Alberta Court of Appeal restricted gun case targets Firearms Act

Law360 Canada (May 14, 2025, 10:41 AM EDT) --

John L. Hill

Alberta residents Alan Swanson and Ian Runkle were notified in July 2020 by the Registrar of Firearms that certain restricted firearms they owned were now classified as prohibited weapons. As a result, any registration certificates they held were “automatically nullified.”

These men were two of the Alberta gun owners who had applied in Filippi v. Canada (Attorney General), 2021 ABPC 323 for a reference in Alberta’s provincial court under s. 74 of the Firearms Act, S.C. 1995, c. 39.

That section of federal legislation allows a provincial court judge to challenge a decision of the chief firearms officer or the registrar if a decision has been taken to refuse or revoke a gun licence. It was held that a change of firearm classification was legislative, not administrative, and not challengeable under s. 74. The Filippi decision thus held that the provincial court had no jurisdiction to hear their application. In Runkle v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 ABCA 84, Swanson and Runkle appealed the classification of their firearms as “prohibited” under new regulations enacted by Order in Council SOR/2020-96. They received the letter from the Registrar of Firearms informing them that their firearms’ registration certificates had been nullified due to this regulatory change. The appellants viewed this as a revocation by the registrar, prompting their review under s. 74 of the Firearms Act.

However, both the summary trial judge and later the judicial review judge found that the letter was informational, not a revocation decision by the registrar. The nullification happened automatically through the regulation itself, not through any action of the registrar. Swanson and Runkle continued their challenge, taking it to the Alberta Court of Appeal.

By the time the case was argued in the Appeal Court, the precedent had been established in Canada (Attorney General) v. Smykot, 2023 ABCA 131 that for a s. 74 review to be taken by a provincial court judge, the decision of the registrar or other named authority must be administrative.

To be successful, Swanson and Runkle would have to distinguish the fact situation in their cases from that in the Smykot case. The appellants tried to argue that their cases were factually different, such as one firearm being an “unnamed variant.” For example, Swanson’s Smith & Wesson semi-automatic rifle was not one of the 950 specifically itemized firearms now classified as prohibited. Instead, Swanson’s weapon was said to be captured as one of the “unnamed” variants that were considered like an M16, AR-10 or AR-15. The registrar would decide to make that call.

Additionally, Swanson and Runkle attacked the Smykot decision head-on, claiming it was wrongly decided. However, that challenge was dismissed in an earlier decision (Runkle v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 ABCA 220). In the end, the present appeal depended on the Appeal Court’s interpretation of whether the facts allowed for a digression from Smykot.

The Court of Appeal held that the factual underpinnings of Smykot and Runkle’s situation were identical. Gun owners had all received the same July 2020 standard form letter, and using an algorithm to identify which guns were caught by the legislative change did not transform the legislative proscription into an administrative decision.

The Alberta Court was fortified in its decision by noting that an Ontario Appeal Court had considered similar issues and held that Smykot was applicable (Canada (Attorney General) v. M.C., 2023 ONCA 448). The Ontario court held that a provincial court lacked jurisdiction to hear references under s. 74 of the Firearms Act.

That court had stated in its decision, “I agree with this line of reasoning [Smykot at paras. 30 and 37]. The respondents’ registration certificates became invalid by operation of law; it was not as a result of any function performed by the Registrar. As Latimer J. said in J.C. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2021 ONCJ 118, at para. 5: ‘What occurred in 2020 with the Firearms Regulations was not an individualized decision, it was a statutory change that impacted an entire class of individuals — owners of certain types of firearms. Such a decision is not caught by Section 74 of the Firearms Act.’”

Ultimately, the Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, reaffirming that no jurisdiction exists under s. 74 of the Firearms Act to review the effects of SOR/2020-96 because it was a legislative change, not an administrative decision by the registrar.

John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a J.D. from Queen’s and an LL.M. in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. He is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books) and The Rest of the [True Crime] Story (AOS Publishing). The Rest of the [True Crime] Story has been shortlisted for a prestigious Brass Knuckles Award, which is the Crime Writers’ of Canada’s prize for best nonfiction crime book of the year. Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.