r/canadaguns • u/Cre_AK47 Name Prohibited by OIC • Mar 19 '26

Announcement BREAKING: SCoC WILL HEAR CCFR v Canada Appeal

SCoC Decision on Appeal: https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/news/en/item/8467/index.do

595 Upvotes

99% Upvoted

266 comments sorted by

View all comments

120

u/Krazee9 on Mar 19 '26 edited Mar 19 '26

I do hope the CCFR is allowed to use the actual enactment of the confiscation scheme in their arguments to show that the government was always acting in bad faith. The government has repeatedly insisted at lower courts that all owners would be "fairly compensated," so the implementation of the confiscation scheme now kinda means they lied to the lower courts, since basically nobody is being compensated.

62

u/northernwolf3000 Mar 19 '26

I was thinking the same thing . Also use the words from Gary’s mouth that it wasn’t about public safety but votes

48

u/Diesel_Bash Mar 19 '26

I really hope his words are brought up to the SC.

12

u/Lumindan Mar 19 '26

Would it be considered admissible in court given he didn't know it was being recorded?

36

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '26

[deleted]

7

u/Lumindan Mar 19 '26

Appreciate the clarification. Are you going to make an update video for this one? Not all of us are caught up on this / as legally savvy as some folks.

17

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '26

[deleted]

2

u/DarkFar5348 Mar 20 '26

Very much looking forward to it good sir

12

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '26 edited May 06 '26

[deleted]

3

u/InitialAd4125 Mar 19 '26

For audio I think so.

8

u/TUNA_NO_CRUST_ Mar 19 '26

/u/varsil what do you think?

4

u/IGnuGnat Mar 19 '26

Isnt' it legal to record anyone as long as one person in the conversation is aware that it is being recorded?

1

u/NotALanguageModel Mar 21 '26

This isn’t an issue.  Canada has a one-party consent rule when it comes to recordings.

10

u/Ok-Yogurt-42 Mar 19 '26

I hope so, but I'm not sure if you can bring in new arguments or evidence in appeals, it's more about re-evaluating the previous case.

7

u/RaHarmakis Mar 19 '26

I wonder if actions or comments that directly contradict given testimonies are allowed.

The government argued that they could do this because every one impacted would be made whole in their buy-back program.

Now that this has been shown to be a straight up lie, both in words and actions, I feel this should be allowed to be brought up.

3

u/HappyCan7250 Mar 21 '26

"fair compensation" would end up being an insanely huge sum. 2 million guns at probably an average of 1-2k each. 

I think the government might've shot themselves in the foot by publicly screeching for months that all owners will be compensated at market value.

Let's hope the court looks at the actual merits of the case and not ideologically.

This is the same court who just ruled the use of the emergencies act as a charter violation, so the SOC is maybe one of the few courts with some form or moral compass. Although they also did declare minimum sentences for child porn as a charter violation as well. That was kind of fucked.

2

u/Krazee9 on Mar 21 '26

The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the Emergency Measures Act, and the Chief Justice once called all the protestors "insurrectionists," so don't be too optimisitc.

1

u/HappyCan7250 Mar 22 '26

Didn't they? Or was that a federal court then that ruled it a violation and then the government is appealing it to the SOC I guess? 

1

u/IGnuGnat Mar 22 '26

I still think that the way the laws defining OICs are structured, the way I remember it, they can not be used to ban firearms that are used for hunting. Now I remember there was some discussion of this in some court previously but it all got handwaved away despite the fact that clearly the Liberals are using OICs to ban firearms that people hunt with. By the definition of the law, what they are doing is in fact illegal and I don't understand how this could possibly pass muster in any court in the land

I am obviously not a lawyer but I feel compelled to make this observation