Reference re Firearms Act

Last updated
Reference Re Firearms Act
Supreme court of Canada in summer.jpg
Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: February 21, 22, 2000
Judgment: June 15, 2000
Citations 2000 SCC 31, [2000] 1 SCR 783
Prior historynone (Reference question)
Holding
The regulation of firearms is a matter of public safety and so is in the authority of the federal government under the criminal law power.
Court membership
Chief Justice: Beverley McLachlin
Puisne Justices: Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, Charles Gonthier, Frank Iacobucci, John C. Major, Michel Bastarache, Ian Binnie, Louise Arbour, Louis LeBel
Reasons given
Unanimous reasons by The Court
Laws applied
Constitution Act, 1867 .

Reference Re Firearms Act [1] is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the division of powers regarding firearms legislation and the Canadian Firearms Registry. A unanimous Court held that the federal Firearms Act was constitutionally valid under the federal criminal law power.

Contents

Background

In 1995, the Parliament of Canada passed the Firearms Act, which required owners of rifles and shotguns to register them, and to obtain possession licences for them. (Handgun registration was already required by federal law.)

The government stated that the law was passed under the authority of the federal government's criminal law power. The Firearms Act was closely integrated with the federal Criminal Code , so that failures to comply with the requirements of the former could in some cases be prosecuted as offences under the latter.

Alberta Court of Appeal reference

On September 26, 1996, the government of Alberta under Premier Ralph Klein submitted a reference question to the Alberta Court of Appeal under section 27 of the Judiciary Act. The Court was asked to determine whether the Firearms Act was in relation to matters under the jurisdiction of the federal government. [c 1] The government posed four questions to the Court:

  1. Do the licensing provisions, insofar as they relate to an ordinary firearm, constitute an infringement of the jurisdiction of the Legislature of Alberta with respect to the regulation of property and civil rights pursuant to section 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867?
  2. If the answer to the question posed in subsection (1) is “yes”, are the licensing provisions ultra vires the Parliament of Canada insofar as they regulate the possession or ownership of an ordinary firearm?
  3. Do the registration provisions, as they relate to an ordinary firearm, constitute an infringement of the jurisdiction of the Legislature of Alberta with respect to the regulation of property and civil rights pursuant to section 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867?
  4. If the answer to the question posed in subsection (1) is “yes”, are the registration provisions ultra vires the Parliament of Canada insofar as they require registration of an ordinary firearm? [c 2]

The governments of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, the Northwest Territories, Yukon, and national pro gun organizations intervened arguing the provisions were ultra vires of Parliament. The government of Ontario intervened arguing only the registration was ultra vires of Parliament. [2] Two organizations, the Alberta Council of Women's Shelters and the Coalition for Gun Control intervened in support of the Firearms Act. [2]

The Alberta Court of Appeal upheld the constitutional validity of the Firearms Act, with Chief Justice Catherine Fraser, Justice Mary M. Hetherington and Justice Ronald Berger writing three separate reasons approving the legislation. [2] Justices Carole Conrad and Howard Lawrence Irving wrote separate dissents. [3]

The government of Alberta argued the law was in relation to personal property and thus was a matter in the jurisdiction of the province. However, the federal government argued the law was in the realm of criminal law, which is under federal jurisdiction.

Opinion of the Court

The unanimous Court held that the pith and substance of the Act was in relation to "public safety" which was a matter within the criminal law power of the federal government. The Court cited the Margarine Reference for the requirements of criminal law and noted the danger of firearms, even if in some cases they could be used beneficially. Indeed, the regulations were judged to promote responsible firearm ownership, and the Court went on to argue that there would be a moral danger if firearms are used irresponsibly (morality is an element in criminal law, as established in the Margarine Reference), although the Court said that it was not just a matter of morality that gave Parliament the authority to pass this legislation.

The Court also noted that firearms have been subject to federal regulation for years and that the government of Alberta could not reasonably challenge many of the earlier laws.

Finally, the Court rejected all arguments that the law was too expensive or disadvantageous to rural regions, as these were matters for Parliament to consider rather than legal issues liable to judicial review.

See also

Related Research Articles

Canadian federalism involves the current nature and historical development of the federal system in Canada.

Pith and substance is a legal doctrine in Canadian constitutional interpretation used to determine under which head of power a given piece of legislation falls. The doctrine is primarily used when a law is challenged on the basis that one level of government has encroached upon the exclusive jurisdiction of another level of government.

In Canadian law, a reference question or reference case is a submission by the federal or a provincial government to the courts asking for an advisory opinion on a major legal issue. Typically the question concerns the constitutionality of legislation.

Canadian constitutional law is the area of Canadian law relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Canada by the courts. All laws of Canada, both provincial and federal, must conform to the Constitution and any laws inconsistent with the Constitution have no force or effect.

<i>Margarine Reference</i> Canadian constitutional decision

Reference Re Validity of Section 5(a) of the Dairy Industry Act (1949), also known as the Margarine Reference or as Canadian Federation of Agriculture v Quebec (AG), is a leading ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada, upheld on appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, on determining if a law is within the authority of the Parliament of Canada's powers relating to criminal law. In this particular case, the Court found that a regulation made by Parliament was ultra vires. Though the regulation contained sufficient punitive sanctions, the subject matter contained within it was not the kind that served a public purpose.

Section 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867, also known as the property and civil rights power, grants the provincial legislatures of Canada the authority to legislate on:

13. Property and Civil Rights in the Province.

<i>Board of Commerce case</i>

Re Board of Commerce Act 1919 and the Combines and Fair Prices Act 1919, commonly known as the Board of Commerce case, is a Canadian constitutional decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in which the "emergency doctrine" under the federal power of peace, order and good government was first created.

<i>Reference Re Alberta Statutes</i> 1938 Canadian constitutional law case

Reference Re Alberta Statutes, also known as the Alberta Press case and the Alberta Press Act Reference, is a landmark reference of the Supreme Court of Canada where several provincial laws, including one restricting the press, were struck down and the existence of an implied bill of rights protecting civil liberties such as a free press was first proposed.

<i>Proprietary Articles Trade Association v Canada (AG)</i> Canadian constitutional law case in the JCPC

Proprietary Articles Trade Association v Canada (AG), is a Canadian constitutional decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the Constitution's criminal law power under section 91(27).

<i>R v Eastern Terminal Elevator Co</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Eastern Terminal Elevator Co is an early constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the Constitution's Trade and Commerce power.

<i>Caloil Inc v Canada (AG)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Caloil Inc v Canada (AG) is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the Trade and Commerce power under section 91(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867. The Court upheld a federal law prohibiting the transport or sale of imported oil in a certain region of Ontario.

<i>Law Society of British Columbia v Mangat</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Law Society of British Columbia v Mangat, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 113 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court held that a non-lawyer may be given the power to practice law under a federal statute even if it is contrary to provincial legal profession legislation.

Section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867, also known as the criminal law power, grants the Parliament of Canada the authority to legislate on:

27. The Criminal Law, except the Constitution of Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction, but including the Procedure in Criminal Matters.

<i>Reference Re Securities Act</i> 2011 Supreme Court of Canada case

Reference Re Securities Act is a landmark opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada to a reference question posed on the extent of the ability of the Parliament of Canada to use its trade and commerce power.

<i>Reference Re Assisted Human Reproduction Act</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Reference Re Assisted Human Reproduction Act is an appeal from the Quebec Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on a reference question posed as to the constitutional validity of the Assisted Human Reproduction Act that had been passed by the Parliament of Canada.

<i>Fish Canneries Reference</i>

Canada (AG) v British Columbia (AG), also known as the Reference as to constitutional validity of certain sections of The Fisheries Act, 1914 and the Fish Canneries Reference, is a significant decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in determining the boundaries of federal and provincial jurisdiction in Canada. It is also significant, in that it represented a major victory in the fight against discrimination aimed at Japanese Canadians, which was especially prevalent in British Columbia in the early part of the 20th century.

<i>Reference Re Companies Creditors Arrangement Act</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Reference Re Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the constitutionality of the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act as part of the bankruptcy and insolvency jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada.

<i>Labour Conventions Reference</i>

Canada (AG) v Ontario (AG)[1937] UKPC 6, [1937] A.C. 326, also known as the Labour Conventions Reference, is a landmark decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council concerning the distinct nature of federal and provincial jurisdiction in Canadian federalism.

<i>Quebec (AG) v Canada (AG)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Quebec (AG) v Canada (AG), 2015 SCC 14 is a Canadian constitutional law case concerning the federal government's ability to destroy information related to the Canadian long-gun registry pursuant to the federal criminal law power.

<i>Dobie v Temporalities Board</i> Canadian constitutional law case – 1881

Dobie v Temporalities Board is a Canadian constitutional law case. It was decided in 1881 by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, at that time the highest court in the British Empire, including Canada. The case concerned the power of the provinces and the federal Parliament to deal with legal rights created by statutes enacted prior to Confederation in 1867.

References

Citations

  1. ↑ Reference re Firearms Act (Can.), 2000 SCC 31 , [2000] 1 SCR 783(15 June 2000)
  2. 1 2 3 Gibson 1999, p. 1073.
  3. ↑ Gibson 1999, p. 1074.

Cases

  1. ↑ Reference Re Firearms Act, 1998 ABCA 305 (CanLII), paras 6–7.
  2. ↑ Reference Re Firearms Act, 1998 ABCA 305 (CanLII), para 7.

Works cited

  • Gibson, R. Dale (1999). "The Firearms Reference in the Alberta Court of Appeal". Alberta Law Review. 37 (4): 1071–1093. doi:10.29173/alr1456. ISSN   1925-8356. 1999 CanLIIDocs 153.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.