Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic v. Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada as represented by The Attorney General of Canada et al.

[Indexed as: Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic v. Canada (Attorney General)]

Ontario Reports

Ontario Superior Court of Justice,

E.M. Morgan J.

September 8, 2014

121 O.R. (3d) 733 | 2014 ONSC 5140

Case Summary

Equality before the law — Discrimination — Sex — Parliament amending Criminal Code and Firearms Act to eliminate registration requirement for non-restricted firearms — Elimination of registration requirement not discriminating against women by putting them at greater risk of injury and death by firearms.

Fundamental justice — Firearms — Parliament amending Criminal Code and Firearms Act to eliminate registration requirement for non-restricted firearms — Elimination of registration requirement not violating s. 7 of Charter — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7 — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46 — Firearms Act, 1995, S.C. 1995, c. 39.

The applicant challenged the constitutionality of Bill C‑19, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act, S.C. 2012, c. 6, which repealed the long‑gun registry system that since 1995 had required the registration of non‑restricted firearms. The applicant submitted that the elimination of the registration requirement for non‑restricted firearms violates s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by decreasing Canadians' personal security and increasing the risk of death by firearms, and discriminates against women contrary to s. 15 of the Charter by putting them at greater risk of injury and death by firearms.

Held, the application should be dismissed.

The elimination of the registration requirement for non‑restricted firearms does not violate s. 7 of the Charter. The anticipated harm does not result from state action. This is not a case of the government blocking access to risk‑reduction mechanisms. Rather, the government created, and then modified, a risk‑reduction mechanism that would not otherwise exist. The applicant's argument was a critique of statutory policy that lacked constitutional footing. The Firearms Act, S.C. 1995, c. 39 does not amount to a constitutional baseline against which all further revisions and amendments are to be measured. The applicant failed to establish the existence of a causal link between the repeal of the registration requirement and an increased risk of harm. Finally, the amendment is not arbitrary and does not represent a denial of natural justice.

The elimination of the registration requirement for non‑restricted firearms does not violate s. 15(1) of the Charter. There is no reliable evidence that Bill C‑19 has caused and/or perpetuated, or that it would cause and/or perpetuate, a distinction based on gender. Even if it does, the distinction is not discriminatory as Bill C‑19 does not perpetuate disadvantage of stereotyping of women.

Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 1101, [2013] S.C.J. No. 72, 2013 SCC 72, 366 D.L.R. (4th) 237, 452 N.R. 1, 312 O.A.C. 53, 2014EXP‑30, J.E. 2014‑21, 303 C.C.C. (3d) 146, 7 C.R. (7th) 1, 297 C.R.R. (2d) 334, 110 W.C.B. (2d) 753, varg (2012), 109 O.R. (3d) 1, [2012] O.J. No. 1296, 2012 ONCA 186, 256 C.R.R. (2d) 143, 91 C.R. (6th) 257, 290 O.A.C. 236, 282 C.C.C. (3d) 1, 346 D.L.R. (4th) 385, 100 W.C.B. (2d) 704; Canada (Attorney General) v. PHS Community Services Society, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 134, [2011] S.C.J. No. 44, 2011 SCC 44, 244 C.R.R. (2d) 209, 310 B.C.A.C. 1, 421 N.R. 1, 2011EXP‑2938, J.E. 2011‑1649, EYB 2011‑196343, 336 D.L.R. (4th) 385, 272 C.C.C. (3d) 428, 86 C.R. (6th) 223, 22 B.C.L.R. (5th) 213, [2011] 12 W.W.R. 43, 205 A.C.W.S. (3d) 673, 96 W.C.B. (2d) 322, distd

Other cases referred to

Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 567, [2009] S.C.J. No. 37, 2009 SCC 37, 310 D.L.R. (4th) 193, [2009] 9 W.W.R. 189, J.E. 2009‑1407, EYB 2009‑161892, 390 N.R. 202, 9 Alta. L.R. (5th) 1, 81 M.V.R. (5th) 1, 460 A.R. 1, 179 A.C.W.S. (3d) 327; Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, 1989 2 (SCC), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143, [1989] S.C.J. No. 6, 56 D.L.R. (4th) 1, 91 N.R. 255, [1989] 2 W.W.R. 289, J.E. 89‑259, 34 B.C.L.R. (2d) 273, 25 C.C.E.L. 255, 36 C.R.R. 193, 13 A.C.W.S. (3d) 347; Authorson v. Canada (Attorney General), [2003] 2 S.C.R. 40, [2003] S.C.J. No. 40, 2003 SCC 39, 227 D.L.R. (4th) 385, 306 N.R. 335, J.E. 2003‑1389, 175 O.A.C. 363, 4 Admin. L.R. (4th) 167, 36 C.C.P.B. 29, 109 C.R.R. (2d) 220, 124 A.C.W.S. (3d) 62; Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic v. Canada (Attorney General), [2012] O.J. No. 4392, 2012 ONSC 5271 (S.C.J.) [Leave to appeal to Div. Ct. denied [2012] O.J. No. 4920, 2012 ONSC 5577 (S.C.J.)]; Canada (Attorney General) v. JTI‑Macdonald Corp., [2007] 2 S.C.R. 610, [2007] S.C.J. No. 30, 2007 SCC 30, 281 D.L.R. (4th) 589, 364 N.R. 89, J.E. 2007‑1276, 158 C.R.R. (2d) 127, EYB 2007‑121233, 158 A.C.W.S. (3d) 919; Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2005] 1 S.C.R. 791, [2005] S.C.J. No. 33, 2005 SCC 35, 254 D.L.R. (4th) 577, 335 N.R. 25, J.E. 2005‑1144, 130 C.R.R. (2d) 99, 139 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1080; Clark v. Peterborough Utilities Commission (1998), 1998 7133 (ON CA), 40 O.R. (3d) 409, [1998] O.J. No. 2915, 112 O.A.C. 390, 81 A.C.W.S. (3d) 175 (C.A.); Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., 1994 39 (SCC), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835, [1994] S.C.J. No. 104, 120 D.L.R. (4th) 12, 175 N.R. 1, J.E. 95‑30, 76 O.A.C. 81, 94 C.C.C. (3d) 289, 34 C.R. (4th) 269, 25 C.R.R. (2d) 1, 51 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1045, 25 W.C.B. (2d) 304; Dunmore v. Ontario (Attorney General), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 1016, [2001] S.C.J. No. 87, 2001 SCC 94, 207 D.L.R. (4th) 193, 279 N.R. 201, J.E. 2002‑141, 154 O.A.C. 201, 13 C.C.E.L. (3d) 1, [2002] CLLC Â220‑004, 89 C.R.R. (2d) 189, 110 A.C.W.S. (3d) 630, revg 1999 18653 (ON CA), [1999] O.J. No. 1104, 182 D.L.R. (4th) 471, 49 C.C.E.L. (2d) 29 (C.A.), affg (1997), 1997 16229 (ON SC), 37 O.R. (3d) 287, [1997] O.J. No. 4947, 155 D.L.R. (4th) 193, 41 C.L.R.B.R. (2d) 29, 47 O.T.C. 53, 49 C.C.E.L. (2d) 5, 98 CLLC 220‑012, 1997 12345 (ON SC), 48 C.R.R. (2d) 211, 75 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1043 (Gen. Div.).

(Decision continues verbatim in structure and content as above through paras. [1]‑[140], ending with:)

Application dismissed.

End of Document.