Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario argued before the Supreme Court of Canada on Nov. 10 that Ottawa had exceeded its authority when it prohibited hundreds of firearm models in 2020.
Lawyers for the provinces maintained that the federal government had not adequately considered legitimate hunting and sport shooting when introducing the prohibitions, while Supreme Court justices questioned how those activities should be weighed against public safety concerns.
The arguments centred on Section 117.15(2) of the Criminal Code, which restricts the federal cabinet’s authority to prohibit firearms considered reasonable for hunting or sporting purposes.
The appellants and other interveners are asking the court to overturn lower-court decisions upholding the Liberal government’s May 2020 ban on about 1,500 firearm models and variants, including the AR-15 and Ruger Mini-14. The list of prohibited firearms has since expanded to more than 2,500 varieties of what Ottawa calls “assault-style” firearms.
On Nov. 9, the court heard submissions from gun owners and firearms advocacy groups arguing that the ban exceeded the federal cabinet’s legal authority, as well as from government lawyers defending the legality of the restrictions. The Nov. 10 proceedings included submissions from provinces and other interveners.
Saskatchewan’s Arguments
Saskatchewan lawyer Mitch McAdam argued that the federal government failed to adequately balance public safety against the interests of lawful firearms owners in its ban. He acknowledged that public safety was the primary purpose of firearms legislation but maintained that cabinet could not disregard the interests of hunters and sport shooters.
McAdam said the government’s Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement, which explained the prohibitions, did not adequately examine how many hunters and sport shooters would be affected, or which competitive shooting disciplines would be disrupted.
“In our view, there’s an essential balancing exercise that has to take place here, and it did not take place,” McAdam said.
A justice questioned whether balancing the two considerations required giving them equal weight. McAdam replied that Saskatchewan did not necessarily advocate an equal balance but maintained that legitimate firearm use had to receive meaningful consideration.
Saskatchewan also challenged the prohibitions under the Canadian Bill of Rights, arguing that owners of newly prohibited firearms were entitled to compensation unless legislation expressly excluded it.
McAdam maintained that the regulations neither established a compensation scheme nor expressly stated that compensation would not be paid, leaving the matter entirely to cabinet’s discretion. He also criticized Ottawa’s treatment of firearms owners in Alberta and Saskatchewan, arguing that provincial legislation had affected their eligibility for the federal compensation program.
Alberta’s Arguments
Alberta lawyer Guy Pratte similarly argued that cabinet had failed to demonstrate that it respected the Criminal Code’s restrictions on prohibiting firearms used for hunting and sport shooting. However, he focused on what he characterized as the government’s failure to establish a clear benchmark for determining which firearms were reasonable for those purposes.
Pratte said the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement acknowledged some sporting and hunting uses but did not explain which firearms cabinet believed it lacked the authority to prohibit.
“Judicial review can’t just be a ‘trust me’ exercise where we must take the [Governor in Council’s] word that it has complied without knowing anything about what he does consider, at that time, reasonable for hunting purposes,” he said.
He argued that the government’s reliance on characteristics such as military-style appearance, rapid-fire capability, and potential use in mass shootings did not establish a meaningful limit on its authority.
Ontario’s Arguments
Ontario also raised concerns about the prohibitions, focusing on whether the regulations were precise enough that owners could determine which firearms were prohibited.
Unlike Alberta and Saskatchewan, Ontario concentrated on the need for clear and predictable criminal laws rather than hunting and sporting activities. It did not ask the court to decide broader Charter questions.
In its written submissions, the province argued that terms such as “variant” and “modified version” raised questions about legal certainty, particularly because possessing a prohibited firearm could result in serious criminal penalties.
Ontario maintained that courts should apply a presumption of precision when interpreting regulations made under Parliament’s criminal law powers, ensuring individuals could reasonably determine whether their conduct was lawful.
Sporting Organizations
Firearms organizations echoed the provinces’ concerns, arguing that the regulations disregarded established shooting competitions and created uncertainty for lawful owners.
Lawyer Cory Giordano, representing International Practical Shooting Confederation Canada, said prohibited firearms had been standard equipment in organized competitive shooting for decades.
He pointed to the European Union, where certain firearms that are otherwise prohibited could still be used in recognized competitions.
Giordano also represented the Ontario Rifle Association, which said the prohibitions affected its Service Conditions, Target Rifle, and F-Class Rifle competitions. The association highlighted the RPA Quadlock rifle action, used in F-Class competitions, arguing that its prohibition and subsequent RCMP classifications had created uncertainty for competitors.
Meanwhile, lawyer Edward Burlew, representing the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, argued that Ottawa had created a public safety problem by prohibiting previously non-restricted firearms without establishing a reliable system for tracking and recovering them.
Burlew said the government didn’t know how many affected non-restricted firearms existed or who owned them because those firearms had not been registered.
“What has been created is in fact a public safety debacle,” he added.
Criminal Law and Government Accountability
Other interveners focused on the limits of cabinet’s authority and the consequences of firearm classifications.
Canadian Constitution Foundation lawyer George Avraam argued that the RCMP’s Firearms Reference Table raised questions about when government guidance effectively operated as law. He proposed examining whether an administrative document established a legal position, produced legal consequences, and gave affected individuals sufficient notice. However, the foundation didn’t ask the court to rule on the table’s legal status.
Lawyer Emily MacKinnon, with the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, urged the court to establish limits on cabinet’s criminal lawmaking powers. She argued that delegated authority to create criminal prohibitions should be interpreted narrowly and that public safety concerns couldn’t eliminate restrictions imposed by Parliament.
MacKinnon also challenged the use of cabinet confidentiality to withhold the reasoning behind regulations, arguing that courts shouldn’t presume cabinet considered factors that are not reflected in the available record. The association did not take a position on whether the prohibitions should be upheld.
Gun Control Coalition Responds
The Canadian Coalition for Gun Control defended cabinet’s authority, arguing that public safety was the central legislative purpose governing federal firearms regulation.
Lawyer Mia Bertanjoli maintained that Section 117.15(2) allowed cabinet to consider multiple factors in determining whether firearms were reasonable for hunting or sport shooting.
However, Justice Rowe challenged her initial characterization of public safety as the legislation’s only purpose, questioning whether that interpretation would eliminate the provision’s reference to hunting and sporting activities.
“You can’t just say it’s only public safety and sort of hit the eject button and use for hunting or sport shooting disappears,” the justice said.
Bertanjoli clarified that the coalition did not argue public safety was the only relevant consideration when cabinet assessed particular firearms. Instead, she maintained that public safety was the legislation’s overarching purpose and that Parliament had not established a separate objective requiring cabinet to preserve firearms used for hunting or sport shooting.
Appellants’ Final Response
In closing submissions, lawyers for the firearms owners challenged Ottawa’s reliance on the public safety argument and questioned the legal significance of RCMP firearm classifications.
They argued that the government’s estimate of affected owners might not adequately account for previously non-restricted firearms and that the Firearms Reference Table had been used as evidence in criminal proceedings despite Ottawa’s characterization of it as non-binding.
The appellants also argued that changes to classifications in the RCMP database, rather than amendments to the regulations, had affected the legal treatment of additional firearm variants.
After hearing the submissions, the Supreme Court reserved its decision.
English (US) · 
Turkish (TR) · 