Mr. Justice F. B. Fitzpatrick

The appellant brought a summary conviction appeal from a decision of the Ontario Court of Justice declining jurisdiction to hear a reference under s. 74 of the Firearms Act concerning an alleged revocation of a firearm registration certificate.

The lower court determined that a letter from the Registrar advising that a rifle’s bull‑pup stock was a prohibited device did not constitute a revocation.

The appellant argued that the court erred by deciding jurisdiction without permitting him to call evidence, contrary to s. 75(2) of the Act, thereby breaching procedural fairness.

The Superior Court held that once the hearing commenced the statute required the judge to hear all relevant evidence from both parties.

Because the lower court made factual findings based only on the Registrar’s evidence while refusing the appellant’s witnesses, the process violated natural justice and constituted an error of law.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a new hearing before a different judge.

The applicant proceeded by way of an uncontested family law trial seeking divorce, spousal support, child support for an adult child, equalization of net family property, and sale of the matrimonial home.

The court attributed annual income of $125,000 to the respondent based on partial financial disclosure.

The court held that the parties’ adult child, who struggled with drug addiction, was not a “child of the marriage” within the meaning of the Divorce Act because the evidence did not establish that his condition prevented him from withdrawing from parental charge or obtaining the necessaries of life.

Spousal support was awarded at $2,313 per month retroactive to October 2011, and equalization of $124,622.50 was ordered through division of the respondent’s pension.

The matrimonial home was ordered sold with the respondent’s share charged for spousal support arrears.