Thread by @TWilsonOttawa

CCFR vs Canada 🇨🇦 - Federal Court Challenge to the 2020 OIC gun ban (and additional bans since).

Day 6 - Thread 🧵

▶️ Alberta AG intervenor
▶️ AGC (Gov’t) presents their case

Follow along here 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻

Pfifer (AB AG) takes the podium and begins. They have only 20 minutes so they’ll be brief.

She says words matter - the constraint placed on the GIC must be respected

Says we have a constitutional problem.

Says this isn’t about policy or whether it’s a good or bad decision, but is it lawful.

Decision makers must follow the law.

The court must determine whether the decision was rational and the rationale was reasonable

The GIC is not exempt from administrative law.

Quotes case law (greenhouse gas). Any regulation that is made must be consistent with the statute and its purpose and within scope of that statute.

The SCC determined this may be ultra vires and open to judicial review

Quotes a Sec from CC. Judge asks for clarification. Even if the OIC met the objective, it must comply with the delegative authority. Failure to comply = ultra vires

The GIC must form an opinion if the thing to be prohibited is reasonable for hunting and sport use

The only record from the decision maker is the RIAS. No other evidence.

Moves to the enabling provision. Parliament is known to master language and be clear and concise.

Points to the government response on Alberta’s position. Says it’s Alberta’s submission that they should have been guided by the CC. While public safety is the intention, they can not override the enabling provision.

The government can pass regulation while respecting the provision. If we accept Canada’s position, it means the GIC can prohibit anything even if it is reasonable for hunting or sporting. Unlimited discretion.

There is no analysis contained within the RIAS to explain the determination they are not reasonable. Parliament must respect the legitimate use of firearms.

Points to the debates on C68. We have an express acknowledgment that words are important to the legislative regime.

Ignoring the words of the statute can create mischief and problems for federalism.

On hunting specifically, there are provincial laws on what can be used. Some of the guns affected have already been deemed reasonable.

When asking what’s reasonable, it would be reasonable to consult the provincial laws. If the court accepts Canada’s assessment that they can prohibit anything without evidence, we have a serious constitutional problem.

Concedes to her colleague.

Name?

AB says it is a delegation of authority and must be quashed. Raises the issue of a definition being made entirely at the discretion of the executive.

Says with the stroke of a pen, the GIC criminalized thousands of Canadians without an act of parliament.

Says a buyback program requires public funds, which requires legislation. You can’t prohibit by OIC and do a buyback.

Says Canada will say they have no limits on their prohibitive powers. Outlines the restraints on that power.

Says we are in an era of robust judicial review. Parliament never intended there to be unfettered power. Judge seeks clarity.

He says there wouldn’t be a restraint if that was the intent. He’s here to defend the constitution.

Says the AG quotes many cases but he says none of them go this far. Says the AG left out pieces of the quote for the case law. Alberta says there are constitutional limits on the government.

Speaks to the case law (Cote decision) about unconstitutional delegation of power.

Alberta reads the decision about delegation. Speaks to the rules of administrative law. Says the government contradicts themselves. Alberta says there is a trade off, the decision is subject to judicial review.

Judge asks for summary of Cote’s decision/relevance

Speaks to the rule of law, separation of powers. Says the decision shows limits to delegation of powers. Says the idea that anything can be banned, at anytime for any reason means unconstrained delegation of powers .

The decision says the legislature is the best place for debate and decisions. (Legislation over regulation).

The GIC avoided scrutiny by avoiding prepublication. There was a lack of judicial review by hiding behind cabinet confidentiality.

Says what we have here is a regulation that criminalizes gun owners without an act of parliament, violating the rule of law, the separation of powers and finally, the constitution.

Thanks the judge for the time.

Alberta is finished their submissions.

The judge calls for Mr McKinnon from the government’s massive legal team to approach.

He takes the podium.

McKinnon begins. Says they’ve divided their arguments to respond to the various applicants.

Gives a summary of how they will respond to each issue.

Says they will present how the applicants witnesses should be given no weight.

Asks the court if they can go beyond their time to debate new arguments from the applicants.

Refers to Eichenberg case - what is this about? Says removing these particularly lethal semi auto guns from the market targets the guns not the owners. We can still hunt and sport shoot, just not with these guns.

Says some of these were previously R. Quotes variety of mass shootings in Canada and worldwide. Says these kind of guns have been used there for mass shootings. Says parliament wants to prohibit them for public safety.

Says since the 90’s the gun industry has made new models that escaped being banned previously. This is just an update and closes loopholes. These terms like variants are not new. Owning a gun is a privilege and the OIC only affects a few people.

Says the GIC acted reasonably when enacting the OIC and it’s not ultra vires. They formed an opinion that these guns increase the severity of mass shootings. While they may have been used lawfully before, they are not reasonable to use anymore.

Says the RIAS demonstrates that. Says the GIC did not delegate their authority. Says the RCMP just provide technical advice and the FRT is not legal or binding. Says there is no breach of the charter at all.

Says the terms are not vague and the industry knows them well. They market them as modified versions. Says the bore donate te stuff isn’t vague either. The regulation just provides guidance. Says there is no inverse inference. Everything is fine

AG (attorney general) - will focus on evidentiary record. Begins with Canada’s witnesses. Says Ralph Blake Brown addressed the historical element of the OIC. He said they were in line and proper. Says Koops (Public Safety) gave evidence of the evolution of regulation.

Says Koops testimony wasn’t meant to bolster the RIAS. There’s nothing wrong with him using cabinet confidence. Says Smith is a scientist 😬 says Smith was accepted as an expert despite 3 objection motions.

Baldwin is a wildlife manager and says the guns banned aren’t necessary because there are other choices.

Says Dr. Naj has treated GSW’s and her views are mainstream while Langmann’s aren’t.

Says Chapman says the ban in AUS correlated with reduction in mass shootings

Says JAMA is the preeminent publication and Chapman is accredited.

Speaks to a correlation between assault weapons and mass shootings in U.S. says during the AW ban they went down.

Turns to the applicants evidence and testimony. Says our witnesses aren’t partial or independent and should all be rejected. Says they will show how we can all be discredited. Says Mauser is tainted.

Says Langmann is way outside his area of expertise as an ER doc, but Naj is fine. Says Matt DeMille from OFAH is not independent. Says Bader speaks without being an expert. Says O’Dell hasn’t been accredited as an expert either and lacks objectivity.

Says Miller and Cunningham (Milcun) are not experts either. Says there was no need to cross examine our witnesses. They aren’t relevant. Smith addressed Bader’s, O’Dell, and Baldwin addressed Parker, Giltaca, Shockey and Hipwell. Discredits them all.

Speaks to the CC and firearms classifications. Says the CC allows for the GIC to decide. Says if it’s in the opinion of the GIC they aren’t reasonable for hunting and sport, that’s all that’s required.

Quotes Allan Rock’s statements. Says they used OIC’s to prohibit before. Shows a historical of how many guns they’ve banned over history. Says nobody objected to these other historical bans. That’s telling.

Quotes Ralph Blake Brown - says OIC’s have banned guns commonly used for hunting before. Language has changed from commonly used to reasonable to intentionally give government more power, not less.

Says previous and current bans have banned variants and modified versions. It’s normal. Goes to Smith testimony. Says variant and version are widely used terms and accepted.

Moves to Giltaca testimony - Rod called an AR a Lego gun, you can mix and match, customize. This was in a YouTube video. Says the customizations Giltaca speaks about means they’re variants or versions.

Goes to Koops affidavit. He worries defining the term variant will help manufacturers find loopholes. Goes to Bader definition. Smith says Bader definition only the heads of each gun family would be captured, not all the semi auto versions.

Says variants can be named or unnamed. Just because a gun isn’t listed on the ban, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be banned 🤔

Goes to Chernowak affidavit. Says they dispute the views of that technician. Says it isn’t a “lottery” when determining what’s banned.

Goes to Smith testimony. Speaks about Turkish shotguns. Says the regulations “cleaned up” any questions about exceptions.

The CFP oversees gun ownership. The SFSS employs technicians. They are not police. The FRT is just a database.

The FRT has over 200k unique entries. There’s lots of guns out there. The SFSS just assesses variants. Smith explained how they make these decisions. Proximity of design is considered. They also consider manufacturers marketing descriptions.

AG says Smith didn’t contradict himself when being cross examined by Bouchelev. Says there are approx 700 variants of the M16 alone, in the FRT.

Says there have always been unnamed variants in the FRT and didn’t seem to be a problem 🤷🏼‍♀️

Mentions how Burlew agreed the FRT is just an opinion. Smith says people can simply request a review of an FRT entry. (They have no obligation to allow this).

Says gun ownership is a privilege with the responsibility to check the legal status of your guns.

Even though citizens don’t have access to a live FRT, they should be responsible for finding the legal status - you guys get that??

Wow

Says businesses can access software, people can download the PDF or just call the CFO.

Judge wants to know if people can call anonymously to avoid self incrimination. He doesn’t know.

Asks for a break.

Court is in recess for 20 minutes

And we are back. Government lawyer (calling him AG don’t know his name) resumes the podium.

AG moves to the most recent gun control regime. Details 2015 ▶️ forward Liberal promises. Speaks to the 2018 Engagement summary.

Supporters of the ban: lists a variety of groups that support gun bans. A majority of respondents were opposed to the gun bans. Says the results were skewed by gun owners answering. (Why should they have a say). Judge says ok, so 50/50 gun owners/not - he says only 6% of… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

Discredits letter from unnamed police officer. Discredits National Police Federation opposition to bans. Says the chiefs of police opinions are ok.

The OIC prohibited 9 families of guns, prohibited certain guns with big bores, big joules.

Says the RIAS is clear. Explains assault style is a fine term. Simply used to group guns. Says the applicants saying the OIC guns aren’t real assault weapons because they’re not full auto should be dismissed.

Says in the Cunningham affidavit, statement from the DCRA says the AR is the semi version of a C8. So it must be a variant.

Says the deadly mass shootings are committed by ASF’s. Repeats list of worldwide mass shootings.

Says these guns are unsuitable for civilian use and are more deadly in mass shootings. The RIAS is guided by the safety risk of these guns. Repeats the criteria to be banned. Says the GIC assessed the risk of these ASF’s. Owners were notified.

Judge asks for clarity on “modern firearms”. He says he means recent. Asks what’s the difference between actual assault rifle ban of ‘78 and this new ban? How do the guns differ? He admits the first ban was full auto. This ban is semi auto.

Moves to the notice given to owners and businesses. The PM announced, mail was sent, letters sent to businesses. That should be enough for widespread knowledge. Everyone should know.

Judge says not everyone got the letter. AG says the community talks about it and its owner’s… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

Moves to amnesty: protects citizens against criminality, allows indigenous hunting. The amnesty gives time.

Prohibition by make and model: the OIC and the RIAS state that the GIC deemed all variants unreasonable.

Goes to Smith affidavit. Literally brings up scary black gun photos and scrolls through them on screen while he talks. Says the FRT reclassifications aren’t still happening. Last one was June 2020. Only 2 since then. A big bore shotgun and a big joule rifle.

Judge asks why it took over a month to find more to ban. AG doesn’t know why. Judge says between 1996-2020 we didn’t ban guns. AG says we had a growing problem of mass shootings during this 30 year time 🤔

Judge calls the FRT a “beast” 😂❤️

He says the regulations didn’t keep up with new guns being developed.

87% of variants are named, only 13% banned by FRT reclassification.

Speaks to the ATRS Modern Hunter - reads 2017 FRT for it. It was NR. Moves to statement about its design uniqueness. Moves to 2020 FRT for it. Smith explained it was a variant of AR10. An AR10 was NR in 2017. So it’s consistent that it was banned in 2020, AR10 and ATRS.

Judge asks about FRT reviews. Asks where it says people can challenge it? He doesn’t know but it has been done before.

Mossbergs now. Goes to comparison of 715T and AR15. Says they share accessories and it was marketed as similar to an AR15.

Says manufactures design them with AR likeness. Points to Smith affidavit on this.

Moves to Giltaca statement that he can’t buy guns for fear they’ll be prohibited. Says Giltaca admits he owns other guns he can use.

Turkish shotguns - Smith says they were prohibited because they appeared similar to AR15 in design.

Speaks to Yukon conservation officers purchasing ASF’s. Says ASF’s are expressly permitted to use them, hunters aren’t.

Says applicants arguments about capacity are void. Lawyer admits mag restrictions haven’t stopped mass shootings and says they must be combined with bans on guns with higher capacity.

Points to 2010 Friedman interview, he said mag caps are easy to circumvent.

Brings up CCFR policy on mag caps. We said they serve no safety purpose. Canada submits they support the opposite, mag caps aren’t enough so we must ban over capacity guns too.

Klarevas said there was an 18% reduction in deaths after banning large capacity guns.

Bore diameter: Smith submits it’s determined by the size of the projectile. Smith says guns with +20mm bore are cannons, weapons of war. Smith says owners can look at the calibre stamp to determine bore. It’s industry standard.

Says it’s easy to determine by looking at the gauge of a shotgun. If gauge is below 10 it’s larger than 20mm bore. Smith also says owners can consult manufacturers website. Says the choke should not be included in the measure.

Says the bore diameter argument is a non issue. Moves to 10k joules argument. Says most guns don’t have that kind of energy, just military sniper rifles and anti tank artillery. The determinant is again the projectile. Owners can get this info from the manufacturer or retailer.

Says you don’t require 10k joules to hunt a moose or bear. There are alternatives. Judge asks about sufficiency. He says Baldwin says we don’t need that. (Baldwin bow hunts). Judge asks about reloads. He says it’s a gun owner’s responsibility to make sure it’s under 10k joules

Says the applicants have overstated the impact of the OIC. Says only 150,000 owners are impacted. Says the OIC doesn’t punish owners, just the guns they own. Points to Mauser’s 9% of homicides by legal owners. Giltaca also acknowledged some lawful owners have committed crimes… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

Baldwin says hunting and sport shooting is still alive and well in Canada. These guns are simply not required. Says hunting is barely impacted. Banning the AR didn’t impact hunting because it was restricted. Says AR’s weren’t used in proper competitions only tactical war games.

Says Smith spoke about internal CAF shooting competitions and they don’t need personal guns to practice. Judge wants to know how many guns affected, not just how many people. He says about 150k (false, it’s over half a million).

He finishes. McKinnon suggests we break for lunch… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

Ok, we’re back!! I’ve noticed the government lawyer side went from 3 chairs per table to 4. They’ve got a huge team here today #FatStacksOfLawyers #TaxPayerFunded

Judge apologizes for the delay

Court is in session. McKinnon takes the podium.

MacKinnon begins, clarifies notice question. Says every single owner received a letter notifying them of the OIC.

About ultra vires: denies it. Says the GIC acted reasonably and within their authority. Quotes the CC provision on restriction. Only the opinion of the GIC matters.

The standard of reasonableness stands. It is informed by the statutory concept. The GIC is the decision maker. The enabling authority can prescribe ANY firearm as prohibited. Public safety focus is the guide. Says it conforms with historical norms.

Says banning them will reduce the misuse of these guns. Goes to the case law of the applicants. Says you don’t have to prove you’ll achieve the desired outcome. Speaks to SCC cases about reasonableness. The court should ask if there’s some reasonable basis to the unreasonableness… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

If there’s some tenable relation to the goal … the court should find the OIC valid. Speaks to other case law.

Says it isn’t necessary for the court to weigh in on the politics but focus on the authority question. Says the affidavits they submitted is the evidence she can take… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

In the end, the RIAS is the rationale. The only salient restraint on the GIC is the statutory context. Says the decision of the GIC is reasonableness. Says the public safety purpose of the CC is consistent in the OIC.

Says public safety is always the focus of gun control 🙄

Says for over 50 years the government has empowered the GIC to regulate firearms. It’s based solely on the GIC’s own opinion. Parliament expanded these powers. Says the GIC has the power to regulate firearms without… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

McKinnon moves to the OIC itself. It says the GIC conducted the opinion itself. Shows the RIAS explains the rationale. Says most mass shootings are committed with ASF’s. Banning them is meant to reduce this. It’s also been demanded by the public (?)

Says the OIC addresses gun… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

Says these guns are not appropriate because of their inherent danger. Brings up the tactical or military design. They recognize that while these guns were used lawfully and safely for hunting and sporting, they are disproportionate and unreasonable now.

Speaks to the availability of other guns. Just get another one. These guns, by design, pose a safety risk to Canadians. “We are trying to limit access to deadly firearms”. Says there is a list of Canadian mass shootings and the guns that were used. They’re now banned. It’s… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

Says we can look to other countries. The intention is to reduce the number and availability of ASF’s and to prevent their diversion into the illegal market. (They’ll steal them first).

Speaks to the criteria to ban them.

Judge asks about diversion to illegal markets. He goes with “less guns is best”. He says that’s the point - to take them out of circulation.

Moves to consultation. Speaks about opposition to the ban. They had to hurry to avoid a run on guns.

McKinnon continues. Speaks to indigenous hunting and the amnesty. Says this meets the Sec35 rights of the indigenous people. No non regulatory options were considered.

The guns banned represent some of the most popular guns we own - that’s intentional.

Speaks to the requirement to pre-publish. Says they were exempt from the rules on this because “public safety”. Says these guns are internationally recognized for having the same public safety issues. Says they were built with the intent for military use and to kill the most… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

Says the RIAS and the evidence show these firearms are a danger to the public because they have been used in mass shootings. Police are armed with similar weapons to increase firepower. Says a semi auto can pierce through metal better. Says firearm related crime is rising.

Says the magazine restrictions alone were not sufficient to prevent mass shootings. Says the evidence is consistent. Says the applicants have failed to meet their burden that the OIC is unreasonable.

Says even if you’re of a different view, there is tenable evidence on why the GIC made this decision. Judge asks if there’s anything that explains how the GIC makes decision. He doesn’t know.

McKinnon says it doesn’t matter if these guns were used safely, what matters is the… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

Parliament deemed the GIC could find guns unreasonable for hunting and sporting, even if they were found suitable or effective for those things. Says the GIC considers the safety of all Canadians. Says indigenous can transition to a non restricted firearm for hunting.

Says it’s been 26 years since they banned guns, it was time. The previous regulations were accepted and are similar to guns banned previously. Says the applicants raised a verbal argument without written evidence.

Complains the CCFR legal team specified the word “including” to limit capture of future guns. Says the CCFR says we must say “including but not limited to”. Cites case law on including is not exhaustive.

Says the Eichenberg team misused the term “is prescribed”, cites case law from the interpretation act. Says it can be applied to variants. Says language can not “freeze for all time”. Provides a second example.

Says the applicants lied about there being a “bargain” (Parker case). Says C68 was never a deal made with gun owners and there’s been no promise made to gun owners. Say’s government can not bind a future parliament anyways.

Says therefore the OIC is valid. The court is not to examine the policy choice or even if it’s effective. It’s to determine if the GIC acted under their authority.

Moves to adverse inference. Speaks to the objection to cabinet confidence. Says the court shouldn’t question this,… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

Says you can not find adverse inference based on speculation. If you aren’t privy to the debates in cabinet you can’t determine they happened. Says the case law doesn’t apply here due to the nature of the documents.

How can the applicants ask for an adverse inference on evidence they can’t prove exists. Judge says the problem is the public doesn’t have access to whatever was before cabinet when they came to the decision in the RIAS.

McKinnon says Sec39 was created for exactly this. To keep cabinet debate confidential. Judge pushes. McKinnon points to the case law. Shrugs. She frowns.

Moves on.

Speaks to the ultra vires argument. Speaks to the failure to pre-publish. Says they couldn’t notify the public they were doing this because it would end up in a run on guns. Says the applicants have no standing on this.

Finally, says there is no requirement to do this through legislation instead of regulation. OIC’s provide the government flexibility to move quickly. Says the use of OIC provides clarity.

McKinnon continues, reads from their witnesses affidavits. Says there’s lots of justification.

Asks if we should break

Court is in recess for 15 minutes

And we are back!! McKinnon takes the podium. Speaks to the Koops affidavit. Says there is a good list of mass shootings there for her.

Oxal now (for the government). She begins, says she’ll address the issue of sub delegation.

Says the applicants claim the government has sub delegated duty to the RCMP, through the FRT.

Says the GIC did not delegate authority, the FRT is not an exercise of legal authority, she’ll also respond to the FRT shielding unnamed variants.

Oxal continues. She says to look at what the GIC has done. They have taken the power delegated by parliament and acted on it by banning guns. They expressly listed makes, models, characteristics and variants.

This is the same power exercised before by the GIC. She says most of the variants are listed (named) only a small list are unnamed. The source of the prohibition is the OIC itself. She says the regulation is the authority to prohibit.

The GIC didn’t say we are banning variants whatever the RCMP say, the GIC designed the prohibition and variants within the OIC. The SFSS follow it. No delegation.

Cites case law about truck drivers.

This case law dictates that the GIC did not delegate any duties. The prohibition is laid out within the OIC, the officials just apply it.

The regulations themselves dictate the criteria, not the FRT. officials simply implement them.

She says the applicants suggest it may not be a direct delegation, but it isn’t true. She says a legal authority is binding. This can’t be confused with an opinion. The opinion may impact, and people may follow it, but it has no legal force.

Judge asks about Bouchelev’s suggestion of scrapping the FRT. what would be the impact? Oxal says there would be no impact, the regulation would stand, but we would lose a valuable tool.

Oxal moves to FRT, not binding. Says this isn’t a judicial review of the FRT, or it’s entries. Gagne already ruled on that. Reminds the judge she’s not to judge the merit of technical opinions.

The FRT is simply an administrative tool. It has no legal power or effect.

Quality assurance when it comes to the FRT, peer review. Points to Smith testimony. Smith assures the court there is a robust quality control system. No one person can create or change an FRT entry.

Oxal continues, says “reasonable for hunting and sporting” is not a criteria judged by the SFSS. Just whether or not it’s a variant. It’s the GIC that determines reasonableness. The SFSS determines head of family and variant.

One can assume if a gun is unreasonable, it’s variant is also unreasonable. Judge asks if there’s variants of variants. She doesn’t know, but we aren’t discussing that.

Oxal clarifies she couldn’t find any evidence on the FRT that shows how people can challenge an FRT, but… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

Oxal says FRT entries are not closed and unchangeable. A person can call and ask for a review if they think it’s wrong. These are technical opinions not quasi regulations. Smith evidence says people can write to him and explain why it’s wrong and it can be changed.

Oxal says Hipwell’s affidavit details how he’s challenged FRT’s successfully. It happens. Oxal says it’s been a long time since the 2020 gun ban and nobody has raised concerns with the SFSS that the FRT change is wrong.

(Uh no - we took it to court)

Oxal says gun owners can access the FRT through retailers to inquire about the status of their firearms.

Judge asks about Sec74 challenges. How could owners go to the SFSS?

Oxal says nobody has challenged these FRT changes.

Judge says they can’t challenge the guns in the OIC through the FRT because it’s in the regulation. They’d be told the law changed.

Oxal says owners had the ability to challenge the FRT’s for the unnamed variants banned after the OIC.

Found 2 Tylenol in my purse #ThankGod

Oxal moves to the role of the RCMP and the FRT. Oxal describes the difference between front line cops and SFSS. The SFSS is a support service not an enforcement agency.

Oxal says if the FRT ceases to exist, the ban would continue. She says this shows the FRT is not law nor regulation. She says applicants would still be facing legal risk without the FRT. says the FRT has a disclaimer, people know it isn’t legally binding

Oxal speaks to Smith testimony. Cops use the FRT to lay charges, as Bouchelev stated. She says Bouchelev left out the other information they use. Says that police are not compelled to charge someone based on FRT data. It’s just a tool.

Says the FRT is not insulated from review. She says applicants can challenge an FRT but they’re not subject to judicial review. Says the decision maker, when using the FRT, can have that decision reviewed.

Oxal lists a number of officials who can be challenged, and in the end a person can of course challenge it in courts when they’re charged. Judge asks if a person, defending themselves in court, can challenge it. Yes says Oxal, and have the charges dropped (process = punishment)

Oxal cites case law. Provides ON court decision. Henderson, a Sec74 challenge. Henderson was refused reg cert for a gun he owned deemed a variant of an AK. Says the Henderson argument was similar to ours.

The ON Court of Justice found the gun was not an unnamed variant of the AK, despite the FRT. The court was not bound by the FRT. The appeals court struck down this decision and found it an unnamed variant. Oxal says this shows the FRT is not binding.

Oxal reviews the takeaways from this case law. Listed variants help identify the unnamed variants.

Points to more case law. Provides a criminal example. This one is also about the Armi Jager like the last case.

This case (Christenson) relies on Henderson. Speaks to the nullification letters from the registrar. Says these letters can be reviewed. Refers to Steacy affidavit. Shows the letter he received. Says these letters weren’t open to Sec74 challenges, but owners could have launched… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

Oxal goes now to Timmins affidavit (ATRS). Reviews the letter he received from the CFO. She says he could have launched a judicial review on that too. Oxal jokes, says she’s not Timmins lawyer but if she was, she’d have filed a judicial review. Judge laughs

Oxal addresses statement by Phillips (CCFR case), referring to Vancouver transport case law. Says when the GIC does what parliament intended to do there is no sub delegation.

Oxal finishes her submissions on sub delegation.

Judge says we should start fresh tomorrow. Talk… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…