Tony Bernardo is the executive director of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association.On November 9 and 10, the Supreme Court of Canada hears four appeals that challenge Ottawa’s May 2020 firearms prohibitions.The hearing matters to every Canadian who believes the government must obey the limits Parliament placed on delegated power.Cabinet prohibited more than 1,500 models and variants through regulation. Owners who legally acquired those firearms lost the ability to use, transfer, or sell them under the ordinary rules that applied the day before.Ottawa calls that "public-safety policy". The appellants call it an unlawful and unreasonable use of Cabinet’s authority.The Supreme Court will now decide who got the law right.Parliament did not give Cabinet unlimited powerSection 117.15 of the Criminal Code allows the Governor in Council to prescribe firearms as restricted or prohibited.But that power came with a limit.Cabinet may not prohibit a firearm if, in Cabinet’s opinion, the firearm is reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes.Parliament never intended those words to be mere decoration.If Cabinet can dismiss extensive hunting and sporting use through a conclusory opinion that courts cannot meaningfully test, Parliament’s limit is non-existent.Government could achieve through regulation what it might struggle to defend through open legislation and parliamentary debate.The appellants argue that the 2020 regulations exceeded the authority granted by Parliament..They also challenge the treatment of unnamed “variants,” the evidence behind the classifications, and the reasonableness of the decision.Ottawa defends the regulations as a lawful response to firearms it considered unsuitable for civilian use. The government prevailed in Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal.The Supreme Court granted leave to hear the appeals. That decision does not predict the result, but it confirms that Canada’s highest court considers the legal questions worthy of review.CSSA will speak for firearms ownersThe Court granted the Canadian Shooting Sports Association (CSSA) permission to intervene in all four appeals.CSSA counsel Edward Burlew will receive five minutes to address the Court on November 10.Five minutes sounds brief, but in front of the Supreme Court, every minute carries weight.CSSA focuses its argument on a public-safety contradiction in the 2020 scheme.Cabinet used section 117.15 to change the legal status of formerly non-restricted firearms, but that provision supplies no collection, tracing, or audit system.Many affected firearms carried no registration requirement before May 2020. Government therefore lacked a complete record of their owners or locations when Cabinet prohibited them.CSSA argues that Ottawa created a category of prohibited firearms without a workable statutory mechanism to locate and control them.In CSSA’s submission, that gap undermines the government’s claim that the regulation reasonably advanced public safety.That argument does not accuse licensed owners of supplying criminals.It asks whether the Cabinet created legal uncertainty and an enforcement problem when it changed the status of previously lawful property without first building a complete compliance system inside the authority Parliament granted.Ottawa can answer that the Criminal Code, amnesty orders, and compensation program address compliance through other legal measures.The Court must decide whether those measures answer the reasonableness problem and whether Cabinet acted within section 117.15 in the first place.This case reaches beyond firearmsLicensed firearm owners carry the immediate burden of these regulations. The legal principle reaches much further.Parliament often delegates technical rule-making power to Cabinet. That delegation lets the government respond without passing a new statute for every detail..But delegation in the name of bureaucratic efficiency does not erase legal limits.When Parliament places a boundary around delegated power, courts must enforce it.When the government changes the legal status of private property and exposes ordinary Canadians to potential criminal liability, clear language and a rational decision process matter.The case also tests the practical meaning of judicial review.Does a court examine whether Cabinet’s opinion about hunting and sporting suitability rests on a coherent record?Or does the phrase “in the opinion of the Governor in Council” place that conclusion largely beyond meaningful scrutiny?If the second answer prevails, the statutory protection for hunting and sporting firearms offers no protection at all.Public safety requires more than a labelCanadians want effective action against violent crime, firearm trafficking, and people who pose a genuine danger to society.Calling a regulation a "public-safety measure" does not prove that the measure works.Government still must show a rational connection between the power Parliament granted, the evidence Cabinet considered, and the result Cabinet imposed on Canadians.The Court may uphold the regulations. It may also strike them down, narrow their operation, or clarify the legal test that future governments must follow.No responsible observer can pretend to know the outcome before the judges hear the arguments and render their decision.We do know what the rule of law requires.Cabinet does not gain unlimited authority because it invokes public safety.Licensed firearms owners do not lose the protection of statutory limits because the government finds parliamentary debate inconvenient.On November 9 and 10, the Supreme Court is hearing whether Ottawa stayed inside the law when it prohibited property that Canadians legally owned and used.CSSA will stand before the Court and argue that public safety, statutory limits, and accountable government must operate together.Every Canadian has a stake in that principle.Tony Bernardo is the executive director of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association.
