Attachment 453919
Please consider becoming a member and donating (Available here) to the CCFR’s legal challenge that official starts today.
We would also just like to Thank the CCFR for all that they do for us everyday. Even though this is a tough challenge, regardless of the outcome. You have given us all hope for better days at the range and in the bush.
Tango Yankee
Posted Yesterday
From CCFR General Counsel Michael Loberg:
Re: Injunction Application Against the OIC – What Are We Watching For?
Tomorrow morning at 9 am EST (7 MST / 6 PST) the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights will bring its injunction application in CCFR v Canada in our Federal Court action number T-577-20 to “stay” the operation of the May 1st Order in Council that banned our guns.
That means to have it declared “not in force” until the main (final) application against it can be heard later, to make it permanent. In short, if successful it will put us back where we were before the OIC until the final application goes, in whole or maybe in part.
Joining us in applying for injunction applications are an Ontario group of individuals represents by lawyer Akadi Bouchelev (T-677-20), and Christine Generoux and friends, appearing without counsel (T-735-20).
As most of you will know, there are other 3 other actions against the OIC, however they are not participating in the injunction application process:
1) T-569-20: Cassandra Parker et al v AGC (Solomon Friedman)
2) T-581-20: John Peter Hipwell v AGC (Ed Burlew)
3) T-905-20: Jennifer Eichenberg et al v AGC (Eugene Meehan and Thomas Slade)
To start with, the CCFR promised you that we would bring everything we had to this fight. We would leave nothing behind, spare no expense, leave no evidence off the table, let the government get away with nothing without a fight, and make this the largest fight for firearm rights in Canadian history.
We’ve done that.
We brought evidence about businesses, individual shooters, military, law enforcement, First Nations rights, the economic contribution of shooting to Canada, hunters, the history of firearms regulation in Canada and the absence of a correlation to crime reduction… all of it. We left exactly nothing off the table.
The CCFR is over a million dollars into this fight and nothing like it has ever happened before.
Tomorrow is the first main fight against the government’s impairment of our liberty, but it’s not the main event. That comes at the end of what is turning out to be a difficult process against an opponent that tenders evidence from an “expert” with no actual qualifications, and who simply decided that they wouldn’t show us the evidence they are obligated to show us. Obviously we’re not having it and we are fighting all of that as well, but it's hard and it's expensive.
Here’s what you need to know:
Injunctions applications are a form of “interim relief”, in that you are asking to get what you want on the main application, but you ask to get it now instead of having to wait.
Injunctions applications are hard to get, because effectively we are asking for an order giving us temporary victory until the actual hearing gives us a final victory. These are difficult because the whole of the evidence isn’t in yet, and the final hearing hasn’t happened.
Even harder to get are injunctions against legislation, because in effect the government has an advantage of a presumption of a legitimate purpose (I leave it to you as to whether that's fair).
That said, we wouldn’t be doing it if it weren’t a good arguable case - it clearly is.
Plus, literally all of the work and we did and all the evidence we assembled preparing this injunction application will be used again in the main hearing, so we’ve wasted effectively nothing. We just did a lot of the hard work up front.
So what is the test for an injunction?
First, we’ve published our whole written argument here so I won’t go over that again. Second, I’m not putting cards on the table here today – our lead advocate, Laura Warner of JSS Barristers, will be calling the play tomorrow, so there are no big reveals here.
That said, here’s the 3-part test for granting an interlocutory injunction:
(1) the existence of a serious issue to be tried;
(2) the possibility of irreparable harm; and
(3) the balance of inconvenience.
The first part is pretty easy for us. Our case raises legitimate points that can win; the first part of the test is really asking if these are absent. They aren’t. Our case is clearly legitimate.
The second part and the third part tend to go together in that the nature and magnitude of the harm also swings the balance of convenience. The harms include financial ruin for market participants, infringement of Charter rights for Canadians, infringement of Constitutional rights for First Nations, loss to military and law enforcement members’ ability to train, random criminalization of guns and their owners, uncertainty as to our criminal liability for the use of certain firearms, and the list goes on.
Our harms are very real, but do we get immediate relief or will this get sent to the main hearing later? That’s what you are watching for.
As to the balance of convenience, that’s where the government tends to get a presumption of legitimate purpose, and that’s a challenge at a preliminary stage like where we are. I don’t want to provide any further specifics on that here or now, other than to say you’ll hear arguments on that.
I will say this though: the tests at an interim injunction stage are not the same as the tests at the main hearing. Know this: the arguments that we have might not yield a full injunction tomorrow but may still win at the main hearing, so this is not necessarily a prediction of the future if we do not prevail here at a preliminary stage. Of course if we do prevail, that actually is a pretty strong indicator of the future.
We do have great arguments.
I’ll also say that it’s not a “yes or no” question. The Court might craft an Order that solves any one or some of our issues on an interim basis, while sending the rest to be dealt with at the main hearing without granting any interim relief. Any part wins will help, even if they aren’t big ones. If not, we do it again at the main hearing where all we have to do is prove our case (the first part of the test).
That said, we do want to win tomorrow, and we literally left nothing behind, or anything unargued.
This is the biggest firearm rights case Canada has ever had, and only the CCFR could do it. And just to be clear, by that I mean only you could have done this.
This is the product of a community stepping forward to be counted en mass, and giving it everything we have. I want to say that it's a privilege to be part of this community.
For those who are watching tomorrow, that’s what you’ll be seeing.
~Loberg
P.S. - if you want to help, here’s the link: https://membership.firearmrights.ca/legal_challenge
|
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by taeish
