- Location
- calgary alberta
That's not really an accurate description of what the procedural Order in CCFR v Canada said. The FRT argument is very much alive and well in our case and we've received confirmation and clarity on that from Justice Gagne, who ruled that in our case:
"[32] ... the legal issue of sub-delegation can form part of the Applicants’ challenges to the Regulations. This means that in their challenges to the Regulations, the Applicants can refer to the FRT as well as to the fact that firearms they own received new technical opinions following the promulgation of the Regulations. In that sense, the mere existence of technical opinions is, in my view, still very much on the table.
[33] The Applicants will be able to argue that the words “variant” and “modified version” found in the Regulations led the GIC to impermissibly sub-delegate its authority to the RCMP by way of the FRT...."
Justice Gagne dismissed an application we brought for permission to review some or all of the FRT decisions as separate decisions in our case, and confirmed that we can instead carry on to attack the whole regime, which is what we wanted to do in the first place, and which is exactly what we are still doing.
As always we've got a discussion going in our group if you want to drop in and participate: https://www.facebook.com/groups/CCFR.CCDAF/permalink/2573421112781944
Cheers!
Mike Thanks for setting the record straight for me and us all. This is good news!!