The applicant sought to vary a forfeiture order made by consent on July 28, 2023, requesting the return of replica firearms, deactivated firearms, and an antique revolver, and seeking permission for a licensed gunsmith to examine seized property.
The applicant claimed material change in circumstances based on alleged mistakes by police in cataloging firearms.
The court dismissed the application, finding that the Superior Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter as it constituted an attempt to re-launch a previously disposed appeal of a consent order.
The court emphasized the principle of finality and found no compelling case of miscarriage of justice warranting reopening.
