Federal Court Cases Split on Seeking Injunction to Stop Liberal Attacks

TheGunBlog.ca — The Canadian gun owners and businesses in Federal Court to stop the governing Liberal Party’s May 1 attacks are evenly split on requesting an injunction, according to a meeting today.

Three of the six groups applied for an injunction to halt the mass criminalizations until the court decides their case, and three didn’t.

Each applicant decided based on the specifics of its case.

“Win or lose, an injunction can have an enormous impact on the future course of the litigation.”
Steven Mason, McCarthy Tetrault, Undated Report

What’s New

Case Management Conference No. 3: Associate Chief Justice Jocelyne Gagné presided a so-called “case-management conference” via Zoom video call today at 1 p.m. Ottawa time.
Attendees included two dozen lawyers or representatives for:
- Applicants: The six groups of gun owners and businesses
- Respondents: Liberal oppressors
- Interveners: Groups supporting the challengers or the confiscators:
  - Canada’s National Firearms Association
  - Canadian Taxpayers Federation
  - Coalition for Gun Control
Nicolas Johnson, the editor of TheGunBlog.ca, was on the call as media.
The following is based on conversations with lawyers today and previously.

Work Together, Work Separately

All six individuals and groups have filed their Application for Judicial Review of the Liberal cabinet’s May 1 Order in Council. The OIC criminalizes federally licensed firearm owners who buy, sell, move or use their suddenly “Prohibited” rifles and shotguns. It threatens them with jail unless they allow police to confiscate the gear by 30 April 2022.

The six groups are working together where their cases overlap, and working separately where their cases are unique.
Different cases advance different points to show the OIC is unconstitutional or illegal. Some focus on its violations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Bill of Rights, while others take a different approach.
- Three groups consider the injunction request is warranted and will help their case. They filed for an injunction over the past few weeks.
- Three consider it wouldn’t help their case.

Applied for Injunction

CCFR, Rod Giltaca, Wolverine Supplies
- See Notice of Motion at FirearmRights.ca
Michael Doherty and Associates (Group of Nine)
Christine Generoux and Asssociates

Didn’t Apply for Injunction

Cassandra Parker and K.K.S. Tactical
John Hipwell (Founder of Wolverine Supplies)
O’Dell Engineering and Associates

Injunction Hearing Date

Hearing Date: 18 January 2021
Decision Date: Unknown
- The judge could make a decision at the hearing, known as “ruling from the bench.”
- The judge could decide hours, days or weeks later.

Interlocutory Injunction

We published the following context after the first case-management conference on July 29:

“Win or lose, an injunction can have an enormous impact on the future course of the litigation,” Steven Mason, a partner at McCarthy Tetrault law firm, said in an undated report. “A successful injunction will have the immediate effect of preventing the other party from doing what it set out to do (or forcing it to do something it does not want to do).”
The Federal Court uses three key criteria to decide on an injunction, according to Mason:
1. “Is there a serious issue to be tried?
2. “Will the applicant suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted?; and
3. “Which party will suffer the greater harm from granting or refusing the remedy pending a decision on the merits? (often called ‘balance of convenience’)”
Related (Steven Mason, McCarthy Tetrault): Interlocutory Injunctions: Practical Considerations

Injunction Request: Pros and Cons

Pros

Shows the May 1 attacks have such severe effects that they warrant seeking an injunction. This could boost the main case.
Allows applicants to present evidence and see how the court responds. This could be useful for the main case.

Cons

Delays the main case, pushing gun owners and businesses closer to the confiscation deadline.

Federal Court Summary Table

Court Number	Date Filed (2020)	Lead Party	Lead Lawyer
T-569-20	May 21	Cassandra Parker	Solomon Friedman
T-577-20	May 26	CCFR	Michael Loberg
T-581-20	May 27	John Hipwell	Edward Burlew
T-677-20	Jun 29	Michael Doherty	Arkadi Bouchelev
T-735-20	Jul 10	Christine Generoux	Christine Generoux
T-905-20	Aug 11	Jennifer Eichenberg	Eugene Meehan

Related