Christine Generoux Is Her Own Lawyer in Lawsuit to Stop Gun Bans

(Update Aug. 13: Adds that Generoux isn’t a lawyer in first and third paragraphs.) — At least five groups or individuals have gone to Canada’s Federal Court to stop the governing Liberal Party’s gun-confiscation order, but Christine Generoux is the first one representing herself without a lawyer.

Generoux submitted her so-called “Application for Judicial Review” of the May 1 “Order in Council” (OIC) with the Federal Court in Ottawa on July 10, according to a PDF of the lawsuit she e-mailed yesterday to

‘Self-Represented Litigant’

“I am just a little self-represented litigant here, feeling inspired by Hipwell, CCFR, et al., but embarrassed about the pathetic fight put up by rest of Canadians,” Generoux, who isn’t a lawyer, said in her e-mail.

She aims to raise $25,000 via and is inviting the Attorneys General of every province and territory to join her case.

Trudeau Crackdown

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s confiscation order, drafted in secret with the federal police, specifically targets Generoux, her two partners in the court challenge, and more than 2 million other federally licensed firearm users and 2,400 businesses.

Trudeau turned them into instant criminals for owning suddenly “Prohibited” rifles and shotguns, and gave them two years to surrender the goods to police to avoid charges or jail. He’s going after handgun owners next.

Unjust and Unconstitutional

“The applicants argue that the new amendments contained in the OIC are discriminatory, unjust, unreasonable and unconstitutional,” said the filing against the Attorney General and Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

RCMP Response

Update July 16: “As this matter is currently before the courts, it would be inappropriate for the RCMP to comment at this time,” Camille Boily-Lavoie, a spokeswoman fo the Ottawa-based firearm regulator, told July 16 by e-mail in response to our invitation to comment.

Update July 16: The Ministry of Justice didn’t respond for the Attorney General.

Excerpt of Filing

The applicants have locus standi in this matter as they each face either monetary loss of valuable property (unreasonable seizure) or un-just imprisonment under this order in council.

In fact, the property in question was effectively seized on May 01 2020 with no compensation given, in that it is immediately prohibited to use, sell (in Canada) or enjoy — it has been rendered valueless.

Merge, Deadline

The Federal Court says the deadline to file for a judicial review is “within 30 days after the time the decision or order was first communicated to the applicant,” and that extensions are possible.

The court may decide to merge lawsuits that it allows to proceed. It’s also possible that any decision on the challenges won’t come until after the confiscation deadline of 30 April 2022.

Policy Failure

Many firearm owners intend to keep their gear after the deadline, suggesting Trudeau’s plan will fail.

The rising opposition from provinces, police and the public will make any confiscation difficult or impossible to enforce.

Summary Table: Federal Court Challenges

Court NumberDate Filed (2020)Lead PartyLead Lawyer
T-569-20May 21Cassandra ParkerSolomon Friedman
T-577-20May 26CCFRMichael Loberg
T-581-20May 27John HipwellEdward Burlew
T-677-20Jun 29Michael DohertyArkadi Bouchelev
T-735-20Jul 10Christine GenerouxChristine Generoux

Multiple Contacts

Generoux said she and her co-applicants contacted several of the others who filed in Federal Court, as well as Dennis Young, a leading advocate and researcher for the rights of firearm owners.

See the GoFundMe campaign for more personal comments and context.

At least one lawsuit has also been filed in provincial court, in Alberta.

Generoux Comments to (Excerpts)

I did not want to sue for intervenor status on another case, because I don’t want to risk interfering with anyone’s case, I also could not leave this up to others to do on my behalf.

I will go it alone if I have to — win or loose, I don’t care if I win — just want someone to win.

Seems our Constitutional rights are being touted as privileges that can be limited, but I believe they’re inalienable, so does Alberta and at least 222,000 people who signed Petition E-2574.

Main principle of my case is: they cannot take away our rights or property based upon lies, and to say that Canadian licensees significantly contribute to “gun violence” in Canada is a lie.

Highlights of Generoux Court Challenge

Federal Court File Number

  • T-735-20

Date Filed

  • 10 July 2020

Place Filed

  • Federal Court in Ottawa


  • Christine Generoux
  • John Perocchio
  • Vincent Perocchio

Represented By

  • Christine Generoux
  • John Perocchio
  • Vincent Perocchio

Respondents (Targets)

  • Attorney General of Canada
  • Royal Canadian Mounted Police

PDF of Filing


Update July 16: Adds comment by RCMP and Minsitry of Justice.