G. Scarcella

The applicant, a clinic providing services to victims of domestic violence, brought an application challenging the constitutionality of the federal government's repeal of the long-gun registry under sections 7 and 15 of the Charter.

The respondents moved to strike the application under Rule 21 for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The applicant moved for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the destruction of the registry data pending the hearing of the application.

The court dismissed the respondents' motion to strike, finding the claims were not plainly and obviously doomed to fail given the novelty of the issues.

However, the court also dismissed the applicant's motion for an interlocutory injunction, concluding that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the evidence of irreparable harm was weak and the balance of convenience favoured the public interest in the enacted legislation.

A municipal government brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in a Charter application challenging federal legislation repealing the long‑gun registry and mandating destruction of registry records.

The underlying application alleged the repeal violated ss. 7 and 15(1) of the Charter by increasing risks of domestic violence against women.

The court considered the principles governing intervention under Rule 13.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including whether the proposed intervenor had a real and identifiable interest, a distinct perspective, or relevant expertise.

The court found the municipality had demonstrated a substantial interest in firearm‑related public safety and domestic violence issues and could provide assistance on the public interest component of the injunction analysis without expanding the evidentiary record.

Leave to intervene was granted subject to limitations on evidence, length of submissions, and costs.