Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Guns & Ammo Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old 01-17-2021, 02:37 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

Mike Loberg's thoughts on S74 hearings;

CCFR Answers
18h ·
Re: Section 74 Reference Hearings for “Nullified” Registration Certificates – Can we win them?
(Revision Date: 16 January 2021)
A section 74 Firearms Act reference hearing is how a Canadian challenges a decision they don’t agree with that was made by a Chief Firearms Officer (“CFO”) or the Registrar of Firearms (“Registrar”).
In the present case we’re talking about the July 20, 2020 letters the Registrar sent to gun owners affected by the Order in Council that created the ban (“OIC”), saying our registration certificates for the affected guns were “nullified”.
Just to get this out of the way, there is nothing in any act or regulation that “nullifies” a registration certificate. There are some provisions which automatically revoke certificates, but none of them apply to our facts. Importantly though, the fact that these provision exist tell us that Parliament thought that where they wanted automatic revocation, a specific statutory section was required to make it happen.
So can a reference hearing “win” on our facts?
It’s hard to envisage what a win could look like in a reference hearing in our present reality, at least yet. Let’s talk about this.
First, let’s remember that there are 2 decisions here:
1. The decision to make the Order in Council that banned our guns; and
2. The decision by the Registrar to revoke our registration certificates.
The first decision is being challenged by CCFR v Canada in Federal Court as a judicial review. The second decision is being challenged by some gun owners in these s. 74 reference hearings. It is critical to remember that these are different decisions, by different decision makers. An attack on one does not attack the other.
The Law
First, let’s pull the sections and the definitions from the Firearms Act:
71 (1) The Registrar
(a) may revoke a registration certificate for a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm for any good and sufficient reason; and
(b) shall revoke a registration certificate for a firearm held by an individual where the Registrar is informed by a chief firearms officer under section 67 that the firearm is not being used for a purpose described in section 28. (2) A notice given under subsection (1) must include reasons for the decision disclosing the nature of the information relied on for the decision and must be accompanied by a copy of sections 74 to 81.
72 (1) Subject to subsection (1.1), if a chief firearms officer decides to refuse to issue or to revoke a licence or authorization to transport or the Registrar decides to refuse to issue or to revoke a registration certificate, authorization to export or authorization to import, the chief firearms officer or Registrar shall give notice of the decision in the prescribed form to the applicant for or holder of the licence, registration certificate or authorization.
74 (1) 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 a purpose 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 court judge in the territorial division in which the applicant or holder resides.
(2) An applicant or holder may only refer a matter to a provincial court judge under subsection (1) within thirty days after receiving notice of the decision of the chief firearms officer, Registrar or provincial minister under section 29, 67 or 72 or within such further time as is allowed by a provincial court judge, whether before or after the expiration of those thirty days.
82 An individual to be known as the Registrar of Firearms shall be appointed or deployed in accordance with the Public Service Employment Act.
Discussion
Next, let’s consider if a revocation really happened. Most of what follows was written back on July 22, 2020:
1. Did a revocation happen?
Black’s Law Dictionary tells us that “revoke” means “To annul or make void by recalling or taking back. To cancel, rescind, repeal, or reverse, as to revoke a license or will”.
“Revocation” means “the withdrawal or recall of some power, authority, or thing granted, or a destroying or making void of some will, deed, or offer that had been valid until revoked”.
By comparison, “nullification” is defined as “The state or condition of being void; without legal effect or status. Also, the act which produces such effect”.
The July 20, 2020 letter from the Registrar of Firearms tells us, and we quote, “… the previous registration certificates are automatically nullified and are therefore no longer valid…”.
Clearly under any interpretation of these words, the Registrar of Firearms is telling us that our registration certificates, which used to be valid, are no longer valid. Equally clearly, we did not surrender them, and the Order in Council said exactly nothing about them so as to “automatically nullify” them, or do anything of the sort.
Be all that as it may, this is a document from the Registrar of Firearms (read the last words on the page where it says “Registrar of Firearms”) telling you that you no longer have registration certificates for your previously-restricted, now-prohibited firearms.
2. Was this a “notice”?
Back to Black’s Law Dictionary, “Notice in its legal sense is information concerning a fact, actually communicated to a person by an authorized person, or actually derived by him from a proper source, and is regarded in law as “actual” when the person sought to be affected by it knows thereby of the existence of the particular fact in question”. Clearly the document from the Registrar of Firearms meets that requirement, but let’s look at the Firearms Act.
The Firearms Act specifies that only the Registrar of Firearms can revoke your registration certificates; see section 71(1) which reads “The Registrar (a) may revoke a registration certificate for a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm for any good and sufficient reason…”.
The document in question is sent by the Registrar of Firearms, so that criteria is met.
3. Was this in a “prescribed form”?
Section 72 of the Firearms Act provides that “… if … the Registrar decides to refuse to issue or to revoke a registration certificate … the … Registrar shall give notice of the decision in the prescribed form to the applicant for or holder of the licence, registration certificate or authorization”.
Section 2(1) of the Firearms Act provides that “prescribed means (a) in the case of a form or the information to be included on a form, prescribed by the federal Minister, and (b) in any other case, prescribed by the regulations”.
Because this is a matter of a “form”, there is no published regulation. In short, if the Minister of Public Safety and the staff under the Minister of Public Safety decide that the “RCMP GRC 6554E (2020 – 06)” (the form under discussion) is the “form” for doing this action, which obviously it is, then this is the “prescribed form”. No specific regulation is required.
The suggestion that there is only one “form” by which the Registrar of Firearms can communicate information to us regarding a revocation is simply a mistake. They can use any form they wish, provided the Minister approves it.
4. Did the Registrar of Firearms comply with the Firearms Act?
Section 72(2) of the Firearms Act requires that “(2) A notice given under subsection (1) must include reasons for the decision disclosing the nature of the information relied on for the decision and must be accompanied by a copy of sections 74 to 81”.
There are two parts to this.
First, the reasons for the decision must be disclosed in the notice. The Registrar of Firearms tells us that “the previous registration certificates are automatically nullified” as a result of the prohibition. Again, and as we have said any number of times, the OIC prohibiting these firearms says no such thing. The OIC does not deal with registration certificates at all. This is simply an interpretation by the Registrar of Firearms which is unsupported by the OIC. Be that as it may, they are obligated to provide a reason, and they have.
Second, the notice must be accompanied by a copy of sections 74 to 81 of the Firearms Act, telling people about their rights to refer a revocation to a Provincial Court judge for review. In every instance that we are aware of, the notice from the Registrar of Firearms failed to include that information.
5. What is the consequence of this failure?
This is a question for a judge, however there are likely only two options: (a) due to the noncompliance with section 72(2) of the Firearms Act, the notice is ineffective; or, (b) the notice is effective, but the Registrar of Firearms is liable for the consequences of their failure to comply with the Firearms Act.
The format of the notice appears to have been built the way it was specifically to cause gun owners to believe that the OIC automatically revoked the registration certificates (which it didn’t), for the sole purpose of causing gun owners not to take advantage of their section 74 rights. The failure to provide a copy of sections 74 to 81 of the Firearms Act is consistent with this pretense.
In the end, you used to have a registration certificate. Now you don’t, says the Registrar of Firearms. The Registrar of Firearms just told you that with their form RCMP GRC 6554E (2020 – 06), and we have said throughout that this is a revocation.
The above was from July 22, 2020. Since then we’ve got the Stark decision out of Alberta that more or less agrees with all of the foregoing (Attorney-General for Canada v Stark, 2020 ABPC 230).
Stark is under appeal, and there are of course other provinces also looking at this, and a trip of the matter to the SCC is easily foreseeable, so Stark might not be the law in the end.
6. Can the application win?
Now the important part: what are the possible outcomes for the section 74 applications presently underway? If the Court decides that they have jurisdiction at all to hear the case (and different provinces have gone different ways on that), there are 3 possible outcomes, but only 2 of which are likely.
1. The Court can decide that the Notice was defective for non-compliance with ss. 71 and 72 of the Firearms Act, and the government will have to do the process all over again with proper notices and proper service, triggering s. 74 rights later. Note that this outcome makes them spend millions of our tax dollars on new notices, but it won’t reverse the revocation. The actual fight will come back to you another day.
2. The Court can follow Stark and decide that the defective notice might have legal consequences, but that they will hear the s. 74 reference hearing “on the merits” and decide if the revocation is legal and proper. Here is the bad news. The fact that the OIC exists, and for so long as it does, means the decision by the Registrar under s. 71 is perfectly justified because the OIC is a “good and sufficient reason” for the revocations, and the revocations should therefore stand.
Remember that the s. 74 reference hearing typically only attacks decision #2 (the revocation) described in the beginning of this article, and not decision #1 (the OIC).
We should point out that if CCFR v Canada wins, the OIC goes away and the Registrar’s justification goes with it. For people that have reference hearings **before** the OIC is set aside, if a judge declares the revocation to have been valid, that’s going to be final. You don’t get to go again after CCFR v Canada wins. You might be able to apply for a new certificate, but the old ones will be gone for you. If a grandfathering regime comes in under s. 12(9), you won’t qualify (that’s for a different article).
If you can delay your “on the merits” reference hearing until **after** CCFR v Canada wins, your reference hearing should also win.
Those people with reference hearings underway now will likely not find this possible, and will have the revocations confirmed as final.
3. That gets to the long-shot that is a possible win at this time, but it’s unlikely. To win your certificates back, you’d need to attack and win on an OIC challenge (decision #1) in Provincial Court, just like the CCFR v Canada case, and use that win as a basis to sequentially then challenge decision #2. This is your only path, and it’s thin (likely impossible), but here’s some information on it:
A s. 74 must go to a Provincial Court Judge (“PCJ”), but a PCJ doesn’t have the constitutional power to strike down legislation as unconstitutional under s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 – that requires a superior court judge.
That’s a problem but not a fatal one. A PCJ can find that a law does not conform to the Constitution, and use that finding to permit the PCJ to refuse to apply it in the case at bar. That doesn’t strike the law down, but it does work for the person before the Court on that specific application, and only them (but it would then be a precedent).
The problem is that this reference hearing is not really criminal law so as bring the Charter or the Constitution into it.
Of course there are legal consequences to the revocation, and failing to obey the law on that will have criminal consequences, but those are not the same things and that will likely not be a successful argument - the Court has made the following analogy: the loss of a drivers’ licence is a “civil consequence and distinct from any criminal conviction or criminal penalty.” In other words, we must “recognize the important distinction between Charter rights as they apply in a criminal context and their scope and application in civil and administrative proceedings.” [Alberta (Chief Firearms Officer) v Rolls, 2004 ABQB 582]
You would need to change that law to win, using new arguments to import the Charter into the administrative law part of this issue. I don't see that happening.
There’s not a lot of law on this, but in R v Wyville, 2020 ONCJ 555 at para 39 the Court said: “As a provincial court judge, I do not have the authority or power to review the decision of the Governor in Council to change the law with respect to the classification of firearms.” That’s likely right, and that is why the CCFR is in Federal Court running that challenge as a judicial review (the proper way to do that).
Notably, Wyville decided that there were not 2 decisions, and that the revocation was indeed automatic. The SCC will have to sort out this conflict.
For people who have not filed s. 74 applications, you might want to wait for a CCFR v Canada win, but that triggers a problem with the 30 day rule to apply from the date of service of the notice of the revocation. Of course, the service was defective, and the state will have no means of proving that you were in fact ever served, except where you put in evidence on that.
As always, this is not legal advice but just a discussion of a few thoughts. You need to get actual legal advice for all your specific circumstances.
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 01-22-2021, 08:16 PM
Twisted Canuck's Avatar
Twisted Canuck Twisted Canuck is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: GP AB
Posts: 16,211
Default

Yeah, Loberg. In essence, he is saying donate to the CCFR (and pay his billable hours) and don't bother the adults. I see it a little differently, as do the many others who filed a S74 reference. I'm not going to get too into it, but suffice to say that Ian Runkle has a different perspective, and has filed his own challenge, based on the merits of the situation. I am actually really unimpressed with the CCFR on this, and have communicated directly to them, as a member and a donor. They didn't bother to even respond to me out of politeness, and Tracy has actually been outright antagonistic and borderline ignorant on her Twitter account on the matter. Runkle called her on it and she finally backtracked a bit. Neither here nor there. It is discouraging that once again, the firearms community can't seem to operate in unity, but has to engage in counterproductive and public urination contests.

On another related matter. Another ON judge tossed another reference application, in such a manner that it is going to be appealed. Ed Burlew has agreed to represent the applicant, because we are going to need to seriously lawyer up from here on. He isn't cheap. A GoFundMe page has been started to fund the appeal. I would ask that AO members would consider donating (I have).

We are in New territory here, gun owners have never collectively challenged the government like this in courts before, both the 7 cases being heard federally challenging the OIC directly, and the many S74 challenges. Apparently the number who filed went up dramatically after the Fradsham/Stark ruling on jurisdiction, to the point that there are more filed now in AB alone (150+) than were originally filed across Canada. Way to go team AB!!

Anyway. This is important, and we have been made aware that we are already putting a great strain on the Crown's resources. It has started to draw media attention in small ways, at some point the general public is going to become aware that there is a serious and concerted challenge going on to their high handed and empty virtue signalling, and that 70,000+ Canadians were made criminals by a groundless and arrogant decree from the PM.

So if you can help out, please do. I know times are tough, and many have already supported the various other cases that are going on, but this is an important part of the battle too. If I didn't believe it, I wouldn't have filed my own challenge. And on that subject, I wanted to also say I am seeking proper legal representation myself at this point. It's going to cost me far more than my rifle is worth, but I believe in the principle, and I am not going to be a paper criminal because some asshat in Ottawa wants to buy progressive votes.

I want my day in court, but it seems like judges listen to lawyers better then layman. And I don't want to blow this.

Link for the GoFundMe here:

https://www.gofundme.com/f/s74-appea...ource=customer
__________________
'Once the monkeys learn they can vote themselves a banana, they'll never climb another tree.'. Robert Heinlein

'You can accomplish a lot more with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.' Al Capone

Last edited by Twisted Canuck; 01-22-2021 at 08:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 01-23-2021, 10:38 AM
Twisted Canuck's Avatar
Twisted Canuck Twisted Canuck is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: GP AB
Posts: 16,211
Default

Bump for a worthy cause.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/s74-appea...ource=customer
__________________
'Once the monkeys learn they can vote themselves a banana, they'll never climb another tree.'. Robert Heinlein

'You can accomplish a lot more with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.' Al Capone
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 01-24-2021, 07:33 AM
Twisted Canuck's Avatar
Twisted Canuck Twisted Canuck is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: GP AB
Posts: 16,211
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck View Post
And another bump. Fund is coming along, over a quarter of the way there now. Have a look. Help if you can. Thanks!
__________________
'Once the monkeys learn they can vote themselves a banana, they'll never climb another tree.'. Robert Heinlein

'You can accomplish a lot more with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.' Al Capone
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 01-26-2021, 08:20 AM
Twisted Canuck's Avatar
Twisted Canuck Twisted Canuck is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: GP AB
Posts: 16,211
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck View Post
Back up. Over $8300 towards the goal already, appreciate any here on AO who have chipped in. Thank you.
__________________
'Once the monkeys learn they can vote themselves a banana, they'll never climb another tree.'. Robert Heinlein

'You can accomplish a lot more with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.' Al Capone
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 01-31-2021, 08:51 PM
Twisted Canuck's Avatar
Twisted Canuck Twisted Canuck is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: GP AB
Posts: 16,211
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck View Post
Another bump, getting good traction as people are seeing the benefit of challenging and keeping the Gov's feet to the fire. They would like to operate with no judicial oversight and make up laws as they go, while holding us to the strictest standards and interpretations. Hypocrisy.

Fund is almost halfway there. I believe retainer has been sent to get the appeal rolling.
__________________
'Once the monkeys learn they can vote themselves a banana, they'll never climb another tree.'. Robert Heinlein

'You can accomplish a lot more with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.' Al Capone
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 02-01-2021, 07:25 PM
ctd ctd is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,378
Default

Would we be better off to find a Lawyer to represent all AO members who want in to file against the injection? Then we launch our own lawsuit.

Lawyering up to file a section 74 is a good idea, but the root behind this is the OIC. Unless that is repealed then the s74 wont mean much. I have a feeling the government is going to make things hard.

But I think a different angle to fight the OIC and validity of it along with property rights add the s74 to it would make heads turn especially if multiple groups filed cases against the government.
We could add a defamation of character by Blair and Trudeau
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 02-01-2021, 08:29 PM
tranq78 tranq78 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Edmonton & Hinton
Posts: 504
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ctd View Post
Would we be better off to find a Lawyer to represent all AO members who want in to file against the injection? Then we launch our own lawsuit.

Lawyering up to file a section 74 is a good idea, but the root behind this is the OIC. Unless that is repealed then the s74 wont mean much. I have a feeling the government is going to make things hard.

But I think a different angle to fight the OIC and validity of it along with property rights add the s74 to it would make heads turn especially if multiple groups filed cases against the government.
We could add a defamation of character by Blair and Trudeau
The challenges against the OIC are being conducted by CCFR and other parties. These are mostly at the federal court level.

For AO members at the provincial level I think the KISS principle is best. The law allows us to go to a provincial court judge for a hearing. A hearing is not a lawsuit. We are going to exercise that right. The government is doing its best to prevent us from exercising our Sec74 rights and they've been trying procedural tactics to trip us up. That tactic worked once in Ontario, it didn't work when they tried it again in Leduc last week.

If anyone on AO in Alberta wants to talk to a criminal/firearms lawyer, send TC or myself a PM with your phone number and email. The lawyer said a phone call is free, he's happy to talk. This is the lawyer a number of us are already using for our Sec74. He has just written an open letter to Albertans who have filed a challenge, which we can forward to you. You can ask if you can split costs if you are being pool together in case management (I don't know the answer).

Schoolyard bullies go after the softest targets. Best way to deal with them is to stand up to them. Filing a Sec74 challenge is cheap, easy, and it tells the bully you won't be an easy target. So don't hesitate if you haven't done it yet.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 02-01-2021, 09:10 PM
Twisted Canuck's Avatar
Twisted Canuck Twisted Canuck is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: GP AB
Posts: 16,211
Default

Good post, and I agree. I actually spoke with the lawyer in question today, and sent him the retainer, and he is officially handling my reference hearing. The Crown has one tactic, since they have no case. That tactic is to abuse the S74 applicants with the process (they sent me a 312 page document of submissions, your tax dollars at work). They are also using court procedures to lead judges away from the actual matter, bring confusion, and generally try and catch applicants wrong footed, and on the defensive. Bullies.

A lawyer is going to go a long way towards shutting down the process and procedure abuse.
__________________
'Once the monkeys learn they can vote themselves a banana, they'll never climb another tree.'. Robert Heinlein

'You can accomplish a lot more with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.' Al Capone
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 02-02-2021, 11:16 AM
ctd ctd is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,378
Default

It's interesting I read through the entire post twice just to wrap things around my head.
Ultimately I am happy that people are willing to challenge the "nullification letters" But I am worried that if a person is not represented by a Lawyer that they will definitely loose the hearing/appeal possibly have their firearms removed right away.

My thoughts, I didnt really want to say much but since the challanges are going forward it doesnt really matter now.

My opinion is that the OIC challenges made are going to have some significant impact on all firearm owners.

For those who received a "nullification letter" my opinion and advice from a Lawyer friend who deals with Government contracts is we should have waited to file s74. The reason behind waiting is simple.

1 if the OIC fails to produce a positive decision in our favor, and an appeal fails to be positive, then as a last resort we could all file a s74 to delay the process. The government wont send out Revocation letters until the amnesty is close to the end. Then very shortly afterwards they will demand the confiscation of the firearms.
By delaying filing the s74 to the end or till you receive an an actual "revocation letter" you are extending the time line you have to launch other cases in court. As long as their is a case in court with your name on it some how, you will receive amnesty until the case is heard and lost/won.

2 by filing a s74 with using the nullification letters as your supporting documents you possible may have eliminated yourself from the findings of the OIC rule.
a. what can possible happen is if you loose the s74 challenge is the Judge may order the immediate seizer of your newly prohibited firearms.
b. nothing changes either from a for or against verdict. because the court is awaiting the outcome of the OIC challenge and or the full proposal of the federal government including the buy back process.
c. the Judge can order a grandfathering of the owners under the pertinent sections of the Firearms act.
d. the Judge may side with you and say that your former Registered Firearms Certificate is still valid for your restricted firearm. (problem is the firearm has been reclassified as prohibited)
e. We may get a verdict that rules in our favor that the firearms revert back to their pre OIC classification, they federal government has to nullify their nullification letters. A very big long shot.

No matter what, if the verdict is not in favor of the federal government they will appeal it using way out to left field examples, to confuse anyone including their defense team. The issue with this, a average person will have a hard time navigating even the simplest of s74 challenges. Let alone a appeal that will include even more confusing documents with out using a Lawyer. Which for many is out of reach financially for them.

By filing a s74 early on yes you have put pressure on the government. But with peoples loosing their hearings due to various reasons, the government now has fuel to support their case against us in the various challenges that are happening.

If your going to challenge the "nullification" letters LAWYER UP from the start.
If your going to wait until the OIC case goes through to file your challenge, still Lawyer up.

If you want to tackle this and play the governments game wait until they send the actual revocation letters. By law they have to before they can seize your firearms based on reclassifying and revoking your registration. If they fail to do so then they are in contravention of the law and we have documents from the top dog himself that these letters are NOT revocation letters. They are informational letters.

I still think a better way to challenge this is if for example AO members get on board and chip in a few dollars and take the legal fight to their door step as a collective group of firearm enthusiasts. We do not have to reference AO in the case but maybe call it Alberta Outdoors Firearm Owners.

Good luck on your paths taken,.
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 02-23-2021, 08:28 PM
Twisted Canuck's Avatar
Twisted Canuck Twisted Canuck is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: GP AB
Posts: 16,211
Default

Just a quick update. We had our first 'preliminary to the preliminary hearing' today. That was the Judge's representation of it. Essentially my lawyer wants to introduce evidence, at the preliminary hearing to decide jurisdiction. We have had decisions on both those matters in our favor already in other S74 hearings in AB. First the Fradsham decision on Jurisdiction before Christmas, and last week by Judge MacDonald to allow us to introduce evidence (Edmonton hearing).

The Cole's notes are that the Crown wanted to have it dismissed immediately on jurisdiction and no evidence needed to be called, which has been their song all along. And the Judge said she wanted to read MacDonald's decision (she had read Fradsham in our submissions), and then she punted it down the road until July 27. Which suits us just fine, because hopefully by then we will have some positive decisions that are well written, that she can hang her hat on as well. No Judge wants to write a decision and have it overturned on appeal. But I was encouraged that she seemed open to the idea of fairness and us getting our day in court, instead of being railroaded and the motion struck peremptorily.

So we are still going ahead. It's going to be a long game. But I'm glad I hired a lawyer. Knowing the subject matter is all fine and well (and I did, I'm glad to say I followed the entire matter clearly), but not knowing procedures and protocols, I would have got killed.

Also wanted to give a shout out to Cement Bench. He really reached out to me, and offered good advice, and a whole lot of encouragement. I really appreciated it, makes me glad I'm doing this. Thanks my friend!
__________________
'Once the monkeys learn they can vote themselves a banana, they'll never climb another tree.'. Robert Heinlein

'You can accomplish a lot more with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.' Al Capone

Last edited by Twisted Canuck; 02-23-2021 at 08:34 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 03-07-2021, 07:04 PM
ctd ctd is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,378
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 03-07-2021, 07:16 PM
Twisted Canuck's Avatar
Twisted Canuck Twisted Canuck is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: GP AB
Posts: 16,211
Question

The Kurina decision is not binding on any other Provincial Court. Judge Fradsham in Calgary emphatically found he did have jurisdiction to hear the S74, and his decision is much more in-depth and comprehensive then Kurina, which may be appealed. Also, Judge MacDonald in Edmonton ruled in favor of the introduction of evidence, another win.

And then there is the AGC introducing a sworn affidavit from a delegate of the registrar showing the decision making process involved with the nullification of certificates. That is in one specific hearing, but it is a bombshell and completely undermines their position that there is no jurisdiction. It opens the door to get the Registrar's delegate on the stand, and the affidavit will definitely be introduced in other hearings by applicants.

All this to say that the game is still in play, and it is far too early for you to come along and post that one case like it is binding on all courts. It's not. Where we have won decisions, the AGC has appealed. Where we have had awful peremptory decision against, we crowd sourced funds and Ed Burlew is representing two clients and appeals have been filed for Fritz and Wakefield in ON.

So, nice that you come along again and try and shoot down s74 hearings and toot the already well funded OIC appeals, but if that is really where your burden lies, could you start your own thread on it? And if you are going to post about decisions, maybe tell the whole story. And if you don't know the whole story, maybe don't have such a strong opinion.

Thanks. As always.
__________________
'Once the monkeys learn they can vote themselves a banana, they'll never climb another tree.'. Robert Heinlein

'You can accomplish a lot more with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.' Al Capone
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 03-07-2021, 07:48 PM
ctd ctd is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,378
Default

I will start my own thread, I just realized this your thread.

Last edited by ctd; 03-07-2021 at 07:58 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 03-07-2021, 08:00 PM
Twisted Canuck's Avatar
Twisted Canuck Twisted Canuck is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: GP AB
Posts: 16,211
Default

Nobody is hiding their head in the sand. I've spent over 12 hours listening in on hearings in ON, and had my own preliminary a couple weeks ago.

My point remains. The Kurina decision is *NOT* binding on any other provincial court.

Glad you thought it was important to pass on the current situation. Or at least a part of it, with attached negative connotation.

For clarity, we sure haven't been having a lot of good decisions in any province. And we sure aren't giving up just yet anyway.

Remind me of what you are actually doing to help the firearms community? Besides your contributions here.
__________________
'Once the monkeys learn they can vote themselves a banana, they'll never climb another tree.'. Robert Heinlein

'You can accomplish a lot more with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.' Al Capone
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 03-07-2021, 08:58 PM
Cement Bench's Avatar
Cement Bench Cement Bench is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: alberta
Posts: 1,927
Default

Judge Frandsom is one of the MOST RESPECTED JUDGES IN CANADA

if you ever do searches on judges he is amount the best

anybody sitting on the sidelines please read his judgement in full

the most well reasoned judge amount them all

and yes 4 of my colleagues are judges

holy storm in Edmonton look him up
John Holmes red deer
Tony mandarin Calgary native judge
and a goofball judge I won’t name, very conceited and does not speak in court as he has no questions so that they can’t pin him down as he starts from a position he wants to end up and then defends it

and the ccfr just wants your money

Let the folks fighting the section 74 hearings have their day in court

others tell us what you are doing to progress our rights

WOW talk about trying to lay down and quit

I went to the alberta court of appeal twice to save the drayton valley range and got very little thanks, it was just expected for me to waste a hundred hours of my time to get the range back

makes me want to just quit and watch the rest of you complain when they come to get your guns
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 03-07-2021, 09:37 PM
ctd ctd is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck View Post
Nobody is hiding their head in the sand. I've spent over 12 hours listening in on hearings in ON, and had my own preliminary a couple weeks ago.

My point remains. The Kurina decision is *NOT* binding on any other provincial court.

Glad you thought it was important to pass on the current situation. Or at least a part of it, with attached negative connotation.

For clarity, we sure haven't been having a lot of good decisions in any province. And we sure aren't giving up just yet anyway.

Remind me of what you are actually doing to help the firearms community? Besides your contributions here.

Actually non of your direct business what I am doing to help the firearms Community. Loose lips sink ships. This ship just had another couple of its pumps fail.

But just so you know, I have been discussions with my MP about the issues along with letters written to multiple people in different levels of Government to try and gain support for our issues. Also looking for direct or indirect support as to how to effect these issues with a positive outcome. So far no luck other then multiple people within the government do not agree with OIC and the way Trudeau pushed it through, especially after it was initially voted down in a previous bill. Even members in his own caucus do not support him. They are fearful they will be loosing their jobs next election over this matter.

I stand beside with the advice of the CCFR that individual s74 filings may hurt their case they are trying to repeal the OIC. That is very similar information being talked about in the circles I have written.

It has also been hinted that challenging the OIC as citizens groups is the only way to possibly have a chance to win this issue. If multiple interest groups file court cases about the validity of the OIC in prohibiting those firearm's on the list along with the ones added after, we might have a case and might have a chance. The problem is for the average person the cost of $30-40,000 plus to pay for Legal Fees is just not realistic.

But you do you, and keep calling out those who are attacking this issue from a different angle.
Good luck with your s74 and hopefully the Judge has a good decision for you.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 03-07-2021, 09:41 PM
ctd ctd is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cement Bench View Post
Judge Frandsom is one of the MOST RESPECTED JUDGES IN CANADA

if you ever do searches on judges he is amount the best

anybody sitting on the sidelines please read his judgement in full

the most well reasoned judge amount them all

and yes 4 of my colleagues are judges

holy storm in Edmonton look him up
John Holmes red deer
Tony mandarin Calgary native judge
and a goofball judge I won’t name, very conceited and does not speak in court as he has no questions so that they can’t pin him down as he starts from a position he wants to end up and then defends it

and the ccfr just wants your money

Let the folks fighting the section 74 hearings have their day in court

others tell us what you are doing to progress our rights

WOW talk about trying to lay down and quit

I went to the alberta court of appeal twice to save the drayton valley range and got very little thanks, it was just expected for me to waste a hundred hours of my time to get the range back

makes me want to just quit and watch the rest of you complain when they come to get your guns
It will be interesting how the Alberta Provincial Judges in the next few s74's go forward from this point on. especially with a few negative outcomes. I am hopeful for a positive outcome.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 03-07-2021, 11:12 PM
ctd ctd is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck View Post
Glad you thought it was important to pass on the current situation. Or at least a part of it, with attached negative connotation.
I posted the recent ruling affecting us in Alberta. If you have some thing positive to post then please do. Especially if it's public info
I was just reading through some court documents at work on my break and found these ones about s74 challenges.
Trying to keep everyone up to date on the dealings.
Your the one that turned it negative.

Thanks for your dedicated service.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 03-07-2021, 11:50 PM
tranq78 tranq78 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Edmonton & Hinton
Posts: 504
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cement Bench View Post
Judge Frandsom is one of the MOST RESPECTED JUDGES IN CANADA

if you ever do searches on judges he is amount the best

Let the folks fighting the section 74 hearings have their day in court

others tell us what you are doing to progress our rights

WOW talk about trying to lay down and quit

I went to the alberta court of appeal twice to save the drayton valley range and got very little thanks, it was just expected for me to waste a hundred hours of my time to get the range back
Good points CB. We've got Judge Fradshom in Calgary ruling on jurisdiction and we've got Judge MacDonald's ruling in Edmonton on allowing evidence. We're eagerly waiting for Judge MacDonald's written decision.

Sometimes regular people need to take a stand even against the odds. If people didn't stand up to the government then universal suffrage would not exist, and women and minorities couldn't vote. The Chinese Exclusion Act would still exist. But those things ended because some regular citizens decided they were bad laws. The armchair quarterbacks on the sidelines are forgetting sometimes it ain't the size of the dawg in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dawg.

And thanks for your work on this forum to educate and help us. And dare I say thanks for helping the Drayton Valley range.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck View Post
And then there is the AGC introducing a sworn affidavit from a delegate of the registrar showing the decision making process involved with the nullification of certificates. That is in one specific hearing, but it is a bombshell and completely undermines their position that there is no jurisdiction. It opens the door to get the Registrar's delegate on the stand, and the affidavit will definitely be introduced in other hearings by applicants.

Whoa, I had heard about this just the other day. So the govt introduced evidence on a S74 and says at the same time my S74 don't need no evidence.

I talked to a lawyer who thinks our puny S74 challenge may end up at the Supreme Court. If so I'm buying a ticket to Ottawa to attend court. Sometimes it ain't the size of the dawg in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dawg.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 03-11-2021, 09:00 PM
tranq78 tranq78 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Edmonton & Hinton
Posts: 504
Default

Round one win for the 8 applicants in Edmonton.

Ian himself is one of the applicants going through the Honorable Judge's decision. Well worth your time to watch this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJGHMYXNKLY
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 03-17-2021, 01:23 PM
tranq78 tranq78 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Edmonton & Hinton
Posts: 504
Default

Our case has been posted online on CANLII. Small steps but we are moving forward.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abpc/do...021abpc82.html
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 03-17-2021, 01:35 PM
Twisted Canuck's Avatar
Twisted Canuck Twisted Canuck is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: GP AB
Posts: 16,211
Default

That was a really comprehensive written decision. Paragraph 30 is the kill shot, "manifestly unjust". That is polite judge language to basically let all the other judges who summarily dismissed applicants that they screwed up. Good decision.
__________________
'Once the monkeys learn they can vote themselves a banana, they'll never climb another tree.'. Robert Heinlein

'You can accomplish a lot more with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.' Al Capone
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 03-24-2021, 01:55 PM
Twisted Canuck's Avatar
Twisted Canuck Twisted Canuck is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: GP AB
Posts: 16,211
Default

Judge Fradsham just had another of his S74 decisions come out, it basically builds on his earlier decision, and he takes his time to skewer the AGC while striking their motion to dismiss. Not sure how to post a link, I have it as a pdf file if anyone is interested in reading it. Pm me.
__________________
'Once the monkeys learn they can vote themselves a banana, they'll never climb another tree.'. Robert Heinlein

'You can accomplish a lot more with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.' Al Capone
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 04-03-2021, 07:03 PM
Twisted Canuck's Avatar
Twisted Canuck Twisted Canuck is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: GP AB
Posts: 16,211
Default

On a different and more personal note, the judge in my hearing gave a ruling on the introduction of evidence. Short story, she said we can, so a small win. At least we didn't get skidded to the curb! We are still in the game. July 27 we will have our hearing on jurisdiction, a preliminary to the reference. Then, at some point we will find out if our judge agrees with Judge Fradsham on jurisdiction (I'm optimistically believing she will). If she agrees, and finds she has jurisdiction , then we can set a date to finally have a hearing on the merits.

Ian Runkle did a video on our Judge's decision, just put it up tonight. He even almost pronounced my name right, very close!

https://youtu.be/Z6X1AXp5dug
__________________
'Once the monkeys learn they can vote themselves a banana, they'll never climb another tree.'. Robert Heinlein

'You can accomplish a lot more with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.' Al Capone
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 04-03-2021, 09:45 PM
tranq78 tranq78 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Edmonton & Hinton
Posts: 504
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck View Post
On a different and more personal note, the judge in my hearing gave a ruling on the introduction of evidence. Short story, she said we can, so a small win. At least we didn't get skidded to the curb! We are still in the game. July 27 we will have our hearing on jurisdiction, a preliminary to the reference. Then, at some point we will find out if our judge agrees with Judge Fradsham on jurisdiction (I'm optimistically believing she will). If she agrees, and finds she has jurisdiction , then we can set a date to finally have a hearing on the merits.

Ian Runkle did a video on our Judge's decision, just put it up tonight. He even almost pronounced my name right, very close!

https://youtu.be/Z6X1AXp5dug
Looking forward to reading Her Honour's decision. I think you are able to cross examine on the affidavits, correct?

Michael Loberg even chimed in with a comment. So CCFR is following our progress.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 04-03-2021, 09:52 PM
Twisted Canuck's Avatar
Twisted Canuck Twisted Canuck is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: GP AB
Posts: 16,211
Default

Yes, we can cross examine on affidavits, and I noticed Loberg commented. They are definitely paying attention now. I won't comment too much on that, since we are all still on the same side.

I'm looking forward to an actual hearing going forward, especially with Fradsham. One Judge reversing the revocation of one certificate, that's where it starts. And that's the one that will end up in the Supreme Court.

This is going to be a long game, but I still say anyone effected, should still file for am S74 reference hearing. Strength in numbers.
__________________
'Once the monkeys learn they can vote themselves a banana, they'll never climb another tree.'. Robert Heinlein

'You can accomplish a lot more with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.' Al Capone
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 04-04-2021, 08:20 AM
ward ward is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 967
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck View Post
Yes, we can cross examine on affidavits, and I noticed Loberg commented. They are definitely paying attention now. I won't comment too much on that, since we are all still on the same side.

I'm looking forward to an actual hearing going forward, especially with Fradsham. One Judge reversing the revocation of one certificate, that's where it starts. And that's the one that will end up in the Supreme Court.

This is going to be a long game, but I still say anyone effected, should still file for am S74 reference hearing. Strength in numbers.
Well done, I wish you good luck going forward.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 04-16-2021, 03:08 PM
honda610 honda610 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: 509
Posts: 855
Default

We just had our court hearing.!!!! I would like to thank Twisted Canuck and several other forum members for advice. Myself and others from work collectively hired legal counsel and it paid off in spades.
We are allowed to produce evidence our court date is dec 16 and 17th.
Imagine if 10 percent of affected firearms owners challenged.....
Still a positive court date is good for us all.
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 04-16-2021, 04:28 PM
Twisted Canuck's Avatar
Twisted Canuck Twisted Canuck is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: GP AB
Posts: 16,211
Default

I heard through the grapevine you got the decision in your favor to introduce evidence, congrats. Now all we need is to get decisions that the judge has jurisdiction, and we can actually have a hearing on merits! But this certainly is a step in the right direction. Step by step, it's going to be a long process.
__________________
'Once the monkeys learn they can vote themselves a banana, they'll never climb another tree.'. Robert Heinlein

'You can accomplish a lot more with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.' Al Capone
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.