non-compliance is going to be a bad look for JT and his Idiot Circus, and door kicking Canadian citizens and risking more Kotanko situations is a worse look.

The whole thing is Clown World.

[Jayhad]

Will any of this benefit those that had non-restricted turned to prohibited?

From my understanding section 74 filings weren't an option for those folks.

[Smokinyotes]

Originally Posted by Jayhad

Will any of this benefit those that had non-restricted turned to prohibited?

From my understanding section 74 filings weren't an option for those folks.

I thought you had sold all those prior.