Note: Today, we have the first of two Q&As related to the injunction issued for the federal government’s latest firearm ban.
In May, 2020, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced a massive firearms ban. The ban, pushed through via an Order In Council instead of parliamentary vote, targets hunting, sporting and tactical-style rifles. Since May, the actual working-out of the ban has been disastrous. The federal government has not put together an action plan for the ban or proposed buyback, cannot find a private partner to help run the program, has quietly added new firearms to the ban, and has failed to communicate properly with firearms owners through the whole process. Even the RCMP union disagrees with it.
Several legal challenges are working towards striking down the firearms ban, but until those come before the courts, the Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights is seeking an injunction. So what does that actually mean? Below, see Tracey Wilson, the CCFR’s VP of Public Relations, explain the basics of the injunction process – Ed.
Injunction Q&A, Part 1:
Calibre: Can you give a very short explanation of what an injunction does, and how you have one issued? Tracey Wilson: Injunctions are court orders that are typically interim orders to hold the status quo until the end of a case. In CCFR v Canada, we are seeking an injunction to stop the operation of the Order in Council and the “banning by FRT” that we object to until the main hearing can be concluded, including all appeals. Injunctions are hard to get and rarely granted against legislation, but the CCFR is committed to trying everything we can. If the injunction application is not successful we may still win on the main application.
Calibre: When did you start the process of asking for an injunction against the OIC bans? Tracey Wilson: The CCFR planned for apply for an injunction as soon as we made the decision to litigate, and the formal Notice of Motion was filed September 11, 2020.
Calibre: Along with the CCFR, other parties are on board with this request. Who are the other people/businesses cooperating with you, and why are they interested? Tracey Wilson: There are only two other cases seeking an injunction with the CCFR: T-677-20 (Michael John Doherty et al v AGC) with Arkadi Bouchelev acting, and T-735-20 (Christine Generoux et al v AGC) being self-represented. There are other applicants of judicial review of the Order in Council, for several cases in total, but they have not joined us in seeking an injunction. We will also be joined in the main application by the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms in opposing the Order in Council, as well as the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. They propose to bring arguments from their own unique perspectives.
Calibre: You’ve served the federal government with your Motion Record. What part of the legal procedure happens next? How long until that happens? (January? March? June?) Tracey Wilson: The government will reply to our Motion Record (which runs 2847 pages) with their own Motion Record on January 6. 2021, followed by a final Case Management Conference on January 8 and a full hearing on January 18. The decision notionally could be issued at the hearing but it is quite possible that the Judge reserves the decision and issues it later. While all of this is going on we continue to press forward with preparing our main case.
Calibre: How can Canadian firearms owners help your effort in the coming weeks? Tracey Wilson: We are litigating a very expensive case using the best lawyers money can hire. Firearm owners can best support the CCFR with a financial contribution to the litigation fund, followed by as much participation in our educational social media campaign that they can. The CCFR has created explainer videos on a variety or firearm subjects and we have created many seasons or TV shows and firearm documentaries to educate the public about how safe and fun our sport is. Sharing those widely is a free way to make a significant contribution to our efforts.