Federal Court Preserves Trudeau-Era Firearms Regulations Despite Legal Challenge

A significant legal challenge to Canada's sweeping 2020 firearms restrictions has been rejected, as the Federal Court of Appeals issued a unanimous ruling upholding the controversial measures implemented during Justin Trudeau's administration.

On April 15, a three-judge panel delivered their verdict in the closely watched case of Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights v. Canada, confirming the validity of regulations that had reclassified numerous firearms despite opposition from gun owners and advocacy groups. The decision means Canadians will continue to face these restrictions even under the country's new leadership.

The Original Restrictions

The legal dispute centered on Order in Council SOR/2020-96, issued May 1, 2020, which immediately classified approximately 1,500 models of firearms (including their modified versions and unnamed variants) as illegal "prohibited" weapons under Canada's federal Criminal Code. These firearms had previously been categorized as either "non-restricted" or "restricted."

Critics have noted that the implementation method—using an Order in Council—allowed then-Prime Minister Trudeau to bypass traditional legislative channels. The order was neither pre-published nor subjected to public comment periods or input before taking effect.

The Legal Challenge

The case, formally documented as Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FCA 82, originated from consolidated judicial review applications brought by a coalition of firearm owners, businesses, and advocacy organizations. The Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights (CCFR) spearheaded the legal effort.

The appellants challenged the regulations on several key grounds:

1. They contended that the Governor in Council's authority to classify firearms as non-restricted, restricted, or prohibited was constrained by limitations in the Criminal Code
2. They disputed what they characterized as an unlawful sub-delegation of authority to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to classify firearms as "prohibited"
3. They argued that the reclassification violated protections guaranteed under Canada's 1960 Bill of Rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms

The Court's Reasoning

In the published opinion, Chief Justice Yves de Montigny directly addressed these arguments, writing: "There is no corresponding right, constitutional or otherwise, to possession of a specific firearm. Nor is there any de facto expropriation, since there is no evidence that Canada has acquired any asset or advantage as a result of the Regulations. As a result, the Federal Court did not err in concluding that the Regulations do not infringe the Bill of Rights."

The court acknowledged certain practical concerns, noting that "from the sole perspective of a sensible hunter or sportsman, it makes no sense to ban firearms that are well suited or even specifically designed for hunting or sport purposes."

However, the ruling continued by emphasizing that "the inherent danger that some firearms pose to public safety because of their lethality and their ability to injure or kill a large number of people in a short period of time, the fact that they have been used in mass shootings in Canada and abroad, the fact that they are disproportionate for civilian use, and the increasing demand for measures to address gun violence are all valid considerations in determining whether their use is reasonable for hunting and sporting purposes."

Response from Advocates

The CCFR, which led the lawsuit challenging the regulations, expressed profound disappointment with the court's decision.

"Today we received the decision out of the Federal Court of Appeal on our long fight against the gun ban," the organization stated in an official release. "It's bad news for Canadians for multiple reasons. It is the opinion of the judges that the 'protections' in the Criminal Code to prevent the Governor in Counsel (GIC) from banning guns that are legitimate for hunting and sporting use are irrelevant. Section 56 of the decision illustrates that the protection provision is subject to the whim of the GIC, who can change their mind at any time."

The organization indicated it would carefully review the ruling to determine its next strategic moves in the ongoing legal battle.

"The decision is clear, the courts will not constrain the government's overreach on this issue," the CCFR concluded. "This has negative implications on many aspects of the legal and legislative system in Canada."