Court File and Parties

ONSC 5582

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 457/12

DATE: 201210DD

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic, Moving Party/Applicant

AND:

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada as Represented by the Attorney General of Canada, The Commissioner of Firearms, The Registrar of Firearms and the Chief Firearms Officer, Responding Parties/Respondents

BEFORE: Pardu J.

COUNSEL: Shaun O'Brien and Elichai Shaffir, for the Moving Party/Applicant

Gina M. Scarcella and Christine Mohr, for the Responding Parties/Respondents

Robert A. Centa and Tina H. Lie, for the City of Toronto as Proposed Intervenors

HEARD: September 28, 2012

Endorsement

[1] The City of Toronto sought leave to intervene in a motion for leave to appeal from a decision of a motion judge refusing to grant an interlocutory injunction, and to intervene in the appeal if leave to appeal was granted. At the conclusion of the argument, I dismissed the motion for leave to intervene without prejudice to the right of the City to renew its application if leave to appeal was in fact granted.

[2] The following are my reasons for that order.

[3] This motion took place in the context of an application by the Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic to declare unconstitutional various aspects of federal legislation eliminating the requirement to register unrestricted firearms. The Applicant moved for an interlocutory injunction to require that the registry of unrestricted firearms be continued, that the data collected over the years about unrestricted firearms be preserved, rather than destroyed as required by the legislation under attack, that the Respondents permit legally entitled persons to access the data and to continue the employment of all staff necessary to permit legally entitled persons to access the data, and an order requiring the Respondents to continue to register every transfer of a non-restricted weapon.

[4] The Applicant's position is that the legislation has a disproportionately adverse effect on women, and that it will subject them to an increased risk of violence, and hence violates their rights under sections 7 and 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[5] The motion judge granted the City of Toronto intervenor status in the motion for the interlocutory injunction.

[6] There can be no dispute that injuries caused by firearms are a serious social problem. Beyond that self evident proposition, I am not satisfied that the City could make a useful contribution to the argument as to whether leave to appeal should be granted. The City has no legislative agenda in mind in relation to firearms. The issue on the motion for leave to appeal is narrowly circumscribed by Rule 62.02(4). No further evidence will be admitted on the motion for leave to appeal. I am satisfied that the Applicant will be able to fully argue all of the issues relevant to the motion for leave, and do not see that general arguments about the seriousness of social problem related to guns will be of any assistance to the court. No injustice will be occasioned to any party if leave is refused.

[7] For these reasons, the motion for leave to intervene on the motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Pardu J.

Date: October , 2012