Christine Generoux, et al. v. Attorney General of Canada & Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, et al. v. Attorney General of Canada
Guns are a fundamental right, from the Second Amendment! Oh, wait, what? Our Second Amendment is actually the Temporary Government of Rupert’s Land Act? From 1869? Ohhhh, I had forgotten that I wasn’t American, silly me!1
Welcome to the world of guns. Strap in, we’re about to get controversial. Today, I’ll be taking you through the legal and political battlefield that is firearms regulation. We have some background info to explore, and then two administrative cases that the Supreme Court of Canada is set to tackle in the future: Christine Generoux, et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (hereafter, Generoux) and Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (hereafter, Coalition). I will be looking at the applications for leave to appeal brought forward by the appellants for both cases for most of this information.
Both cases look at the 2020 expansion of the list of prohibited firearms (SOR/2020-96) enacted by the Governor in Council—beyond all the technical details, this essentially just means the federal cabinet—and the section of the Criminal Code that empowered the Governor in Council to do so, s. 117.15.2
I’m going to be upfront and say that I don’t expect the appellants in either of these cases to be successful in trying to convince the Supreme Court that the Liberal government’s firearms regulations need to be amended. I am firmly of the opinion that these groups are aware of this, and are mostly going through this procedure for image. Likewise, I’m fairly certain the Supreme Court only agreed to hear these cases because they were high-profile enough that it would have caused issues and complaints in the public if they had ignored them.
As far as I can tell, the Supreme Court has never provided any major pushback to the federal government’s attempts to regulate firearm ownership. I don’t expect that to change. This whole thing feels very performative.
Now, just because it is performative, that doesn’t mean these cases are baseless, nor does it mean that handling them is not worth doing. Our country thrives on symbolism, performative gestures, and ideology. These things have a very real impact on our civic, juridical, and legislative cultures.
The Gun Debate
Guns are a complicated issue in Canada because, really, more than anything, they’re an immensely polarizing issue in the United States.
Our gun control regime is very well developed and has been so for decades. Practically speaking, getting guns in Canada is not a simple process, and the weapons most dangerous to the public are difficult to acquire. Meanwhile, our neighbour to the South has so many mass shootings that it has become next to impossible to have any certainty about which was the most recent. If I were to mention one here, it would be dated before this blog actually hits the website, without a doubt.
From what I can tell—and do please bear in mind that this topic is an academic minefield for those not familiar with it, people like me—there is little evidentiary or academic basis for the massive growth in the list of prohibited firearms that was legislated in 2020 and the buyback program that has been in the works since then. By most accounts, this program has been a disaster. There is very little faith that these efforts will result in a safer Canada, and there has been very heavy pushback against them. Even if you do support greater firearm restrictions, these measures have demonstrably been messy and ineffective, perhaps even counterproductive, given the blowback they’ve generated.3
With that in mind, let’s take a closer look at these upcoming cases.
Christine Generoux, et al. v. Attorney General of Canada
Frankly, the arguments in Generoux are weak, all of them. I’ll spare you the nitty and the gritty—because it really does get nitty and gritty—but the appellant makes a number of intertwined arguments that don’t have much persuasive weight either together or apart. They make four arguments, two of which I’ll bundle together.
One regards the Criminal Code s. 117.15(2): a minor limitation on the Governor in Council’s authority to restrict firearms “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.” There is a decent argument to be made about whether the powers granted in this act are in keeping with the legislative landscape of Canada, and Coalition makes them, but trying to use the act against itself seems incredibly unlikely to work. Obviously, the Governor in Council has deemed these weapons not reasonable for hunting or sporting. This comes to nothing.
In case my sarcastic tone in the intro wasn’t clear enough, let me put this idea to rest. The right to own firearms is not one we really have here, though the appellant in Generoux is attempting to argue that restrictions on gun ownership would necessarily impede a few of our actual rights in the Charter. Sections 7 and 8 to be precise: our right to life, liberty, and security; and our protection against unreasonable search and seizure.4 I’m not going to get into why the appellant thinks that; the logic is winding and a bit hard to follow, but I will just say that I highly doubt the Supreme Court will be convinced here.
The final argument that Generoux makes is that the 2020 restrictions are discriminatory against gun owners as a cultural group. Were the appellants Indigenous, and this were a matter of Indigenous law, the Supreme Court might be willing to concede that point. That’s not the case here. I don’t believe there is any realistic chance that the Supreme Court chooses to recognize gun owners as a cultural group that is being unfairly discriminated against. Possession and use of a weapon as a hobby does not constitute core personal traits.5
Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, et al. v. Attorney General of Canada
Unlike the other case, this one does actually have some interesting points to make. I am not so confident in the outcome of this one as I am for the other, although I still believe that the Supreme Court of Canada will lean more to the side of the respondent on this one.
There’s a lot of faffing about here and there, and I’m not going to get into every argument that has been brought forward, but one point made by the appellant is very interesting to me. The appellant highlights the two recent decisions of R. v. Vavilov and R. v. Restoule. These cases both showcase the Supreme Court turning its back on unchecked discretion. Section 117.15 essentially gives the Governor in Council complete discretion in prohibiting firearms; the only restrictions depend on the subjective perspective of the Governor in Council. However, both Vavilovand Restoule stress that there is no such thing as unchecked legislative discretion.6
The appellant here is arguing that the Governor in Council is ignoring the purpose of the restrictions and acting as though they have unchecked discretion by going against the spirit of the restrictions to prohibit guns that are actually reasonable for hunting and sport shooting.
With all of that said, s. 117.15 is now almost 30 years old. This is not a new piece of legislation being challenged; this is established law. And again, I need to reiterate that the Supreme Court has never stood in the way of federal gun control measures. Further, even if the Supreme Court agrees that the Governor in Council’s discretion is more limited than it initially appears, there’s no guarantee they will find that the Governor in Council abused their discretion in legislating SOR/2020-96.7
Final Comments
Maybe Coalition will go somewhere, but Generoux is dead in the water. More likely than not, I think, Coalitionwill see the Supreme Court clarify the strength of the restrictions written into s. 117.15(2) without agreeing with the appellant that the Governor in Council abused their discretion.
These won’t be the last times that gun rights advocates come before the Supreme Court—honestly, given how poorly the buyback has been going, I expect another case to start working its way up soon—but it should, at the very least, clean up the waters a bit.
Canada’s in the middle of an awkward era in our gun control regime, more stability—and better-written legislation—would go a long way in improving things.
Endnotes
- “Amendments to the Constitution of Canada” in Wikipedia (2025) Page Version ID: 1313263367.
- Criminal Code, RSC 1985, C-46, s 117.15Last Modified: 2025-04-08; “Canada Gazette, Part 2, Volume 154, Number 3: Regulations Amending the Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and Other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited, Restricted or Non-Restricted” (1 May 2020), online: Gov Can <https://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2020/2020-05-01-x3/html/sor-dors96-eng.html> Last Modified: 2020-05-01; Christine Generoux, Christine Generoux, et al. v. Attorney General of Canada – Application for Leave to Appeal (13 June 2025); Michael Laborg, Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, et al. v. Attorney General of Canada – Application for Leave to Appeal (16 June 2025),.
- Sam Samson, Will Canada’s gun buyback program work — without buy-in? (CBC, 2026); Catharine Tunney, “Public safety minister defends gun buyback program after pilot sees low uptake”, CBC News (12 January 2026), online: <https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/gun-buyback-pilot-expansion-anandasangaree-9.7042380>; Global News, Liberal gun buyback program stumbles: What went wrong? (2026); R Blake Brown, “A Legal History of the Regulation of Assault-Style Rifles in Canada.” (2023) 46:2 Dalhous Law J 505–546.
- Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982.
- Generoux, supra note 2.
- Ontario (Attorney General) v Restoule, at para 154; Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 4 SCR 653 at para 108.
- Laborg, supra note 2.
Bibliography
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982.
Criminal Code, 1985, c. C-46.
Ontario (Attorney General) v Restoule .
Brown, R Blake, “A Legal History of the Regulation of Assault-Style Rifles in Canada.” (2023) 46:2 Dalhousie Law Journal 505–546.
Tunney, Catharine, “Public safety minister defends gun buyback program after pilot sees low uptake”, CBC News (12 January 2026), online: <https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/gun-buyback-pilot-expansion-anandasangaree-9.7042380>.
Generoux, Christine, Christine Generoux, et al. v. Attorney General of Canada – Application for Leave to Appeal (13 June 2025).
Global News, Liberal gun buyback program stumbles: What went wrong? (2026).
Laborg, Michael, Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, et al. v. Attorney General of Canada – Application for Leave to Appeal (16 June 2025).
Samson, Sam, Will Canada’s gun buyback program work — without buy-in? (CBC, 2026).
“Amendments to the Constitution of Canada” in Wikipedia (2025).
“Canada Gazette, Part 2, Volume 154, Number 3: Regulations Amending the Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and Other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited, Restricted or Non-Restricted” (1 May 2020), online: Government of Canada <https://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2020/2020-05-01-x3/html/sor-dors96-eng.html>.
“History of firearms in Canada”, online: Royal Canadian Mounted Police <https://rcmp.ca/en/firearms/history-firearms-canada>.
