Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CR-24-00101782-00MO Date: 2025-09-05 Superior Court of Justice – Ontario

Re: Hubert Kump, Applicant And: His Majesty the King and Waterloo Regional Police Service, Respondents

Before: Gibson J.

Counsel:

• Davin Charney, Counsel for the Applicant
• Matthew McLean, Counsel for the Respondent His Majesty the King
• Emma Storey, Counsel for the Respondent Waterloo Regional Police Service

Heard: September 4, 2025

Endorsement

Overview

[1] The Applicant Hubert Kump ("Kump") was charged with various firearms offences on October 30, 2019. On October 31, 2019, the Waterloo Regional Police Service ("WRPS") seized a substantial volume of firearms, ammunition and additional property from the Applicant during a judicially-authorized search.

[2] All charges were withdrawn against the Applicant, however, most of the seized property could not be lawfully returned to him. On November 26, 2021, Justice Sopinka of the Ontario Court of Justice issued an Order for the Disposition of Property, which was entered into with the Applicant's consent and while the Applicant was represented by counsel. The Applicant subsequently appealed this Order.

[3] Abandoning his appeal, the Applicant negotiated a new agreement with the Crown with respect to the disposition of the property. The Applicant ultimately consented to a new disposition order made by Justice Smith of the Superior Court of Justice on July 28, 2023 (the "Forfeiture Order").

[4] From July 2023 to the present, the Applicant has contested various aspects of the Forfeiture Order. Notwithstanding the Applicant's negotiation and consent, he now brings this Application dated August 5, 2025, seeking to vary the Forfeiture Order. This is the Applicant's third attempt at reopening the issue of the disposition of property.

Background

[5] On October 30, 2019, WRPS police officers were dispatched to check on the wellbeing of a senior man who was reported to be disoriented while walking in the vicinity of his house and who appeared to be suffering from a medical crisis. When the paramedics attended, WRPS police officers were tasked with finding identification in the residence to identify the male, who was later confirmed to be Bruno Kump, the father of the Applicant. In doing so, police observed two assault-style rifles leaning against a wall in the living room, as well as a rifle magazine, ammunition, and grenades in plain view in the kitchen. Additional firearms were observed in plain view on the main floor and in the basement, as well as a firearms licence in the name of Hubert Kump.

[6] On October 31, 2019, a search warrant was granted for the residence, located in Kitchener, Ontario, to search for and seize firearms and ammunition. Police seized a substantial amount of firearms, ammunition, and additional property, including, but not limited to, the following:

a. Approximately 325 firearms, including restricted firearms, prohibited firearms, unregistered firearms, and one firearm that was reported stolen;

b. Over 500 magazines, including prohibited magazines (and many of the firearms contained additional magazines);

c. A substantial amount of ammunition that was stored throughout the residence, including in cardboard boxes, Ziploc bags, metal containers, and plastic bins; and

d. Two sets of brass knuckles, which are prohibited weapons under the Criminal Code.

A significant quantity of firearms and ammunition were unsafely stored all throughout the residence.

[7] The Applicant and Bruno Kump were each charged with various criminal offences relating to the unsafe storage of firearms and ammunition, and the careless use of firearms. The criminal charges against the Applicant and Bruno Kump were subsequently withdrawn on November 26, 2021.

[8] At that time, Justice Sopinka of the Ontario Court of Justice issued two Orders: a Prohibition Order pursuant to s. 111 of the Criminal Code, prohibiting the Applicant from possessing any firearm or ammunition for a period of three years; and an Order for the Disposition of Property, which the Applicant then appealed to the Superior Court of Justice.

[9] During the court appearance before Justice Sopinka, the Applicant was represented by counsel, and counsel confirmed that they had reviewed the Order for the Disposition of Property with the Applicant, and that the Applicant was consenting to the order being made.

[10] The Applicant abandoned his appeal on July 28, 2023, after the Crown and the Applicant agreed to vary the original Disposition Order of Justice Sopinka; however, the WRPS was not party to this agreement, nor was the WRPS a party to the disposition order.

[11] On July 28, 2023, Justice Smith of the Superior Court of Justice issued a new Order for the Disposition of Property (the "Forfeiture Order"). The Applicant confirmed on the record that he consented to this Forfeiture Order.

[12] Around March 14, 2024, the Applicant filed an Application with the Superior Court of Justice, but did not serve the WRPS or file any application materials. From March 14, 2024, to February 6, 2025, the Forfeiture Order was temporarily stayed by Justice Smith until resolution or further order of the Court. Justice Ramsay ultimately lifted the stay on February 6, 2025.

[13] The Applicant served the WRPS with a Notice of Application and Constitutional Question on February 7, 2025. A court date was scheduled for May 25, 2025, but was later vacated when the Applicant retained counsel. The Applicant filed this present Application on August 5, 2025.

Status of the Forfeiture Order

[14] The Forfeiture Order includes the following Appendices:

• Appendix A: Property to be forfeited to Her Majesty the Queen;
• Appendix B: Property to be forfeited to Her Majesty the Queen, EXCEPT for up to fifty (50) restricted firearms (excluding handguns) to be selected by Harold Kump (the brother of the Applicant);
• Appendix C: Property to be forfeited to Her Majesty the Queen unless ownership is transferred to another lawful owner within 120 days;
• Appendix D: Property to be returned to Hubert Kump; and
• Appendix E: Property to be returned to Harold Kump.

[15] It is the WRPS' position that the Forfeiture Order has been complied with, and that no further items can be released from police custody. The WRPS is required to dispose of the remaining property in accordance with the Forfeiture Order. The following is the status of each Appendix in the Forfeiture Order:

a. The WRPS is waiting for approval to dispose of the property in Appendix A;

b. The fifty restricted firearms, as selected by Harold Kump, have since been transferred and released in accordance with Appendix B;

c. The WRPS has transferred all property in Appendix C that can be lawfully transferred, and the remaining property is to be disposed of;

d. All property in Appendix D has been returned to Hubert Kump; and

e. All property in Appendix E has been returned to Harold Kump.

[16] The WRPS says it has been unable to dispose of any of the property in accordance with the Forfeiture Order, since the WRPS first requires approval through the Ministry of the Attorney General's Crown Law Office – Criminal Law Division ("MAG") to do so. MAG has advised the WRPS that no direction to dispose of the remaining property will be provided until the outcome of this hearing is known.

Positions of the Parties

The Position of the Applicant Mr. Kump

[17] The Applicant seeks to vary the Forfeiture Order. He seeks an Order directing the return of replica firearms, deactivated firearms and an antique revolver to him, as well as an Order that a licenced gunsmith be allowed to further examine the seized property. The Applicant submits that this Court has jurisdiction to vary an order where there has been a material change in circumstances, which he contends arise in this circumstance because of what he says are mistakes made by the WRPS in inspecting and cataloging the firearms. He cites Rule 37.14(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure (which he acknowledges is not directly applicable, but which he seeks to have apply by analogy).

The Position of the WRPS

[18] The WRPS opposes this Application and submits that it has taken all steps to enforce the Forfeiture Order. The remaining property cannot be lawfully returned to the Applicant or to other individuals and is required to be disposed of. The WRPS is unable to destroy any of the remaining property without the direction of the Ministry of the Attorney General ("MAG") and MAG is declining to provide that direction until the outcome of this Application is known. Until then, over a hundred firearms, together with ammunition, remain in WRPS' facilities. The WRPS requests that this Application be dismissed. The WRPS is seeking finality as it relates to this matter, as it submits was originally intended and as is in the public's interest. The WRPS also accords with the position of the Crown regarding the jurisdiction of the Court to make the Order sought by the Applicant.

The Position of the Crown

[19] The Crown takes the position that the Superior Court of Justice lacks the jurisdiction to grant a variation in this circumstance, and that the Application should be dismissed. It submits that the Applicant consented to the forfeiture of various firearms; in exchange, the Crown discontinued its prosecution against him on firearms-related offences. The Applicant then appealed that outcome, seeking to have some firearms returned to him. Again, the parties reached an agreement on consent; the order was signed by Smith J. on July 28, 2023. In return, the Applicant's appeal was dismissed as abandoned. The Applicant now seeks to vary and/or enforce that order more than two years after it was made.

Analysis

[20] Although this Application is framed as a request to vary and/or enforce the Forfeiture Order, it is in substance effectively an attempt to re-launch an appeal that was previously disposed of. The Forfeiture Order was made with the consent of both parties, and alongside an appeal of the original forfeiture order. Indeed, the appeal was dismissed as abandoned by Justice Smith immediately after he signed the forfeiture order that is the subject of this Application.

[21] Where an order has been made with the consent of the parties, section 133 of the Courts of Justice Act prohibits an appeal without leave of the court to which the appeal is to be taken. An appeal of a final order of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice lies to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

[22] The Applicant is required to seek leave from the Court of Appeal for Ontario before this matter can be heard. The Superior Court of Justice accordingly lacks the jurisdiction to hear this Application.

[23] Moreover, even if I am mistaken in this assessment, the variation of an order is discretionary, to be made on such terms as are just. There is a strong interest in finality of decisions which is deeply engrained in Canadian common law. Generally speaking, once a judge has rendered a final decision, that judge is barred from reopening, varying, or retracting that decision. If the decision was wrong or otherwise unsatisfactory, the proper recourse is for a party to appeal that decision.

[24] There are situations where a judge may make an administrative mistake or omission while endorsing a sentence. The administration of justice is brought into disrepute if the court cannot correct such errors. The Court of Appeal has endorsed a two-step test to determine if an original sentencing judge has jurisdiction to amend an endorsed sentence:

1. Consider whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the judge's manifest intentions at the time the sentence was imposed; and

2. Consider whether permitting the amendment would give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias or tainted decision-making process, or cause unfairness to the offender:

R v. Krouglov, 2017 ONCA 197 at paras. 41-60; R v. Hasiu, 2018 ONCA 24 at para. 35. This is an objective test.

[25] Similarly, the circumstances in which a court may permit the re-opening of an appeal are closely circumscribed. The Applicant must establish a clear and compelling case that a miscarriage of justice will likely occur absent re-opening: R v. Smithen-Davis, 2022 ONCA 832 at para. 31; R v. Hepfner, 2023 ONCA 581 at para. 9; R v. Babadi, 2025 ONCA 482 at para. 9. The Applicant cannot satisfy either of these tests.

[26] The manifest intention of both Justice Sopinka and Justice Smith was to accept the joint position that was presented to them. On November 26, 2021, the Crown made it clear that forfeiture of the firearms was a key pre-requisite to the withdrawal of charges. The Applicant's lawyer reviewed the forfeiture application with the Applicant and indicated that it was on consent. Accordingly, Justice Sopinka signed the order.

[27] On appeal, the Crown agreed to a more favourable forfeiture order despite its position that "there was nothing wrong with the initial order". In exchange, the Appeal was abandoned and the parties jointly requested that Justice Smith sign a new forfeiture order. In so doing, Justice Smith's manifest intention was simply to respect and implement the agreement that was reached by the parties.

[28] There is no compelling case that a miscarriage of justice will occur absent the re-opening of the appeal. The Applicant's initial consent to forfeiture was made so he would no longer face criminal liability. The Crown honoured its side of the bargain by withdrawing the charges. The Applicant's second consent to forfeiture was made to secure the return of additional firearms. The Crown honoured its side of the bargain by ensuring that those firearms were returned. The present Application is again brought for the purpose of securing a more favourable outcome by having additional items returned to the Applicant. If denied, there will be no miscarriage of justice – the court will simply be respecting the deeply engrained principle of finality. The Applicant cannot reasonably expect to be accorded repeated kicks at the can seeking to improve an outcome he previously consented to.

Conclusion

[29] The Application will be dismissed.

[30] The stay of the Forfeiture Order of Smith J. dated July 28, 2023 ordered by Smith J. on March 14, 2024, was lifted by Ramsay J. on February 6, 2025. The property may therefore be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the Order of Smith J. dated July 28, 2023.

Order

[31] The Application is dismissed. There will be no order for costs in this matter.

M. Gibson J.

Date: September 5, 2025