Court File and Parties
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
RE: Jennifer Evers and Frederick Evers, Applicants
-and-
The Town of Kingsville, Ontario Provincial Police and Scott Giles, Respondents
BEFORE: Justice Spencer Nicholson
COUNSEL: S. Vitella for the Applicants S. Giles, Self-represented Respondent W. Good for the Respondent Town of Kingsville A. Iafrate and A. Mannina for the Respondents Ontario Provincial Police and Chief Firearms Office
HEARD: January 30, 2026
DECISION ON APPLICATION
1The Applicants, Jennifer Evers and Frederick Evers (“the Evers”) and the Respondent, Scott Giles, are neighbours within the town limits of the Town of Kingsville.
2Scott Giles invites friends and acquaintances to attend his property periodically for the purpose of target shooting and other activities involving the discharge of firearms. His property has not been inspected and approved as a “shooting range” under the Firearms Act, 1995 SC, c. 39. Mr. Giles has never applied for such approval having self-identified that he is not operating a “shooting range”.
3The Town and OPP are aware of these activities and have taken no meaningful action to prevent them.
4The Applicants seek an order prohibiting the shooting of firearms on the Giles’ property, except for certain limited purposes, on the following basis:
(a) Mr. Giles has not sought nor received approval to operate a shooting range in contravention of the Firearms Act;
(b) The shooting activities that take place on the Giles’ property constitutes “unnecessary noise” in contravention of section 1(h) of the Town of Kingsville By-Law 69-2003 (“the Noise By-law”);
(c) The shooting activities that take place are not a permitted use of the Giles’ property in contravention of the Town of Kingsville’s Comprehensive Zoning By-Law 1-2014; and
(d) The shooting activities constitute a nuisance.
5The Town of Kingsville takes no position on the Application. Similarly, the OPP, which admits that it has jurisdiction and is responsible for operating the local Chief Firearms Office, takes no real position on the merits. However, these authorities seek guidance with respect to the definition of “shooting range” in the Firearms Act so that they understand their obligations.
6This Decision is not about firearms generally, nor whether those involved in the shooting activities that take place at the Giles’ property are responsible gun owners. In my view, the real issue is the process which a property owner such as Mr. Giles must follow in order to conduct this type of activity involving firearms on his property.
7After I heard the Application, I issued a temporary order prohibiting shooting activities, subject to certain exceptions, on Mr. Giles’ property pending the release of this Decision. I did so to ensure public safety.
Agreed Upon Facts:
8The parties filed an Agreed Statement of Fact. Accordingly, the following is not contentious and is, in fact, agreed upon.
9The Evers and Mr. Giles live adjacent to each other in Kingsville, Ontario. Mr. Giles’ property is zoned Agricultural A-1 under the Town’s Comprehensive Zoning By-Law 1-2014. Under that By-law, permitted uses include “hunting, gaming and wildlife preserve”. The Town does not have any relevant zoning definitions or provisions that permit an outdoor pistol or rifle range on an Agricultural A-1 property.
10Mr. Giles has an area on the back of his property where firearms are discharged for the purpose of target shooting, sighting in, trap shooting, hunting and target shooting competitions. This includes hosting target and competition shooting events, which have included upwards of approximately 30 participating shooters. These shooting competition events occur approximately 6 to 8 times per year between the spring and fall. There are corporate sponsors such as TriggerTech, Vortex Optics, and General Gun & Supply.
11Mr. Giles also uses the area on his property for personal, small-scale target shooting by himself and/or a few attendees.
12Mr. Giles has been using his property for these shooting activities for approximately nine years or since around 2016.
13The Evers first became aware of the large-scale target shooting events in or around 2020.
14The shooting on the Giles’ property typically lasts from approximately 10:00 am until 4:00 pm.
15On May 20, 2024, the Giles’ property hosted a fundraiser match for the Canadian Coalition of Firearms Rights.
16The area where the shooting takes place on the Giles’ property has a constructed berm that is approximately 12 feet tall by 100 feet wide in size. That berm was expanded in 2023 and again in 2024. The berm is intended to act as a backdrop to stop stray bullets.
17Mr. Giles has not sought approval from the Chief Firearms Office with respect to the shooting activities that are taking place on his property. It is his position that he does not have to seek permission, as he has self-determined that he is not operating a “shooting range”.
18The area where the shooting activities take place is located approximately 180 metres away from the Evers’ property line and is approximately 700 metres from their dwelling house.
19The area where the shooting activities take place is located approximately 180 metres away from the Chrysler Canada Greenway, which is a popular nature and walking trail used by members of the public that directly abuts the Giles’ property to the north.
20The Town’s By-Law 10-2004, which prohibits the discharge of firearms within certain areas of the township does not prohibit the discharge of firearms on the property.
21The OPP has advised in a letter dated May 30, 2025, that it continues to investigate whether Mr. Giles has breached any applicable laws.
22On October 10, 2023, an OPP officer and a Windsor Police Service Constable attended Mr. Giles’ property. The two officers were designated “Firearms Officers” pursuant to s. 2(1) of the Firearms Act. Mr. Giles did not permit the officers to access his property to observe the shooting area, but he provided property map images and specifics of the shooting area. Based on their conversation, the OPP officer concluded that the property was well maintained and organized and that Mr. Giles was versed in the areas of firearms, sport-shooting, and applicable laws and regulations governing the ownership of firearms. That officer did not have any safety concerns at the time, but he recommended that Mr. Giles install property signage to warn the public not to trespass on his property.
23Without an application being submitted by Mr. Giles under section 29 of the Firearms Act, the Chief Firearm Office’s position is that it does not have the authority to attend the property and inspect the shooting area in order to assess compliance with minimum safety standards.
24Up until the time of my temporary restraining order, Mr. Giles had continued to allow the shooting activities to take place on his property.
Additional Evidence:
25The Application Record includes several affidavits sworn by Ms. Evers.
26She describes that she and her husband purchased their property in May of 2012. It is a seven-acre hobby farm, located approximately one km from Kingsville’s core. To the south of their property is a residential neighbourhood and to the north is the Chrysler Canada Greenway, used by the public for walking and biking. Otherwise, Ms. Evers deposes that their property is surrounded by similar sized small hobby farms. The Evers have children.
27The Evers enjoy their property. They have created a kilometer long trail around the perimeter of their property to walk their dogs, exercise and ride their ATVs. They installed a pool in their backyard with an open-style fence. There is a bonfire pit and multi-level deck with a barbecue. They have planted fruit trees and a forested area in their yard to encourage local wildlife.
28Ms. Evers’ affidavit appends Mr. Giles’ Facebook postings that publicize Mr. Giles’ alleged shooting range.
29The following are examples of what is posted:
October 6, 2021: Long season building up to our Farm Shooters PCC/Shotgun Prize match. 30 shooters, 4 stages, rain couldn’t slow us down. What a way to spend the day with great friends, great shooters, and great prizes. Huge shout out and Thanks to #triggertech, #vortex, and #generalgun for your generous donation if prizes and support this season.
July 16, 2023: Phenomenal Day at the first ever Farm Shooters 5 Stand Trap Shoot. 28 trap shooters 16 rounds 1 winner. Congrats to my buddy (redacted) on your overall Win today! Thanks to (redacted), (redacted) and everyone who helped out this weekend. And huge thanks to my cousin (redacted) for the amazing fish fry after the match. Congrats to the 5 women who also did an amazing job shooting today. 3 of the women beat most of the men!!! We will definitely be doing this again!
30I note that from the Facebook posts it is clear that some Town of Kingsville councillors have been at attendance at some of the events, and are supportive of Mr. Giles’ competitions.
31The Facebook post for August 2, 2021, speaks of hosting an annual AR Memorial Match in honour of a deceased friend. I understand that an AR is a semi-automatic rifle.
32The Facebook posts include photographs of the competitors, and festivities that I have reviewed. There are many corporate tents present during the competitions. The berm is visible. There is a grove of trees located behind it. Ms. Evers describes in her affidavit that the grove of trees are on the property adjoining Mr. Giles’ property and contains several walking trails and is a gathering place for local migrant labourers that work on the surrounding farms.
33There is an aerial photograph of the area. I note that the shooting area runs roughly parallel with the Chrysler Canada Greenway trail, so that the shooting is not directly towards the trail.
34Ms. Evers deposes that they made inquiries and learned that Mr. Giles does not have approval under the Firearms Act to operate a shooting range. The Evers then contacted the OPP and were advised that the shooting range was a “private range” and accordingly no approval under the Firearm Act was required. The OPP would not be taking any steps to shut down the shooting range.
35By correspondence dated May 7, 2024, the Chief Firearms Office wrote that “all shooting ranges, personal or public, are inspected with the same range guidelines”.
36Ms. Evers also deposes that the noise from the shooting is an issue. She describes that the barrage of gunfire from the shooting area is rapid, loud and unpredictable. She describes that the startling noise causes her body to have a stress response. It sounds like her property is located in a warzone.
37Ms. Evers has attached over thirty letters and emails from people living in the community who express concern regarding the safety of the shooting that is occurring on Mr. Giles’ property, including the loud noise.
38Ms. Evers refers to a Town Council meeting that took place on December 11, 2023. There was a motion brought to direct an administrative review of the Firearms By-Law. This was specifically in response to the shooting activities that were taking place on Mr. Giles’ property. Mr. Giles attended and made submissions. Ms. Evers states that he admitted that he was operating a shooting range on his property. He also took the position, as he did in oral argument at the hearing before me, that the shooting is safe as no one has been injured or killed.
39Mr. Giles has also submitted an affidavit. I note that it is unsworn and undated. I will nevertheless set out its contents.
40He and his wife took possession of their property on December 1, 2015. Prior to purchasing the property, he deposes that they had done extensive research on small hobby farms. One of the main reasons for purchasing the property was because of the Kingsville Firearms lawful discharge by-law. He deposes that he is permitted to lawfully hunt, discharge his non-restricted firearms, target shoot with friends and family, shoot trap, sight in his firearms and do load testing for optimal performance. As he is heavily involved in competition shooting, he was able to “practice [his] passion”, while doing it safely, responsibly and within the letter of the law.
41He deposes that he has been doing these activities since 2016 with no complaints, visits from police or town officials until the current dispute with the Evers started.
42Mr. Giles deposes that he does not own a “shooting range”. He owns and operates a 13 acre organic farm. There is a spot on the back of the farm where he says it has been deemed safe by the Town of Kingsville, the local OPP and the Chief Firearms Office to legally discharge non restricted firearms.
43For safety reasons, Mr. Giles created a berm using dirt from their pool and pond.
44He states that approximately 6 to 8 times per year, depending on the weather and personal schedules, he invites friends and family over for a “fun and safe afternoon of target shooting, campout with our campers, bbq, bonfire, etc.”.
45Despite the Facebook posts, Mr. Giles states that there is nothing frequent, regular or structured about the shooting. It is just him inviting friends over to target shoot. He stresses that there is no membership, no gate, no key cards, no board of directors or executive, which all “shooting ranges” would have.
46Mr. Giles deposes that he does not need approval to fire non-restricted firearms on his property under the Firearms Act. Restricted firearms, such as handguns, require section 29 approval. He says that obtaining such approval comes at great expense and restrictions.
47Mr. Giles deposes that in the ten years that there has been shooting on his property, there have been no stray bullets ever leave the property.
48Mr. Giles also points out that the local farmers use propane cannons, or “bird bangers” to make loud blasts of noise to scare birds off the crops, without any complaint from the Evers. He argues that the Evers’ motorbikes are noisy as well. He also indicates that Mr. Evers and their son have participated in shooting on his property.
49Mr. Giles says that the people who wrote letters of support for Ms. Evers are not impartial and do not live close to the properties.
50Mr. Giles has also submitted a factum which includes references to evidence that is not included in his unsworn undated affidavit. Again, I recognize that this is problematic from an evidentiary perspective.
51For example, he indicates that he commissioned a sound study. The results are listed in the factum but not in a proper evidentiary form.
52The Applicants have also filed an affidavit from Jackie Lassaline, who is a Registered Professional Planner and Member of the Canadian Institute of Planners. She is a land use planner with over 37 years of planning experience. She signed a Form 53 Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty as required under Rule 53.03 of the Civil Rules of Procedure.
53Ms. Lassaline was the principal author of the Town of Kingsville Comprehensive Zoning By-Law 1-2014 in 2014. It is her opinion that a “shooting range/target practice” use is not a permitted use for Agricultural A-1 zoned properties. It does allow for “hunting/gaming/wildlife preserve” land use.
54Ms. Lassaline deposes that the OMAFRA Land Use Guidelines defines “Agricultural Uses” as follows:
“means the growing of crops, including nursery, biomass and horticultural crops; raising of livestock; raising of other animals for food, fur or fibre, including poultry and fish; aquaculture; apiaries; agro-forestry; maple syrup production; and associated on-farm buildings and structures, including, but not limited to livestock facilities, manure storages, value-retaining facilities and accommodation for full-time farm labourer when the size and nature of the operation requires additional employment.”
55She also notes that the Comprehensive Zoning By-Law 1-2014 specifically provides that “any use not specifically permitted by this By-law within a zone shall not be permitted in the Corporation of the Town of Kingsville”.
56Ms. Evers filed a Reply Affidavit to Mr. Giles’ affidavit. She notes that in the Facebook messages, Mr. Giles frequently describes that he has a shooting “range”.
57She has also included links to two videos posted on YouTube which show the shooting events that have taken place on Mr. Giles’ property.
58I have watched the videos. Clearly what is depicted is organized and structured. The shooters are firing at small clay appearing targets and dangling bowling pins. Some of the targets certainly appear and sound metal, although I have no specific evidence on what they are made of. Some of them rotate. There are obstacles for the shooters to move to and take cover behind during some of the competition. To my untrained eye, the berm appears very short, with the forested area directly behind it. I question how it would be impossible for a stray bullet to be directly or indirectly (i.e.. ricochet) fired over the berm into the trees behind it. I note that the firearms do appear to be handled responsibly throughout, although again, I have an untrained eye. I make no finding one way or the other about whether the firearms are being handled responsibly.
59The OPP has filed a letter dated May 30, 2025, setting out its position.
60The letter indicates that if a person applies to have their shooting range approved pursuant to s. 29 of the Firearms Act, the Chief Firearms Office must ensure the range complies with the regulations made under s. 117 (e) of the Firearms Act and that the range adheres to the Range Design and Construction Guidelines. There are many requirements that an applicant must meet. The Range Design and Construction Guidelines were prepared by the RCMP Canadian Firearms Program and approved by Public Safety Canada. They were created to ensure public safety and national consistency in the standard of range design.
61The letter states as follows:
“A private range and shooting event that operates without seeking approval under s. 29 of the Firearms Act does not fall within the authority or jurisdiction of the Chief Firearms Office. If the property owner does not seek approval under s. 29 of the Firearms Act, the Chief Firearms Office cannot mandate or force them to do so. The Chief Firearms Office’s oversight is only regulatory in nature and is limited to the refusal of an application for a range, the approval of a range, or the revocation of an approved range. This prevents the Chief Firearm Office from assessing and inspecting unsanctioned ranges to ensure they comply with the Range Design and Construction Guidelines.”
62In the letter, the OPP laments the lack of clarification of what constitutes “a shooting range”, including the “regular and structured” requirement. The OPP recognizes that throughout Ontario there are unsanctioned ranges operating without any approval or oversight on private rural properties, which pose a risk to public safety. In some instances, individuals operate highly structured, but only sporadic shooting events which do not clearly meet the “regular and structured basis” requirement of a “shooting range”. In other cases, individuals operate frequent, yet informal, shooting events. The OPP then describes the risks that such unsanctioned ranges present to public safety.
63In addition, the Town of Kingsville submitted the affidavit of Mr. Richard Wyma sworn May 30, 2025. Much of his evidence is covered by the Agreed Statement of Facts. He deposes that the Zoning By-Law was passed by Council on April 28, 2014. In its Preamble, the Zoning By-Law states that it prohibits any use that is not specifically permitted under the By-Law. He confirms that the Giles’ property is zoned Agriculture A1. There is a site specific exemption for an indoor pistol and rifle range in Agriculture A1-1. Mr. Giles’ property, however, is not in that zone and thus, is not within that exemption.
The Firearms Act, S.C. 1995, c. 39:
64The Firearms Act is federal legislation that addresses various activities involving firearms throughout Canada.
65Rules of statutory interpretation require that an Act be read in its entire context. The Act’s entire provisions must be read in their grammatical and ordinary sense and harmoniously within the scheme and object of the Act, as well as the intention of Parliament (see, for example: Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), , [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27, at para. 21; Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex, 2002 SCC 42, [2002] 2 SCR 559 and Telus Communications Inc. v. Federation of Canadian Municipalities, 2025 SCC, 502 D.L.R. (4th) 59, at para. 30).
66Section 12 of the Interpretations Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, provides that every enactment is “remedial” and must be given such “fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation as best ensures the attainment of its objects”.
67The stated purpose of the Firearms Act is explicitly set out in section 4, as follows:
4 The purpose of this Act is
(a) to provide, notably by sections 5 to 16 and 54 to 73, for the issuance of
(i) licences for firearms and authorizations and registration certificates for prohibited firearms or restricted firearms, under which persons may possess firearms in circumstances that would otherwise constitute an offence under subsection 91(1), 92(1), 93(1) or 95 (1) of the Criminal Code
(ii) licences and authorizations under which persons may possess prohibited weapons, restricted weapons, prohibited devices and prohibited ammunition in circumstances that would otherwise constitute an offence under subsection 91(2), 92(2) or 93(1) of the Criminal Code, and
(iii) licences under which persons may sell, barter or give cross-bows in circumstances that would otherwise constitute an offence under subsection 97(1) of the Criminal Code;
(b) to authorize
(i) notably by sections 5 to 12 and 54 to 73, the manufacture of or offer to manufacture, and
(ii) notably by sections 21 to 34 and 54 to 73, the transfer of or an offer to transfer
firearms, prohibited weapons, restricted weapons, prohibited devices, ammunition, prohibited ammunition and cartridge magazines in circumstances that would otherwise constitute an offence under subsection 99(1), 100(1) or 101(1) of the Criminal Code; and
(c) to authorize, notably by sections 35 to 73, importation or exportation of firearms, prohibited weapons, restricted weapons, prohibited devices, ammunition, prohibited ammunition, cartridge magazines and components and parts designed exclusively for use in the manufacture of or assembly into automatic firearms in circumstances that would otherwise constitute an offence under subsection 103(1) or 104(1) of the Criminal Code.
68Pursuant to s.1(2) of the Firearms Act, words and expressions used in the Firearms Act specifically have the meanings assigned to them in sections 2 and 84 of the Criminal Code.
69Section 2 of the Code includes the following broad definition of “firearm”:
“firearm” means a barrelled weapon from which any shot, bullet or other projectile can be discharged and that is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person, and includes any frame or receiver of such a barrelled weapon and anything that can be adapted for use as a firearm.
70Section 84 is the definition section of Part III of the Code, which deals with Firearms and Other Weapons. That section contains definitions, inter alia, for “ammunition”, “automatic firearms”, “handguns”, “non-restricted firearms”, “prohibited firearms”, “restricted firearms”, “import”, “export”, “licence” and “transfer”.
71Given the dangers that firearms are recognized to present, there can be no doubt that the Firearms Act, its regulations and the corresponding provisions of the Criminal Code, have as their main purpose public safety. In Reference re Firearms Act (Can.), 2000 SCC 31, [2000] 1 SCR 783, in which the Supreme Court of Canada held that the Firearms Act was constitutionally enacted, the Court described that the Firearms Act was in “pith and substance” a public safety measure. In essence, its purpose is the promotion of public safety through the reduction of the misuse of firearms (see: paras. 17 to 24).
72Accordingly, the provisions of the Firearms Act must be interpreted with the goal of promoting public safety in mind. The Supreme Court noted that it is not merely regulatory legislation. It contains prohibitions and penalties that are not regulatory in nature.
73Section 29 of the Firearms Act reads as follows:
29 (1) No person shall operate a shooting club or shooting range except under an approval of the provincial minister for the province in which the premises of the shooting club or shooting range are located.
(2) A provincial minister may approve a shooting club or shooting range for the purposes of this Act if
(a) the shooting club or shooting range complies with the regulations made under paragraph 117(e); and
(b) the premises of the shooting club or shooting range are located in that province.
(3) A provincial minister who approves a shooting club or shooting range for the purposes of this Act may revoke the approval for any good and sufficient reason including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, where the shooting club or shooting range contravenes a regulation made under paragraph 117(e).
(4) A chief firearms officer who is authorized in writing by a provincial minister may perform such duties and functions of the provincial minister under this section as are specified in the authorization.
(5) Where a provincial minister decides to refuse to approve or to revoke an approval of a shooting club or shooting range for the purposes of this Act, the provincial minister shall give notice of the decision to the shooting club or shooting range.
(6) A notice given under subsection (5) must include reasons for the decision disclosing the nature of the information relied on for the decision and must be accompanied by a copy of sections 74 to 81.
(7) A provincial minister need not disclose any information the disclosure of which could, in the opinion of the provincial minister, endanger the safety of any person.
74I note that under s. 74(1)(c), if the provincial minister, or the chief firearms officer in his or her stead, refuses to approve or revokes the approval of a shooting club or shooting range the applicant may refer the matter to a provincial court judge. There is a right of appeal from that provincial court judge’s review to the Superior Court pursuant to s. 77 and then to the Court of Appeal with leave under s. 80. I do not take these provisions as ousting my jurisdiction to grant, should it be appropriate, an injunction in this case. Neither the chief firearms officer, nor provincial minister, has issued a decision in this case that would trigger the involvement of the Ontario Court of Justice. They have simply taken the position that absent an application for a licence, they have no ability to act. In the absence of a decision, the court procedure set out in these provisions does not apply, in my view.
75Subsection 117(e) empowers the creation of regulations in respect of the establishment and operation of shooting clubs and shooting ranges, the activities that may be carried on at shooting clubs and shooting ranges, the possession and use of firearms at shooting clubs and shooting ranges; and record keeping for shooting clubs and shooting ranges and their members.
76I note that there is no distinction in s. 29 of the Firearms Act between “privately” and “publicly” operated shooting ranges. All shooting ranges would be caught in its ambit.
77The definitions of shooting club and shooting range are found in the Shooting Clubs and Shooting Ranges Regulations, SOR/98-212, (“the Regulations”) as follows:
Shooting club means a non-profit organization whose activities include target practice or target shooting competitions using restricted firearms or prohibited handguns at an identified approved shooting range.
Shooting range means a place that is designed or intended for the safe discharge, on a regular and structured basis, of firearms for the purpose of target practice or target shooting competitions.
78Under s. 3 of the Regulations, a person who wishes to establish and operate a shooting range shall submit a request for approval to the provincial minister and provide certain information. The section sets out the documentation that must be provided in support of the request for approval, which includes:
(a) a survey report showing the geographical location and layout of the shooting range and the portion of the surrounding area that could be affected by shooting on the shooting range, as well as the land use of that portion;
(b) a copy of the proposed safety rules;
(c) evidence of at least $2,000,000 of commercial general liability insurance with coverage on an occurrence basis;
(d) evidence of compliance with applicable zoning laws;
(e) copies of and evidence of compliance with any operating licences required by law;
(f) evidence that the design and operation of the shooting range meets at least the requirements set out in section 5; and
(g) evidence that the shooting range complies with any federal, provincial or municipal legislation that applies to the establishment and operation of such a facility in regard to environmental protection.
79In accordance with the public safety purpose of the Firearm Act, these are fairly onerous requirements.
80I have emphasized the word “shall” used in s. 3 of the Regulations. It is mandatory that a person who wishes to establish and operate a shooting range submit a request for approval. In my view, a person cannot “self-identify” themselves as operating a non-shooting range to opt out of this mandatory requirement, as Mr. Giles has done in this case.
81Section 4 of the Regulations requires a person who wishes to establish and operate a shooting club to submit a request for approval to the provincial minister and provide certain prescribed information. Again, a shooting club must meet certain requirements. Again, the word “shall” connotes that this is a mandatory obligation.
82Section 5, which must be complied with to obtain approval for a shooting range, requires the operator of an approved shooting range to ensure that the discharge of firearms on the shooting range does not endanger the safety of persons at the shooting range or in the surrounding area, by taking appropriate measures. Appropriate measures include ensuring that the design of the shooting range does not permit projectiles to leave the range.
83No person may use a restricted firearm or prohibited handgun at a shooting range unless the person is a member of an approved shooting club or a guest of such a person.
84The chief firearms officer may request an operator of a shooting range to provide evidence of all the documentation required under s. 3. The operator of a shooting range must continue to meet certain obligations in respect of reporting injury, reporting any changes to the shooting range or the surrounding area and keeping records. Thus, the operator of a shooting range has ongoing statutory obligations.
85The Applicants have also referred to the Guide to Proposed Firearms Regulations, published in 1997 by the Federal Government. That document provides as follows:
“When the Firearms Act and regulations come into force, they will regulate all shooting ranges in Canada, including ranges for long guns. The regulations define shooting range as “a place that is designed or intended for the safe discharge, on a regular or structured basis, of firearms for the purpose of target practice or target shooting competitions”. The requirements in the regulations apply to all shooting ranges, except for those that are:
part of a licenced business, and used only by business owners and employees with a licence to acquire restricted firearms; or
used only by public officers, such as police officers, in connection with their duties.
Anyone who wants to open or operate a shooting range must get approval from the provincial minister, usually through the Chief Firearms Officer (CFO)….”
(emphasis added by me)
86This Guide supports the inference that Parliament intended that both public and private shooting ranges must be approved.
87Finally, section 109 of the Firearms Act provides that anyone who contravenes s. 29(1), or the Regulations is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. As noted, the Firearms Act is not merely regulatory but contains stiff penalties for contravening its provisions.
88In the case before me, I have no hesitation in saying Mr. Giles has been operating a “shooting range” that has not been approved by the provincial minister and has therefore been contravening s. 29 of the Firearms Act.
89I am advised that there is no known case law in Canada that has interpreted the words “regular and structured”. Despite the invitation to set out with some specificity what constitutes “regular and structured” for the purpose of whether or not a place is a “shooting range” that must be approved, I decline to make a sweeping pronouncement. However, I will offer some comments. In my view, it would be unwise to attempt to predict any and all circumstances that might present themselves, particularly when one of the parties in this case is self-represented. It would be preferable to have full legal argument with both sides adequately represented.
90Rather, whether a place constitutes a “shooting range” must be considered on a case by case basis and I may not foresee all potential circumstances. I also note that presumably those entrusted as firearms officers and provincial ministers have significant expertise in the area of firearms and shooting ranges and will act accordingly. I trust that they will err on the side of caution, consistent with the purpose and mandate of the Firearms Act to protect the public.
91However, I have no hesitation in saying that where an individual such as Mr. Giles:
(a) hosts groups as large as 30 people for shooting competitions;
(b) sets out targets to shoot at;
(c) sets out obstacles to go around and to fire from behind;
(d) has events, including competitions, with or without prizes;
(e) has corporate sponsors;
(f) has such events and competitions multiple times (at least 4-8) per year;
(g) has such events at least several times per year over several years (9 in this case); and
(h) advertises on social media such events;
those activities are “regular and structured”.
92I do not wish to imply that all of these are necessary ingredients to being “regular and structured”. They are, however, all present in this case.
93In order to be a shooting range, the definition requires that the following elements all be present:
(a) a place;
(b) designed or intended for the safe discharge of firearms;
(c) on a regular and structured basis;
(d) for the purpose of target practice or target shooting competitions.
94These words must be interpreted in a fashion that promotes the public safety purpose of the Firearms Act.
95There can be little doubt based on the Facebook pages and the videos, that Mr. Giles has designed the area at the back of his property to be used for shooting targets, both for practice and for shooting competitions. He has created the berm to be used as a backstop. He has also created stationary targets and shooting stations. His unsworn affidavit also makes it abundantly clear that he is involved in target shooting, both competition and practice. Thus, he intends to use the property for shooting practice and competition. Mr. Giles has also taken great pains to stress the safety of his operations. Thus, the area where Mr. Giles has been conducting shooting activities is designed or intended for the safe discharge of firearms.
96I note the possible, but extreme and absurd, loophole that would be created if a person in Mr. Giles’ position argued that his farm was not intended to be used for “safe discharge” of firearms, but rather “unsafe” discharge and therefore he did not need approval to host those activities. Clearly, even if that ridiculous argument would not fit the definition of “shooting range”, Mr. Giles could not exempt himself from obtaining approval. However, as noted, Mr. Giles has stressed that the firearms have always been used in a safe manner.
97The definition states “regular” and “structured” so both conditions must be present.
98In my opinion, the ordinary meaning of “regular” does not connote any specific frequency, or any specific number of times, per week, month or year. I would define “regular” as meaning a repeated or recurrent activity done with some element of consistency. Something that occurs only once per year, if it were to happen over many years, would, in my view, be “regular”. For example, one might regularly travel to Florida, but only go once per year over many years. Something happening once per week, or month, for one year, would also clearly qualify as “regular”. I would not hold that “regular” requires that the event occur on the same day each month or year. I would not hold that “regular” requires any particular cadence of events. Sporadic events can be “regular”, as can events that are put together last minute. I would not otherwise set out any specific parameters as to what “regular” entails.
99Such a broad definition of “regular” is consistent with the purpose of the Firearms Act, to promote public safety. To unduly narrow the types of properties or places that are required to obtain approval to operate as a “shooting range” because there is no constant, inflexible schedule would be antithetical to public safety. It would permit individuals to make the precise argument that Mr. Giles is making here—there are no set schedules for the events and therefore, he need not even apply for approval. This would lead to more unsanctioned shooting ranges, which is the exact opposite goal of the legislation.
100To be a “shooting range” the activity must also be “structured”.
101Again, in my view, “structured” should not be construed restrictively or narrowly, but expansively to achieve the public safety goal of the legislation. I would interpret “structured” to include “planned”, “arranged” and “organized”. I do not mean to imply than an impromptu event would be exempt. Furthermore, even a poorly “structured” or planned event is still “structured”. Those are the very events where oversight is most critical.
102Mr. Giles suggests that “structured” requires memberships, a gate, key cards and a board of directors or executive. I disagree. Those elements may be present in shooting ranges or shooting clubs but are not necessary elements to constitute such a place as a shooting range or club. That is too restrictive a definition of “structured” that would allow places to operate as shooting ranges or clubs without regard for public safety.
103I would not set out any minimum number of participants that must attend to make an event “structured”. It could well be a solo participant, or a small number of participants depending upon the circumstances. However, clearly the evidence in the case before me, including what Mr. Giles has admitted to, indicates that the number of people involved in the events in the case at bar is sufficient to be “structured”.
104I also would not hold that it is necessary for there to be sponsors or prizes in order for events to be considered “structured”.
105In Mr. Giles’ case, it is my opinion that he has been holding “regular and structured” shooting events. These occur year over year, and several times per year. They are highly organized, with competitions, obstacle courses, prizes and sponsors.
106I reject Mr. Giles’ argument that the fact that the shooters are mostly friends or family somehow exempts him from obtaining approval. Events involving only family and friends can still be “regular and structured”. Otherwise, a person could bypass the approval requirement by labelling all the participants his “friends and family”.
107Any more rigorous or narrow definitions of “regular and structured” would defeat the purpose and goals of the Firearms Act, which I reiterate, is public safety.
108The OPP has described that there are unsanctioned ranges that are “highly structured”, yet sporadic which do not clearly meet the definition of “regular and structured”. I disagree that “sporadically” held events would not necessarily constitute “regular” for the purpose of the Firearms Act, although I remain disinclined to set out a minimum number of events within a set period of time that would constitute “regular”. I repeat that structured events that take place only once or twice a year, but over the course of many years, could well be considered “regular”. Holding a highly structured shooting competition that takes place once every five years would still be caught by the legislation, in my view. I am of the opinion that what the OPP has described is likely caught by the existing legislation and its regulations.
109Further, I disagree with Mr. Giles’ argument that if only non-restricted firearms are being discharged on his property, he does not require approval. The definition of “shooting range” includes the word “firearm” without any further description such as “restricted” or “prohibited”. “Firearm” is defined in the Code as meaning “a barrelled weapon from which any shot, bullet or other projectile can be discharged and that is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person.” This definition would clearly encompass a non-restricted firearm.
110It is noteworthy that the definition of “shooting club” applies only to restricted firearms and prohibited handguns while “shooting range” refers only to “firearms”. Parliament must have intended that all shooting ranges with any type of firearm be approved.
111Mr. Giles’ declaration that there has never been a stray bullet leave his property is an entirely irrelevant consideration. First of all, given the inherent risk that firearms entail, the first time that a stray bullet leaves the property and causes injury is one time too many. The requirement for approval is to ensure that the premises, including targets and the berm, are properly designed to prevent stray bullets, fired directly or through ricochets. It is entirely irrelevant to my analysis whether the participants are the safest gun owners there could be. The Firearms Act must be complied with if the property is to be used as a “shooting range”. The skill level or responsibility level of the participants is simply not part of the analysis of whether approval is required, although it may impact whether approval is granted.
112The Applicants have made arguments that the design of the area where the shooting is occurring is not safe, nor in compliance with the Range Design and Construction Guidelines. They have argued that Mr. Giles’ property is not large enough to hold a shooting range. I do not need to determine those issues as that is within the purview of the chief firearms officer dealing with an application for approval. Obviously, I have concerns about the nearby presence of a well travelled public trail. However, the appropriate official may well, on an application, deem the set up to be appropriate, or that steps can be taken to eliminate any risks.
113I find that Mr. Giles is required to obtain approval by the provincial officer or chief firearms officer to conduct the shooting activities depicted in the evidence if it is to occur on his farm. In fact, he was required to do so before any of the activities in evidence began.
114I wish to add that I disagree with the position that the authorities can only act when an application for approval of a shooting range is presented. That approach utterly fails to protect the public if individuals such as Mr. Giles can simply self-identify and choose to opt out of the approval requirements contained in the Firearms Act. Given the onerous provisions for obtaining approval, it is not surprising that a person would choose to self-classify themselves as operating something other than a shooting range or shooting club. It simply cannot be an appropriate law enforcement response that the operator has self-identified that they are not operating a shooting range so there is no further responsibility or duty to act.
115As counsel for the Applicant put it in one of his emails to the Chief Firearms Officer “why would anyone apply to be CFO certified, as a business if you can just go ahead and offer it without regulations on your own property?”
116At the very least, when the Evers notified the Chief Firearms Officer of their concern, it is my view that it was incumbent upon that office to make a formal determination of whether Mr. Giles had approval to operate a “shooting range” and if not, the police should have shut down the activities that were taking place without that required approval. It is a blatant contravention of s. 29 of the Firearms Act to operate a “shooting range” without approval.
117Permanent injunctive relief is a significant step, extraordinary relief, unlike interim injunctive relief (see: 1711811 Ontario Ltd. (AdLine) v. Buckley Insurance Brokers Ltd., 2014 ONCA 125). An injunction should not be broader than necessary to effect compliance with a person’s legal obligations as the court finds them. In order to obtain final injunctive relief, a party is required to establish its legal rights. The court must then determine whether an injunction is an appropriate remedy (AdLine, supra, at para. 79, quoting Cambie Surgeries Corp. v. British Columbia (Medical Services Commission), 2010 BCCA 396, 323 D.L.R. (4th) 680, at para. 24).
118In this case, I have determined that Mr. Giles is operating a “shooting range” under the Firearms Act and is required to obtain approval before he can continue to do so. He must be enjoined pending that approval. To allow him to persist, particularly given that he has indicated a willingness to disregard the possibility that he was required to seek approval, is to risk harm to the public. The only appropriate remedy to ensure his compliance is an injunction that is not simply interim pending final resolution of court proceedings. Having said that, the injunction is not permanent in the sense that it can never be lifted. I have not held that Mr. Giles can never operate a shooting range, but merely that he must seek approval under the Firearms Act to do so. The injunction would be lifted upon Mr. Giles obtaining the necessary approval under s. 29 of the Firearms Act. This assumes that there is no other legal impediment other than the Firearms Act, which includes the issues that I still have to address further in this Decision.
119An Order will issue making declarations consistent with my findings and granting an injunction enjoining the operation of the shooting range unless and until approval is granted under the Firearms Act.
120As I noted in my interim endorsement, this would not prevent legitimate hunting or dispatching of livestock.
121The determination that Mr. Giles requires approval under the Firearms Act has nothing to do with the complaints made by the Evers or any of the other members of the community whose letters were appended to Ms. Evers’ affidavit. Mr. Giles has been required by law to seek approval under the Firearms Act for the shooting activities that he has been conducting in respect of the discharge of firearms for target practice and shooting competitions on his property from the moment that he first decided he wished to hold such events. It does not matter if people oppose the shooting range or if everyone in the community is in favour of it. That approval was, and still is, necessary.
122If Mr. Giles and his co-participants wish to continue these shooting events, they are welcome to apply for approval under the Firearms Act. More importantly, they are required by law to do so.
The Noise By-Law:
123The Town of Kingsville has a Noise By-Law (69-2003). It contains the following provisions:
- Interpretation
(1) In this By-law
(h) “Unnecessary Noise” means unusual or excessive sound that is of such loud volume or continuous duration that it disturbs the peace, quiet, comfort or repose of any person or creates a nuisance.
- General Prohibitions
(1) No person shall create unnecessary noise;
124While there are exemptions under the Noise By-Law, firearm discharge is not one of them. However, it is possible for a person to make an application for a noise permit that grants such an exemption. There is no suggestion that Mr. Giles sought a noise permit.
125The OPP is responsible for enforcing violations of By-Law 69-2003. Under s. 7 of the By-Law, conviction for contravention of the Noise By-law is punishable by fine pursuant to the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 33, as amended.
126S. 440 of the Municipal Act, 2001, SO 2001, c 25, provides as follows:
440 If any by-law of a municipality or by-law of a local board of a municipality under this or any other Act is contravened, in addition to any other remedy and to any penalty imposed by the by-law, the contravention may be restrained by application at the instance of a taxpayer or the municipality or local board.
127Accordingly, as taxpayers, the Applicants may seek an injunction to prevent the continued noise from the discharge of firearms on the Giles’ property. The taxpayers must demonstrate that there is a clear breach of the by-law. I note that a taxpayer is not required to demonstrate that the municipality acted unreasonably or in bad faith in declining to enforce its by-law before it may obtain injunctive relief (see: Syrowik v. Wheeler, 2021 ONCA 819, at para. 9).
128Contrary to Mr. Giles’ arguments, it is not an answer that other individuals are also breaching the noise by-law by operating crop cannons or their motorbikes, for example. “Whataboutism” does not assist a person who breaches a law or by-law.
129The Applicants rely on Joyce v. Yorkton Gun Club Inc., , a decision of the Saskatchewan Queens Bench, their trial court. In that case, an appropriately approved gun club was nonetheless deemed to constitute a nuisance. In that case, the gun fire was seven days per week in the summer, at any time between 10:00 am and 10:00 pm. The Court described that damages would not be an appropriate remedy in that case and an injunction was appropriate as being the only way to stop the noise and remedy the nuisance.
130Having enjoined Mr. Giles from operating his shooting range unless and until he obtains approval under the Firearms Act, I would not also grant an injunction based upon the Noise By-Law.
131First of all, the injunctive relief in Joyce was based on nuisance, not a noise by-law. Secondly, the Noise By-Law has a specific penalty for breach of the by-law—a fine under the Provincial Offenses Act. That penalty, given that I have granted the injunction due to the failure to obtain approval under the Firearms Act, should suffice for any future violations, should noise persist.
132The Applicants have not commissioned a noise study. I have the sworn evidence of the Evers, and had an opportunity to watch video and hear audiotape. In Alchuk v. 44 Toronto, 2024 ONSC 4174, the court relied upon a noise study as establishing the breach of the applicable noise by-law. Having said that, unlike the by-law in the case before me, it would seem that the Toronto by-law referred to permissible and impermissible decibels of noise. The Kingsville Noise By-Law only refers to “unusual or excessive sound that is of such a loud volume or a continuous duration…”.
133I am also concerned with the hearsay nature of the letters offered by the various members of the community. It would be preferable to have sworn affidavits from those individuals.
134I am also mindful that Mr. Giles has, although it has not been tendered appropriately into evidence, offered a noise study that he asserts disproves that the noise by-law is being violated.
135While I accept that gunfire emanating from Mr. Giles’ property will likely have created unusual or excessive sound of a loud volume and a continuous duration, in particular given the proximity of other residences, including the Evers’ residence, I have decided not to grant an injunction based on the Noise By-Law. I am not satisfied on the evidence that the Applicants have established a “clear breach” of the Noise By-Law. Therefore, I do not believe that a permanent injunction based on this breach is an appropriate remedy noting that I have already granted an injunction based on the failure to obtain approval under the Firearms Act, which is a far more consequential deficiency than a breach of the Noise By-Law. An injunction granted under the Noise By-Law would be a permanent one, which, as noted, is extraordinary relief.
136Should Mr. Giles obtain the necessary approval for a shooting range; the Applicants are granted leave to re-apply for injunctive relief based upon the violation of the Noise By-Law should the noise persist.
The Zoning By-Law:
137Once again, the Applicants have standing to claim an injunction based on the Zoning By-Law as a result of s.440 of the Municipal Act, 2001. They are taxpayers. Again, it is inconsequential that the municipality has not sought to enforce the Zoning By-Law.
138It is an agreed upon fact that Mr. Giles’ property is zoned Agriculture (A1). Section 7 of the Zoning By-Law which sets out Permitted Uses contains a very lengthy list of “Agricultural Uses”. There are 26 “Agricultural Uses”. Rural residences are a permitted use. There are 12 Specialty Crops noted, which are found in the main “Agricultural Uses”. Under the Zoning By-Law, a use of land is prohibited unless the by-law specifically permits it.
139Among the Permitted Uses is “Hunting/gaming/wildlife preserve”. I am satisfied, without even considering the expert evidence of Ms. Lassaline, that the activities which Mr. Giles has been engaging in that are the subject matter of this Application do not constitute “hunting, gaming or wildlife preserve”. Mr. Giles’ makes it clear in his own material that he is engaged in target practice and shooting for sport. “Hunting” and “gaming” must relate to wild animals or other wildlife, not man-made targets. I reject Mr. Giles’ argument that “hunting” involves target shooting. Hunting is also regulated under other legislation.
140Accordingly, I am satisfied that Mr. Giles’ shooting range is not one of the Permitted Uses in relation to Agricultural A1 zoned properties in the Town of Kingsville. Accordingly, I find that Mr. Giles’ shooting range is in clear breach of the Zoning By-Law.
141I would also grant an injunction restraining Mr. Giles from conducting the impugned shooting activities on the basis of this clear breach of the Zoning By-Law. I consider that this is an appropriate remedy once again because of the risk of harm to the public. Again, it is my view that although the Applicants have established a clear breach of the Zoning By-Law, this is not truly a permanent injunction because it may be possible for Mr. Giles to obtain a zoning change which would make a shooting range a permissible use.
142However, unless and until such a zoning change is made, I would grant an injunction barring the shooting activities, other than hunting or gaming, or for agricultural purposes such as disposing of livestock.
143It is noteworthy that in order to successfully apply for approval as a shooting range under s. 29 of the Firearms Act, Mr. Giles is required to demonstrate under s. 3(2)(d) of the Regulations, that the shooting range complies with applicable zoning by-laws. In other words, he is likely going to have to obtain a zoning change in order to obtain approval under the Firearms Act.
The Claim In Nuisance:
144A nuisance is a substantial and unreasonable interference with the enjoyment of land. A substantial interference with property is one that is non-trivial. The interference may be with the health, comfort or convenience of the owner or occupier. In determining whether interference is unreasonable, the court considers the severity of the interference, including its nature, duration and effect, the character of the locale, the utility of the defendant’s conduct and the sensitivity of the use interfered with (see: Antrim Truck Centre Ltd. v. Ontario (Ministry of Transportation), 2013 SCC 13, [2013] 1 S.C.R. 594).
145In Antrim, the Court retained a two-part approach to assessing a claim in private nuisance. First, the Court must determine whether the interference with an owner’s use or enjoyment of land is substantial. Second, the Court must determine whether the interference is unreasonable.
146In this case, I am satisfied on the evidence of Ms. Evers that the shooting operations that have been conducted on the Giles’ property interfere with the Evers’ enjoyment of their property in a manner that is non-trivial. The discharge of firearms on an adjacent property is not an interference that “must be accepted as part of the normal give and take of life”.
147On days in which the shooting competitions have been held, I am satisfied that the gunfire is loud, continuous and startling to Ms. Evers. She has deposed that it causes her stress and difficulty sleeping. It occurs throughout the course of an entire day when competitions are held. I am satisfied that even if these events are fairly infrequent (6 to 8 times per season), on the days in which the events occur the interference with the Evers’ enjoyment of their land is severe, and not trivial. I also note that the shooting appears to be spread out across the season. Thus, unlike a single event that might span a couple of days where the Evers might reasonably decide to depart their property, the Giles’ activities occur often enough that there is substantial interference with the Evers’ enjoyment of their property. Most importantly, it is occurring next door to where they live.
148In considering whether the interference is unreasonable, it is noteworthy that the Evers purchased their property approximately three years before Mr. Giles’ and his wife purchased their property. I accept that the Evers did not purchase their property in contemplation that a shooting range would be operated next door. Using their land as a residence complies with the applicable Zoning By-Law, while Mr. Giles’ use did not.
149Furthermore, respectfully, the discharge of firearms on the Giles’ property does not further the public good. I find that for the most part, it is a form of entertainment, or a hobby. It may also be to increase the skills of the participants. However, broadly speaking, the community beyond those participants does not derive any benefit from the shooting activities.
150I have considered that the two properties are located within the boundaries of the Town, which counsel described as “Kingsville’s urban fringe” although the properties themselves are effectively rural properties. Importantly, there is a nearby residential neighbourhood. I have also considered the crop cannons that are discharged to keep birds away from crops. I note, without deciding the issue, that crop cannons likely serve a public benefit and are not out of the ordinary in that part of Ontario.
151I have already referred to Joyce v. Yorkton Gun Club Inc., where the court granted an injunction, finding that damages were inappropriate. The court describes that gunfire is the “sound of war, of violence, and of crime” and is bound to be more upsetting than other loud noises.
152In Alchuk v. 44 Toronto, 2024 ONSC 4174, the Court noted at para. 82, that noise and vibration have been found to give rise to private nuisance in several cases. The cases cited involved nightclubs, (as did Alchuk) in residential neighbourhoods. In Walker v. Pioneer Construction Co. (1976) Ltd. (1975), the noise of an adjacent gravel pit constituted a nuisance during the night, although not during the day. I note that Alchuk was a motion for an interlocutory injunction and thus, the court was considering whether there was a strong prima facie case that the noise constituted a nuisance. The court was not yet addressing whether, in fact, the noise constituted a nuisance.
153I am satisfied that the Applicants have established that Mr. Giles’ shooting range, and the discharge of firearms in connection with the activities that he has permitted and encouraged to take place on his property constitute a substantial and unreasonable interference with respect to the Evers’ use of their property.
154Once again, having granted injunctive relief based on the failure to obtain approval under the Firearms Act, I would not also grant injunctive relief based on the claim for nuisance. However, should the Applicants wish to pursue injunctive relief on the basis of nuisance in the event that Mr. Giles is able to obtain approval for the shooting range under the Firearms Act, and/or obtain a change in the zoning of his property, I will leave open the possibility that the Evers could advance a claim for injunctive relief based on nuisance.
155In my view, the appropriate remedy is in damages. The Applicants in their written material had proposed that in the event that I was not prepared to grant injunctive relief on the basis of their claim in nuisance, that I should order a reference with respect to damages. However, I do not find that this type of bifurcation is contemplated by Rules 54 and 55 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
156In their oral arguments, counsel for the Applicants confirmed that the Applicants were not seeking damages for nuisance. Accordingly, although I accept that the firearm discharge on the Giles’ property constitutes a nuisance, I grant no remedy in respect of that nuisance at this time.
Disposition:
157For the foregoing reasons, I grant the following declarations:
(a) The outdoor shooting range being operated on Mr. Giles’ property in Kingsville, Ontario is a “shooting range” as defined in section 1 of the Shooting Clubs and Shooting Ranges Regulations, SOR/98-212;
(b) The outdoor shooting range that has been operated at Mr. Giles’ property in Kingsville, Ontario has been operating in contravention of section 29 of the Firearms Act, SC 1995, c. 39;
(c) The discharge of firearms for the purpose of target shooting and/or the operation of a shooting range is not a permitted use of Mr. Giles’ lands pursuant to the Town of Kingsville’s Comprehensive Zoning By-Law 1-2014;
(d) The discharge of firearms for the purpose of target shooting and/or the operation of a shooting range at the Giles’ property constitutes a private nuisance that substantially and unreasonably interferes with the Evers’ use of their property.
158Furthermore, I grant an injunction enjoining Mr. Giles, his invitees and anyone with knowledge of the terms of this Order from engaging in firearm discharge for the purpose of target shooting and/or the operation of a shooting range, which for greater clarity, shall include target practice, target shooting competitions, trap shooting and skeet shooting, on his property in Kingsville, Ontario until and unless approval is granted under the Firearms Act and its regulations. I grant this injunction in the interest of public safety based on Mr. Giles’ failure to obtain Firearms Act approval.
159I grant the same injunction based on Mr. Giles’ breach of the Kingsville Zoning By-Law, which will continue unless and until Mr. Giles’ property is appropriately zoned for such activities. I also will grant an Order authorizing the Town of Kingsville to enforce any contravention of its Zoning By-Law as declared by this Order and the Town of Kingsville may return this Application to Court for the purpose of enforcing contempt proceedings.
160I would also grant a mandatory Order compelling the Ontario Provincial Police to enforce any ongoing or future contraventions of the Firearms Act.
161I decline to grant an injunction despite the private nuisance, without prejudice to the Evers’ right to re-apply for an injunction in the event that the shooting activity is ultimately approved. However, full argument regarding the appropriateness of an injunction would be required.
162It shall be a term of my Order that Mr. Giles, his invitees and anyone with knowledge of the terms of the Order is to comply with the provisions of the Firearms Act and the Zoning By-Law with respect to the property.
163The Applicants are presumptively entitled to their costs. If the parties cannot agree on costs of this Application, the Applicants may serve and file written costs submissions not to exceed three pages double spaced, by no later than August 21, 2026. If the OPP or the Town of Kingsville is seeking costs, their costs submissions are due the same date. The Respondent shall serve and file responding costs submissions by no later than August 31, 2026, within the same length and spacing parameters. Costs submissions are to be forwarded to my attention, through my assistant, Nadine Long at LondonSCJAdminTeam@ontario.ca.
164Given that Mr. Giles is self-represented, I am also dispensing with the need for him to approve the final form of the Order arising out of this Decision. However, all counsel are to review the Order and provide him with a copy of the proposed order before it is sent to me. The draft Order should then be forwarded to me for my approval, through the email address above.
“Justice Spencer Nicholson”
Justice Spencer Nicholson
Date: July 20, 2026
CITATION: Evers v. The Town of Kingsville, 2026 ONSC 4204
COURT FILE NO.: CV-24-00034163-0000
DATE: 20260720
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
Jennifer Evers and Frederick Evers
Applicants
– and –
The Town of Kingsville, Ontario Provincial Police and Scott Giles
Respondents
DECISION ON APPLICATION
Justice Spencer Nicholson
Released: July 20, 2026