Criminal Justice
Firearms
Appeal from Federal Court decision (2019 FC 1509) dismissing application for judicial review from decisions made by two firearms officers acting under Firearms Act, S.C. 1995, c. 39, Authorizations to Carry Restricted Firearms and Certain Handguns Regulations, SOR/98-207 denying appellant’s application for authorization to carry restricted firearm in his helicopter — Appellant transporting guides, hunters by helicopter in remote areas — Stating restricted firearm needed to ensure safety of himself, passengers in case of grizzly bear attack — After receiving appellant’s application, officers interviewed him, then informed him that they would deny his application — After interview, officers sought outside advice from government officials — Federal Court holding that officers’ decisions procedurally fair, substantively reasonable — Whether officers’ decisions procedurally unfair — Having to determine moment when officers made their decisions — If officers denying appellant’s application at end of interview, then consultation afterward with government officials smacking as illegitimate attempt to shop for additional facts, opinions to cooper up decisions already made — If, on other hand, officers’ decisions taking place when they released their written reasons, then necessary to analyze whether officers affording procedural fairness to appellant leading up to their decisions — Federal Court equivocating on this point — Officers finally deciding matter when signing, issuing their written reasons — Post-interview statement to appellant best regarded as ill-advised expression by officers of “lean” or tendency to decide in particular direction — Appellant entitled to high level of procedural fairness — Appellant’s application having to be redetermined — Factors in Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817, 174 D.L.R. (4th) 193 considered — Fair, important, necessary to disclose government officials’ facts, assessments to appellant — Officers offending principle of audi alteram partem — Case herein representing first time after Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, 441 D.L.R. (4th) 1 that decisions of firearms officers reviewed by Federal Court of Appeal — Firearms officers conducting redeterminations should have regard, inter alia, to governing legislation, threat of bears to appellant, availability of alternatives, efficacy of handguns — There need only be reasoned explanation on redeterminations concerning key issues, including key arguments made — Appeal allowed.
Sexsmith v. Canada (Attorney General) (A-462-19, 2021 FCA 111, Stratas J.A., reasons for judgment dated June 4, 2021, 14 pp.)