Solomon's application is mainly dealing with how the GIC comes to the "opinion " that the firearms are of reasonable use in sporting and hunting. It briefly touches on the Bill of Right but it seems not to be the main effort. Solomon's case asked for 4 items of reliefs, the first is simply the order to declare the OIC of no effect.
CCFR's application encompasses Solomon's case as well as addressing RCMP's SFSS activity in the FRT concerning delegation of power . It also clearly separates the administration aspect from the constitutional aspect. CCFR's case is much more detail in the the relief request which shows some thought on the different outcomes and scenarios, including injuction at different stages and that the mortars and rocket launchers will need to stay prohib because they obviously of no hunting purposes.
At the end of the day, it is not just the application and the scope of the application. The legal team itself is much more important. you can write a fancy application but if the team can't do the job, it is all moot. If you are a criminal lawyer, you want to stick more with the criminal code of things. If your team has constitutional specialties, you can bring on the constitutional side. When you have a case that touches on multiple aspects, not only you need good individual specialties, you need a strong manager and a strong partner to drive the case in a direction by managing all the moving pieces ( so you wont' look incoherent ). That's why the scope of the application is also related to the size of the law firm somewhat and the collection of specialties. You can run a simple strong case, you can also run a strong case of a large scope. The key is to bite what you can chew.