This just came out. The judge upheld the Stark decision!
Edit: CanLII link: https://canlii.ca/t/jlvlz
Some notable excerpts:
[44] As noted above, the Firearms Act prescribes procedures and forms to be used when the Registrar revokes a registration certificate. Some of Canada’s arguments suggest that there cannot be a revocation within the meaning of section 74 of the Firearms Act (allowing referral to a provincial court) unless those procedures are followed. That fine distinction might be relevant for some purposes, but it is at least reasonable to hold that the Registrar cannot avoid a referral by using different words or procedures when the substantive effect is the same[65] This constitutional requirement that governmental power must be exercised only as permitted by an act of Parliament presents a challenge to Canada’s argument that the
Classification Regulation resulted in the inevitable revocation (nullification or invalidation) of the respondents’ registration certificates. Under section 117(b) of the Firearms Act, Parliament
expressly granted to the Governor in Council the power to regulate the revocation of registration certificates, but Parliament also stipulated at section 118 that in so doing, the proposed regulation must be laid before each House of Parliament. Thus, for example, both the Firearms Registration Certificates Regulations and the Firearms Licences Regulations were laid before each House of Parliament before becoming effective: see the preamble to each regulation. Given the principle of the rule of law that the exercise of legal power must find its source in a legal rule, it is doubtful that Parliament could have intended these express provisions, requiring Parliamentary oversight of regulations relating to the revocation of registration certificates, to be evaded by the indirect, non-express mechanism for which Canada argues.[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 74HAPPY FRIDAY BOYS![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.
|
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by The_Red_Rabbit
