Federal Court Dismisses Injunction Motions to Stop Liberal+RCMP Attacks

(Update Feb. 11: Adds comments by applicants and government.)

TheGunBlog.ca — Canada’s Federal Court dismissed three injunction motions to temporarily freeze the federal government’s and federal police’s politically motivated attacks against hunters, farmers and sport shooters.

Associate Chief Justice Jocelyne Gagné published her 22-page decision today after an all-day hearing on January 18.

  • She dismissed the applicants’ request for a so-called “interlocutory injunction” to suspend sweeping gun confiscations begun last May until a decision in the main hearing, which has yet to be scheduled.
  • She rejected objections to accepting Murray Smith as an independent witness, even though he worked for the confiscators to design the confiscations and is now helping to execute them.
  • She ordered the applicants to pay the legal fees of the government, known as the Respondent in the case.

Abusive, Illegal, Unconstitutional

Only three cases applied for an injunction out of the six cases in Federal Court aiming to stop the crackdown by the governing Liberal Party and Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

All six cases argue the Liberal+RCMP campaign to demonize and criminalize honest and responsible Canadians is abusive, illegal and unconstitutional.

Excerpts of Gagné’s Decision

For the reasons set out below, I conclude that the Applicants do not meet the test for the issuance of an interlocutory injunction, as they have failed to adduce clear and non-speculative evidence that they would suffer irreparable harm if the Regulations remain in effect pending a determination by this Court of their applications on the merits.


1. The Applicants’ Motions for interlocutory injunction are dismissed;

2. Costs on these Motions are granted to the Respondent.

Source: Justice Jocelyne Gagné, Federal Court Decision on Injunction Motions, 09 February 2021

Federal Court Decision

Applicant and Government Comments

Update February 11: TheGunBlog.ca invited the applicants and the government to comment on the court decision.

Christine Generoux (Applicant): “We’re bloody but not beat. This was an appetizer, we’re bringing such overwhelming evidence for the final hearing it will answer if any justice remains in Canada.” — Christine Generoux, Self-Represented Applicant (For Members: Read Generoux’s full comment.)

Government (Respondent): “We are aware of the court’s decision and welcome it. We are confident that we have put in place strong, legal regulations that will keep communities safe.” — Mary-Liz Power, Spokesperson for Bill Blair, the minister in charge of the confiscations.

Injunction Hearing Vs. Main Hearing

The point of the injunction hearing wasn’t to decide if the Liberal+RCMP attacks are wrong or illegal. The court will decide that in the main hearing.

The point of the injunction hearing was to decide if the Liberal+RCMP attacks create irreparable and ongoing damage or suffering that justify a temporary freeze before the court can review the case.

Injunction Motion: Pros and Cons

Applying for an injunction to suspend the confiscation order instead of waiting for the main hearing was a risky legal tactic with pros and cons.


  • Shows the May 1 attacks have such severe and irreversible 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.


  • Delays the main case, pushing gun owners and businesses closer to the confiscation deadline.
  • Forces the applicants to pay the government’s expenses. Some applicants are already short on funds and may be forced to drop out of the case.

Recap of What’s at Stake

  • On 01 May 2020, the Liberals and RCMP unleashed a regulatory attack against Canada’s 2.2 million federally licensed firearm users and 4,500 businesses, ordering them to surrender many popular rifles and shotguns.
    • The crackdown instantly threatened hundreds of thousands of honest citizens with criminal charges and jail if we buy, sell, use or transport any of the suddenly blacklisted products.
    • We also risk criminal charges and jail unless we allow police to confiscate our gear by 30 April 2022.
  • TheGunBlog.ca isn’t aware of anyone who intends to surrender their liberty or their property.
  • Six cases are in Federal Court to stop the attacks. Three of those cases applied for an injunction:
    1. Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights et al.
    2. Michael Doherty et al.
    3. Christine Generoux et al.

What’s Next

  • We expect Gagné will schedule hearings in the main case to decide if the confiscation order is illegal and unconstitutional.
  • Several legal professionals have said a final decision could take years, and that whoever loses will appeal, adding time and expense to the case. Some expect the appeals will go to the Supreme Court.
  • A court victory after the confiscation deadline won’t help anyone who submitted to the seizures before the deadline.

Federal Court Cases: Summary Table

Court NumberDate Filed (2020)Lead PartyLead Rep/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
T-905-20Aug 11Jennifer EichenbergEugene Meehan