What Is the Supreme Court Deciding in the Assault-Style Firearms Challenge?
If you own a firearm caught by the May 2020 prohibition, or one of the later additions, the most important date on your calendar is now set by the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court agreed on March 19, 2026 to hear four appeals challenging the regulations, and its decision will also trigger the end of the amnesty. This article explains how the case got here, what the Court has been asked to decide, and what the possible outcomes could mean for owners.
We will update this article when the hearing has taken place and again when the decision is released.
Status as of September 25, 2026: leave granted March 19, 2026; hearing scheduled to begin November 9, 2026; decision pending.
The Regulations Under Challenge
On May 1, 2020, the federal Cabinet (formally, the Governor in Council) made the 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, SOR/2020-96, under Order in Council P.C. 2020-298.
The regulations added nine families of firearms, by make and model, “and any variants or modified versions of them,” to the list of prohibited firearms. They also prohibited any firearm with a bore diameter of 20 mm or greater or capable of discharging a projectile with a muzzle energy greater than 10,000 joules. The Federal Court of Appeal described the effect as prohibiting over 1,500 firearms previously legal for licensed owners. The regulations were not pre-published in the Canada Gazette and took effect the day they were made.
Later prohibitions in December 2024 and March 2025 were made by separate regulations. The appeals now before the Supreme Court concern SOR/2020-96, but the outcome will matter to owners of the later-prohibited firearms too, because all three amnesty orders now end on the same date tied to these appeals. See our timeline of the prohibitions for the full sequence.
How the Case Reached the Supreme Court
Federal Court (October 30, 2023)
Six applications for judicial review were brought by a range of applicants: the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights and individual owners and businesses; groups of hunters and sport shooters; a shooting club; and others. They were heard together, and on October 30, 2023, Justice Kane of the Federal Court dismissed all of them in Parker v. Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FC 1419.
The Federal Court found that:
- the regulations were within Cabinet’s authority under the Criminal Code;
- Cabinet had not sub-delegated its power to the RCMP through the Firearms Reference Table, which the Court treated as a database and interpretive aid rather than a source of law;
- Cabinet did not owe a duty of procedural fairness to firearm owners, because making regulations is a legislative process;
- the regulations did not violate section 7 of the Charter (they were not impermissibly vague, overbroad or arbitrary), and in any event any infringement would be justified under section 1; and
- the arguments under sections 8, 11, 15 and 26 of the Charter and the due process clause of the Canadian Bill of Rights failed.
Federal Court of Appeal (April 15, 2025)
Four groups of appellants appealed. The appeals were consolidated and heard on December 9 and 10, 2024. On April 15, 2025, a unanimous panel (Chief Justice de Montigny, with Justices Stratas and Mactavish) dismissed them in Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FCA 82.
The Court of Appeal applied the reasonableness standard from Vavilov, as confirmed for regulations by the Supreme Court in Auer v. Auer, 2024 SCC 36. It agreed with the Federal Court on every issue it addressed, and added its own reasons on three: whether the regulations were within Cabinet’s power, sub-delegation, and section 7.
Leave to the Supreme Court (March 19, 2026)
On March 19, 2026, the Supreme Court granted leave in four related files:
| SCC file | Lead appellant(s) |
|---|---|
| 41858 | Christine Generoux et al. |
| 41859 | Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights et al. |
| 41860 | Michael John Doherty et al. |
| 41861 | Jennifer Eichenberg et al. |
The Supreme Court’s docket lists the appeals as scheduled to be heard together beginning November 9, 2026.
The Legal Questions
The Supreme Court’s case summaries describe the issues in similar terms across the four files. They fall into two broad groups.
1. Did Cabinet have the power to make these regulations?
Section 117.15(1) of the Criminal Code allows the Governor in Council to make regulations prescribing anything that Part III of the Code says may be prescribed, including which firearms are prohibited. Section 117.15(2) then places a limit on that power:
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 central dispute is about what that limit means.
The appellants’ position, as summarized by the Court of Appeal, is that almost any firearm can be dangerous in the wrong hands, so “public safety” cannot be the test. On their reading, whether a firearm is reasonable for hunting or sport is a separate, narrow question that genuinely confines Cabinet. If a firearm is in fact reasonable for hunting or sporting purposes, Cabinet cannot prohibit it. Some appellants go further and argue that section 117.15 was never meant to allow a sweeping overhaul of the classification system by regulation, and that major changes of this kind belong to Parliament.
The Attorney General’s position, which both lower courts accepted, is that the provision turns on Cabinet’s opinion, and that in forming that opinion Cabinet may consider public safety, including the design of a firearm and its capacity to cause harm. The Court of Appeal held that, “when read purposefully,” section 117.15(2) allowed Cabinet to take public safety into account, and that the reasons given in the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement were supported by the record.
A related question, raised in the Eichenberg appeal, is whether prohibiting unnamed “variants” amounts to an improper delegation of law-making power to the RCMP, whose technicians decide which specific models are variants and record them in the Firearms Reference Table.
The Supreme Court’s summaries also mention how courts should apply “intelligible standards” when a statute uses undefined terms with broad ordinary meanings. That points to the Court clarifying how much room a regulation-making power like this one actually gives Cabinet.
2. Do the regulations violate the Charter?
The Charter issues identified in the leave summaries are:
- Section 7 (life, liberty and security of the person). Because breaching the prohibition can lead to imprisonment, liberty is engaged. The question is whether the regulations accord with the principles of fundamental justice. The appellants say the term “variant” is unconstitutionally vague, and that the regulations are arbitrary and overbroad. Both lower courts rejected those arguments. The Court of Appeal noted that the threshold for vagueness is high and that the term “variant” gives enough guidance for legal debate.
- Section 8 (unreasonable search or seizure) and section 15 (equality), which the Generoux and Doherty summaries list among the issues. The lower courts rejected these arguments without extended analysis.
Some arguments made below, including those under sections 11 and 26 of the Charter and the Canadian Bill of Rights, do not appear in the Supreme Court’s issue summaries.
What Each Outcome Could Mean
This is where owners most want certainty, and where it is most important to be careful. The Court’s reasons will matter as much as its result.
If the appeals are dismissed
The May 2020 regulations stand, and the lower court decisions become the settled law on section 117.15(2). The firearms remain prohibited. Under the amended amnesty orders, the amnesty for the 2020, 2024 and 2025 prohibitions would end 90 days after the appeals are terminated. Owners who still hold covered firearms would have that window to deactivate, surrender or export them. Compensation through the federal program has already closed for anyone who did not declare by March 31, 2026. Our article on the amnesty extension explains what the amnesty covers in the meantime.
If the appeals are allowed
If the Court finds that Cabinet exceeded its authority or that the regulations breach the Charter, the practical effect would depend on the remedy. Possibilities include:
- striking down SOR/2020-96 in whole;
- striking down part of it, for example the “variants” language, while leaving the named models prohibited;
- reading down the regulations to a narrower scope; or
- suspending a declaration of invalidity for a period to allow the government to respond.
A ruling against the 2020 regulations would not automatically decide the validity of the December 2024 and March 2025 regulations, which are separate instruments made under the same power. It would, however, set out how section 117.15(2) must be read, and that reasoning would apply to them. The government could also respond with legislation. Parliament can change the Criminal Code in ways Cabinet alone cannot.
A split result
The Court could agree with the appellants on one issue and not another, for example upholding Cabinet’s authority but finding a problem with how variants are identified. That kind of outcome would need careful reading before anyone acts on it.
What This Means for You
- Nothing changes until the Court rules. The prohibition is in force and the amnesty conditions still apply.
- The decision sets the amnesty clock. Whatever the outcome, the amnesty orders end 90 days after the appeals are terminated.
- Read the reasons, not the headlines. The practical effect will depend on the remedy, and early media coverage often simplifies it.
- Keep your licence valid and your storage and transport compliant while you wait.
How Mor Fisher Can Help
Jaime Mor and Peter Kott handle the firm’s firearms work, including advice on the amnesty and compensation program, licensing matters, and criminal firearms charges. When the Supreme Court releases its decision, we will review the reasons and can advise owners on what the ruling means for their specific firearms, their licence and their timeline. Our prohibited firearms amnesty and buyback page explains how we approach these files.
If you want to understand where you stand before the Supreme Court rules, we can help. Contact Mor Fisher LLP at 705-721-6642 or through our contact page. We can review which regulation covers your firearms, whether your current arrangements fall within the amnesty, and what steps would be needed under each possible outcome.