The Supreme Court firearms ban appeals, explained

By Travis Bader, founder of Silvercore Outdoors.

Last updated: 28 October 2026

On 9 and 10 November 2026 the Supreme Court of Canada hears four appeals against the May 2020 Order in Council that prohibited approximately 1,500 models of firearms, a count the government says includes current and future variants. The Court will decide whether cabinet had the legal authority to do that by regulation, and whether the words "variants or modified versions" give owners fair notice of what is prohibited. The Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal both sided with the government. The Supreme Court is the last stop. The Court is not expected to rule on the hearing days. When the decision does come, the amnesty that protects owners of these firearms ends 90 days later.

The rest of this post explains each piece, names every party and intervener, states what each one has told the Court in writing, and sets out what the result means for you. Every claim below links to its source.

For the record on where I stand: I gave expert evidence by affidavit and expert report in Parker v. Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FC 1419, the Federal Court proceeding these appeals grew out of, and was cross-examined on it. The Doherty appellants rely on that report in their Supreme Court factum, and the CCFR factum cites my affidavit. I am a participant in this file, not a bystander.

What the Supreme Court is actually deciding

The appeals turn on one subsection of the Criminal Code. Section 117.15(1) lets the Governor in Council, which means federal cabinet, make regulations prescribing anything that Part III of the Code says may be prescribed, which is how a firearm gets prescribed as prohibited or restricted. Section 117.15(2) then sets the limit, in these exact words:

"In making regulations, the Governor in Council may not prescribe any thing to be a prohibited firearm, a restricted firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or prohibited ammunition if, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, the thing to be prescribed is reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes."

The appeals put two main questions to the Court.

The first is a question of authority. Parliament said cabinet "may not" prohibit a firearm that is reasonable for hunting or sporting use. Cabinet's own opinion is the test. The appellants say that limit has to mean something, and that cabinet reached its opinion by weighing public safety, when the statute told it to ask whether the firearms are reasonable for hunting and sport. The government says the word "reasonable" is flexible enough to let cabinet weigh public safety, and that cabinet's opinion is reviewed for reasonableness.

The second is a question of precision. SOR/2020-96 names families of firearms and then prohibits "any variants or modified versions of them". The RCMP's Firearms Reference Table is where a given model gets labelled a variant in practice. The appellants say "variant" is undefined in the Criminal Code, the Firearms Act or the regulations, that the RCMP has been left to decide what the criminal law covers, and that a criminal prohibition this vague breaches section 7 of the Charter. The government says the regulation itself prohibits the variants, the Firearms Reference Table is a non-binding reference guide, and a court makes the final call in any prosecution.

The Supreme Court's own case summary lists the issues as administrative law, judicial review, subordinate legislation, section 117.15 of the Criminal Code, and Charter sections 7, 8 and 15.

How the case got here

• 1 May 2020. SOR/2020-96 is registered and takes effect the same day. The regulatory impact analysis statement describes it as prohibiting approximately 1,500 models of firearms, including current and future variants. A companion order, SOR/2020-97, declares an amnesty for existing owners, originally to 30 April 2022.
• 2020. Six applications for judicial review are filed in the Federal Court by licensed owners, hunters, sport shooters, shooting clubs, businesses and the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights. They are case managed and heard together.
• 30 October 2023. Justice Catherine Kane dismisses all six applications in Parker v. Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FC 1419. She holds that cabinet did not exceed its authority, that the regulation is not vague, that there was no unlawful subdelegation to the RCMP, and that the Charter claims fail.
• 5 December 2024. SOR/2024-248 adds 324 makes and models. 7 March 2025. SOR/2025-86 adds 179 more. Each comes with its own amnesty order. The appeals before the Supreme Court are about the 2020 regulation, and the 2024 and 2025 amnesties are tied to the same court outcome.
• 15 April 2025. A three-judge panel of the Federal Court of Appeal, Chief Justice de Montigny writing with Justices Stratas and Mactavish, dismisses four appeals with costs in Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FCA 82. The panel holds that cabinet may consider public safety in forming its opinion, that the variants are prohibited by the regulation and not by the Firearms Reference Table, and that "variants or modified versions" is not unconstitutionally vague.
• 19 March 2026. The Supreme Court of Canada grants leave to appeal in all four cases and orders them heard together.
• 5 June 2026. SOR/2026-114 is registered, replacing the 30 October 2026 amnesty expiry with a new rule: the amnesty ends on the 90th day after the last of the four appeals ends by judgment, dismissal or discontinuance.
• 9 and 10 November 2026. The hearing.

The four appeals and who is bringing them

The Supreme Court assigned four file numbers. All four are listed on the Court's website, and each docket shows the parties, the counsel of record and every filing.

• 41858, Christine Generoux, John Perocchio and Vincent Perocchio v. Attorney General of Canada. The docket lists no counsel for the Generoux appellants, only an Ottawa agent, Marie-France Major of Supreme Advocacy LLP. Their factum raises constitutional questions on vagueness under Charter section 7, on whether the broad reading of section 117.15(2) usurps Parliament's authority contrary to section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, on the property guarantee in section 1(a) of the Canadian Bill of Rights, and on equality under Charter section 15(1). Christine Generoux will present oral argument herself.
• 41859, Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, Rodney Giltaca, Ryan Steacy, Maccabee Defense Inc. and Wolverine Supplies Ltd. v. Attorney General of Canada. Counsel are Michael Loberg, Blair Ector and Francois Wessels of Loberg Ector in Calgary. The CCFR factum argues that many of the listed firearms are reasonable for hunting and sporting use, so the regulation exceeds section 117.15(2); that the Federal Court of Appeal deferred to a public-safety rationale the statute does not allow; that "variants or modified versions" is unconstitutionally vague; and that the Firearms Reference Table amounts to subdelegation to the RCMP. It asks the Court to quash the regulation or read down the variants language.
• 41860, Michael John Doherty, Nils Robert Ek, Lindsay David Jamieson, Mark Roy Nichol and Peter Craig Minuk v. Attorney General of Canada. Counsel is Arkadi Bouchelev of Toronto. The Doherty factum argues the regulation is outside section 117.15(2), that cabinet's opinion lacks evidentiary support against uncontroverted expert evidence, and that "variant" and "modified version" as applied through the Firearms Reference Table are vague under section 7. It asks the Court to quash the regulation or read it down to the firearms and variants expressly named in it.
• 41861, Jennifer Eichenberg, David Bot, Leonard Walker, Burlington Rifle and Revolver Club, Montreal Firearms Recreation Centre Inc. and O'Dell Engineering Ltd. v. Attorney General of Canada. Counsel are Eugene Meehan, K.C., Thomas Slade and Len Walker. The Eichenberg factum argues that cabinet itself had to form the section 117.15(2) opinion, that leaving unnamed and future variants to the Firearms Reference Table is unlawful subdelegation, and that the Court of Appeal was overly deferential. It asks the Court to quash the regulation or declare it invalid as to unnamed and future variants.

The respondent in all four is the Attorney General of Canada, represented by Zoe Oxaal and Amy Martin-LeBlanc of the Department of Justice.

What the federal government argues

The Attorney General of Canada filed a single factum covering all four appeals and asks that they be dismissed. Its main points are these. Cabinet's opinion and the regulation's validity are reviewed on a reasonableness standard, with the Charter questions reviewed for correctness. The word "reasonable" in section 117.15(2) lets cabinet weigh public safety against hunting and sporting use, and the 1995 removal of an earlier "common use" test shows Parliament intended the power to be broad. The regulation itself names the models and prohibits their variants, the Firearms Reference Table is a non-binding reference guide, and courts decide variant status in any case, so there is no subdelegation. The term "variants" gives adequate notice and is neither arbitrary nor overbroad, and if the Court finds a section 7 breach it is justified under section 1. The regulation does not violate section 15. The factum also asks that any relief the Court grants be suspended.

The eleven interveners and what each one is allowed to say

An intervener is a non-party the Court lets in because it brings a perspective the parties do not. The Court's order of 13 August 2026 sets the ground rules for the eight non-government interveners: one factum of no more than ten pages, five minutes of oral argument, no position on how the appeals should be decided, no new issues, no new evidence, and no duplicating the parties. An earlier order of 9 July 2026 gives Alberta and Saskatchewan a factum of up to 30 pages each and gives all three provincial attorneys general ten minutes of oral argument. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation applied and was refused. The Royal Canadian Military Institute Pistol Club applied and withdrew. The no-position rule binds the eight non-government interveners. The three provincial attorneys general intervene on the constitutional questions and are not bound by it: Alberta asks the Court to find the regulation ultra vires to the extent it exceeds the limits in section 117.15, Saskatchewan argues the regulation is beyond cabinet's authority and inoperative, and Ontario argues it is not a valid exercise of the criminal law power. Here is what each one has filed.

Provincial attorneys general

• Alberta, represented by Guy Pratte of Borden Ladner Gervais. Alberta argues that section 117.15(2) is a genuine limit, that "reasonable for use" has to be measured by hunting and sporting use, with dangerousness a separate matter, and that cabinet's public-safety reasoning is circular. It traces the legislative history from 1969 through 1977 and 1995, and argues that in pith and substance the regulation deals with property and civil rights, a provincial head of power, so cabinet's broad reading of section 117.15 breaches section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Alberta's factum says it takes no position on the outcome of the individual appeals, and asks the Court to find the regulation ultra vires to the extent it exceeds the statutory limits and to find cabinet's broad reading of section 117.15 contrary to section 91; it makes no Charter argument.
• Saskatchewan, represented by Mitch McAdam, K.C. Saskatchewan argues that section 117.15 required cabinet to balance public safety against the interests of hunters and sport shooters, that the regulatory impact analysis statement shows no such balancing, that the Court of Appeal was overly deferential, and that the regulation is inoperative under section 1(a) of the Canadian Bill of Rights as a deprivation of property without due process.
• Ontario, represented by Padraic Ryan and Hera Evans. Ontario's intervention is narrow. It argues for a presumption of precision: criminal prohibitions set out by regulation must be precise unless the statute expressly says otherwise, and "variant" and "modified version" fail that standard. It grounds that argument in Parliament's criminal law power under section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867, and submits the regulation is not a valid exercise of that power. It takes no position on the Charter issues and does not argue the administrative law question of whether the regulation is within cabinet's statutory authority. Ontario is an intervener in three of the four appeals.

Other interveners

• Canadian Constitution Foundation, represented by George Avraam of Baker McKenzie. The CCF proposes a three-part test for when a document like the Firearms Reference Table stops being an interpretive aid and becomes law that needs statutory authority: it sets a legal position, legal consequences follow, and a reasonable person would understand that from public information. It takes no position on whether the Firearms Reference Table is beyond the RCMP's authority or on how the appeals should be decided.
• Canadian Coalition for Gun Control, represented by Osler. The Coalition argues that section 117.15 is broad and open-textured, that the legislative history confirms that breadth, that public safety is its overriding purpose, and that "variant" and "modified version" draw their meaning from the firearms listed beside them, so they are neither subdelegation nor unconstitutionally vague.
• British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, represented by Emily MacKinnon of Osler in Vancouver. The BCCLA filed its factum on 22 September 2026. The Court had not posted the document when this post was written, so its argument is not summarized here.
• Canadian Shooting Sports Association, represented by Edward Burlew. The CSSA argues that the regulation reduces public safety, because formerly non-restricted firearms that were tracked through licensed owners are now untraceable and unauditable, which runs against the purposes of the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act, and that cabinet's exercise of discretion was unreasonable on that basis.
• Ontario Rifle Association, represented by Marie-France Major and Cory Giordano of Supreme Advocacy LLP. The ORA argues that the reasonableness of cabinet's opinion must be measured against the factual context, including its historic service-rifle matches and its long ties to the military and police.
• International Practical Shooting Confederation Canada, also represented by Supreme Advocacy LLP. IPSC Canada argues that "sporting purposes" is a meaningful constraint on the delegated power, and points to licensed target-shooter exemptions in the European Union, Finland and Switzerland.
• Safari Club International, also represented by Supreme Advocacy LLP. SCI argues that AR-platform rifles are commonly used hunting firearms, and that the criteria it identifies across the prohibition regime, muzzle energy, bore diameter and magazine capacity, catch ordinary hunting rifles, including bolt-action, single-shot and break-open designs. SCI has told the Court it will rely on its factum and will not present oral argument.
• Canada's National Firearms Association, represented by Jason Gratl of Vancouver, an intervener in the CCFR appeal only. The NFA's own statement says it will argue separation of powers: that defining conduct punishable by imprisonment belongs to the elected legislature, and that letting the executive decide what conduct is criminal undermines the separation of powers and the rule of law. The Court had not posted its factum when this post was written.

Look at who asked to be heard. Three provincial governments, a constitutional foundation, a civil liberties association and the Coalition for Gun Control. The question underneath this case is how much Parliament can hand to cabinet when the subject is the criminal law, and what legal weight the RCMP's Firearms Reference Table carries.

What happens on 9 and 10 November

The hearing is scheduled for two days in Ottawa. The Court webcasts hearings live and archives them afterward, so you can watch from anywhere in Canada. The appellants, the Attorney General of Canada and each intervener that chose to speak have set speaking times, and the judges interrupt with questions throughout. The questions tell you what is troubling the bench.

The Court has the power to rule from the bench. In appeals of this size it reserves judgment and releases written reasons on a date it chooses. The Court does not publish a timeline, and nothing in the record points to one. Public Safety Canada said in June 2026 that it expected the decision next year.

How likely is the challenge to succeed

Nobody can tell you, and anyone who does is guessing. Here is what the record supports. Two courts have ruled for the government, and the Court of Appeal was unanimous. The Supreme Court grants leave only in cases it considers to be of public importance, and granting leave says nothing about the outcome. The appellants have to persuade the Court that section 117.15(2) is a limit that cabinet's public-safety reasoning cannot satisfy, or that "variants or modified versions" is too imprecise to carry criminal consequences, or both. The government has to persuade the Court that the lower courts applied the right standard of review and reached a reasonable result on it. The Court can also decide the case somewhere between the two: upholding cabinet's authority while reading down the variants language, for example, which is relief the Doherty and Eichenberg appellants asked for in the alternative.

Watch the questions from the bench on the variants issue. Ontario, the Canadian Constitution Foundation and all four appellant groups go at it from different directions, and the alternative remedy the appellants seek on that issue would leave the expressly named firearms prohibited.

What the result means for you

If the Court dismisses the appeals, the prohibition stands and the amnesty ends 90 days after the judgment. Owners who have not already surrendered or deactivated the firearm have those 90 days to deactivate it, surrender it, export it, or ship it by carrier for destruction under an agreement with the Government of Canada. The compensation program's declaration period for individuals closed on 31 March 2026, and Public Safety Canada has said the amnesty extension does not affect the compensation program.

If the Court allows the appeals in full, the appellants have asked it to quash the 2020 regulation, which would generally return the firearms it covered to their previous classification, subject to the terms of the Court's order. The government's factum asks that any such relief be suspended for 12 months, so even a full win could come with a delay. The 2024 and 2025 regulations are not before the Court. A win on the 2020 regulation leaves those firearms prohibited, and their amnesty still ends on the 90th day after the appeals end. A government that loses has the option of new regulations or legislation.

If the Court reads the regulation down, for example by limiting it to the expressly listed models, the named firearms stay prohibited and the ones caught only as "variants" do not. Which firearms fall on which side of that line would need to be worked out model by model, and the Firearms Reference Table would need to catch up.

In every scenario, the next 90 days after the judgment are the ones that count. Our post on the amnesty extension covers what to do with the time between now and then. The short version: keep your PAL valid, do not sell or transfer the firearm, use it only as your amnesty order allows, and check your exact make and model against the official list. Do not rely on summaries, including ours.

Frequently asked questions

When does the Supreme Court hear the firearms ban appeals?

The hearing is scheduled for 9 and 10 November 2026 in Ottawa. The four appeals, Supreme Court files 41858, 41859, 41860 and 41861, are heard together.

What is the legal question in the Supreme Court firearms case?

Whether section 117.15(2) of the Criminal Code allowed cabinet to prohibit the firearms listed in SOR/2020-96 by regulation, given that the section bars cabinet from prohibiting a firearm it considers reasonable for hunting or sporting use, and whether the phrase "variants or modified versions" is precise enough to carry criminal consequences.

Who are the interveners in the Supreme Court firearms appeals?

The Attorneys General of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario, the Canadian Constitution Foundation, the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, International Practical Shooting Confederation Canada, Safari Club International, the Canadian Coalition for Gun Control, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Ontario Rifle Association and Canada's National Firearms Association. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation applied and was refused.

Will the Supreme Court decide the case on 10 November?

In appeals of this size the Court reserves judgment at the end of the hearing and releases its written decision later, on a date it chooses. Public Safety Canada said in June 2026 that it expected the decision in 2027.

When does the firearms amnesty end?

The amnesty ends on the 90th day after the last of the four Supreme Court appeals ends by judgment, dismissal or discontinuance. SOR/2026-114, registered 5 June 2026, replaced the earlier 30 October 2026 expiry with that rule. There is no fixed calendar date.

Can I watch the Supreme Court hearing?

Yes. The Supreme Court of Canada webcasts its hearings live and archives them on its website afterward.

The Silvercore Path

• The October 30 amnesty deadline is gone
• The official list of 324 newly banned firearms in Canada
• Is the AR-15 legal in Canada?
• Canada's firearms buyback program, explained
• What's the difference between non-restricted and restricted firearms?
• Silvercore Club

The decision in this case starts the amnesty clock. Silvercore Club members get regulatory updates by email. Membership is $59 a year, and anyone can join, with or without a PAL. Join the Silvercore Club.