ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

CITATION: Nagy v. Canada (Attorney General), 2021 ONCJ 50

DATE: 2021-01-29

COURT FILE No.: Simcoe 20-636

BETWEEN:

Daniel Alexander Nagy

— AND —

The Attorney General of Canada (Registrar of Firearms)

Before Justice A.D. Hilliard

Heard on January 29, 2021

Reasons for Judgment released on January 29, 2021

Counsel: Daniel Alexander Nagy, on his own behalf J. Turvey / E. Atkinson, Counsel for the AG

Reasons for Judgment

Overview:

[1] Mr. Nagy filed a Notice of Hearing pursuant to section 74 of the Firearms Act, seeking a hearing under s. 74(2) of that Act. That Notice was filed with the court on August 17, 2020.

[2] The Attorney General (AG) then brought an application requesting that Mr. Nagy’s application be summarily dismissed on the basis that the Ontario Court of Justice lacks the jurisdiction to grant the relief being sought.

[3] For the reasons that follow, the AG’s application to dismiss Mr. Nagy’s application is granted.

The Letter from the Registrar of Firearms:

[4] Mr. Nagy received a letter from the Registrar of Firearms, dated July 20, 2020, regarding his previously issued firearm registration certificate for his Colt Rifle. The letter advised Mr. Nagy that due to a change in the law his Colt Rifle had been reclassified as a prohibited weapon rendering his registration certificate for that firearm a nullity.

[5] On May 1, 2020, a decision made by the Government of Canada was put into effect through an Order in Council changing the classification of certain firearms. This change in the law directly affects Mr. Nagy, as he is the owner of a Colt Rifle, legally purchased and possessed, which is now a prohibited firearm. Mr. Nagy as a law-abiding citizen and lawful gun owner was understandably upset that his Colt Rifle is now a prohibited firearm, and as of April 30, 2022, he will no longer be able to legally possess that gun.

[6] Mr. Nagy is asking this court to review the decision to take away his Colt Rifle. However, a provincial court judge can only review a decision made by the Registrar of Firearms on a hearing under s. 74(2) of the Firearms Act. The AG argues that since the change in the status of the Colt Rifle stems from an Order in Council, and not a decision of the registrar, this court has no power to review that change.

[7] The letter Mr. Nagy received from the Registrar of Firearms advised Mr. Nagy about the change in the law regarding his Colt Rifle. It does not inform Mr. Nagy of a decision made by the Registrar to revoke Mr. Nagy’s registration certificate, but rather, advises Mr. Nagy that the Registration Certificate is no longer valid as the Colt Rifle has been reclassified from a restricted to a prohibited firearm. There was no decision to be made by the Registrar. The government made the decision to reclassify certain firearms, and once that decision was implemented by way of an Order in Council, all that the Registrar could do was notify Mr. Nagy of how the change in the law affected his ownership of the Colt Rifle.

[8] In concluding that the letter does not convey a decision made by the Registrar, I refer to and rely upon the thorough and cogent reasons of my colleagues in Reference re Firearms, 2020 79410, R. v. Wyville, 2020 ONCJ 555, Canada (Attorney General) v. Fritz, [2021] O.J. No. 187, and Ek v Registar of Firearms, a decision of Paradis, J.D.Q., Quebec provincial court (Montreal), January 19, 2021. In all of those decisions, it was determined that there had been no decision made by the Registrar to revoke a registration certificate. From reading those judgments, it is clear that many lawful gun owners across Canada received the same letter that Mr. Nagy received after the change in the law in May 2020.

[9] Mr. Nagy refers me to the decision of Canada (Attorney General) v. Stark, [2020] A.J. No. 1300, wherein Provincial Court Judge Fradsham finds that the Registrar did indeed make a decision to revoke Mr. Stark’s registration certificates in response to the reclassification of firearms in May 2020. I must respectfully disagree with Judge Fradsham’s conclusions. The finding in Stark that the Registrar made a specific decision to revoke Mr. Stark’s registration certificates strains logic and defies reason. From the facts of Mr. Stark’s case, it is clear to me that Mr. Stark received the same form letter that Mr. Nagy received, the only difference being the specific reference to the guns owned by Mr. Stark rather than the Colt Rifle owned by Mr. Nagy. To conclude that tens if not hundreds of Registrars of Firearms across Canada came to independent conclusions after the implementation of the May 2020 Order in Council and then sent out letters bearing the exact same date, with identical wording, but for the list of firearms, defies common sense. The conclusion that there was a decision made to revoke registration certificates also fails to acknowledge the very wording of the form letter sent to both Mr. Stark and Mr. Nagy, indicating that their certificates were “automatically nullified and therefore no longer valid”. The registration certificates were issued for restricted firearms. The reclassification of firearms from restricted to prohibited renders the registration certificates useless because those certificates applied only to restricted firearms, which some of the firearms owned by Mr. Stark and the Colt Rifle owned by Mr. Nagy no longer are. The fact that there was no grandfathering provision implemented allowing for the continued possession of previously legally owned guns does not change the analysis.

Hearing under s. 74(2) of the Firearms Act:

[10] A provincial court judge can only review a decision made by the Registrar of Firearms on a hearing under s. 74(2) of the Firearms Act. As I have determined that no decision was made by the Registrar in relation to Mr. Nagy’s Colt Rifle, there is nothing for me to review. I would also note that even were I to have found, as Prov Co Judge Fradsham did, that the Registrar did indeed make a decision that could be reviewed by the Court, the remedies available under the Act are limited.

[11] On a hearing under s. 74(2), the limit of my ability to make orders is restricted under s. 76 to one of three options: (1) confirming the decision of the Registrar to revoke or deny an application for a registration certificate, (2) directing the Registrar to issue a licence or registration certificate, or (3) cancel the revocation of the licence or registration certificate. None of these remedies will assist Mr. Nagy in relation to his Colt Rifle.

[12] In his written and oral submissions on this Application, it is clear that Mr. Nagy is less concerned with his registration certificate and more concerned with his ability to continue to lawfully possess his Colt Rifle, a firearm that he legally purchased and possessed until May 2020.

[13] Mr. Nagy is seeking an injunction to prevent him from having to surrender his firearm for destruction. There is no option for me to issue an injunction on a reference under s. 74(2) of the Firearms Act. The Federal Courts Act specifically indicates in s. 18(1) that the Federal Court has exclusive original jurisdiction to issue injunctions or grant declaratory relief against any federal board, commission or other tribunal. The proper Court for Mr. Nagy to bring his request for an injunction regarding his Colt Rifle is the Federal Court of Canada.

Mr. Nagy’s Colt Rifle – now what?

[14] Mr. Nagy has brought this matter before the Court seeking relief from what he believes is arbitrary government action affecting his lawful ownership of his Colt Rifle. He has been a licenced gunsmith for over 16 years, trained as a licenced Federal Firearms Verifier. He is a law-abiding citizen who objects to the impact of a law that appears to have been implemented to address gun violence and criminal behaviour, none of which he has personally engaged in during his lifetime as a gun owner.

[15] Litigation is ongoing at the Federal Court level challenging the reclassification of certain firearms. Mr. Nagy understands that the Federal Court litigation may take years to resolve. He is likely correct in this assessment. To that end, Mr. Nagy has proactively applied to this court for a remedy in advance of the end of the current amnesty period which extends until April 30, 2022. Mr. Nagy is to be applauded for his diligence and efforts to ensure that he is making every effort to remain compliant with the law in his possession of his Colt Rifle, now a prohibited firearm. Unfortunately, Mr. Nagy has applied to the wrong court for relief.

[16] The role of government is to make laws. The role of judges is to apply and enforce the law. In our decisions as to how the laws apply to individuals, it is of the utmost importance that that those who our decisions affect understand the reasons why we have come to the conclusions we have. Mr. Nagy understands that Canadian law is based on reason and he believes that the request that he is making is reasonable. He is correct on both counts. Unfortunately, however, the fact that Mr. Nagy’s request is reasonable in the circumstances does not provide a basis in law for me to grant his request.

[17] As I indicated above, as a provincial court judge, I have no authority to order the relief that Mr. Nagy is seeking. However, Mr. Nagy will not now be forced to surrender his Colt Rifle for destruction. As the letter of July 20, 2020 confirms, the amnesty period is in effect until April 30, 2022 and it is anticipated that the government will implement a buy back program. There is also some possibility that a grandfathering provision will be put in place to allow owners of newly prohibited firearms to continue to legally possess them. All of that, however, is in the hands of the government and out of my control.

[18] I am bound to make decisions only within the confines of the law and I cannot deviate from my role in this regard, however reasonable Mr. Nagy’s request may be.

Order:

[19] Application to dismiss granted.

Released: January 29, 2021

Signed: Justice A.D. Hilliard