Holland v. Canada (Attorney General), (2000) 188 F.T.R. 305 (TD)

• Judge: MacKay, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 12, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2000), 188 F.T.R. 305 (TD)

Holland v. Can. (A.G.) (2000), 188 F.T.R. 305 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] F.T.R. TBEd. SE.027

Barry Paul Holland (applicant) v. The Attorney General of Canada (respondent)

(T-908-98)

Indexed As: Holland v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

MacKay, J.

September 1, 2000.

Summary:

The Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police refused Holland's application for a registration permit to carry a restricted weapon (Criminal Code, ss. 110(1) and 110(2)). Holland applied to set aside the decision and for an order in the nature of mandamus directing that the permit be issued.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the application.

Administrative Law - Topic 262

The hearing and decision - Right to a hearing - When right exists - Holland, a security consultant at an abortion clinic, applied for a registration permit to carry a restricted weapon under s. 110 of the Criminal Code - The Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police refused the application - Holland applied for judicial review, arguing that the Commissioner erred in failing to give Holland an opportunity to make oral submissions - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, rejected Holland's argument, holding that the Commissioner did not err in law or deny procedural fairness to Holland by denying the oral hearing - See paragraphs 26 and 27.

Administrative Law - Topic 8264

Administrative powers - Discretionary powers - Fettering of discretion - Holland, a security consultant at an abortion clinic, applied for a registration permit to carry a restricted weapon under s. 110 of the Criminal Code - The Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police refused the application - Holland applied for judicial review, arguing that the Commissioner fettered his discretion by adopting a policy that permits to carry would rarely be issued and by deferring to the positions taken by the firearms unit of the Edmonton Police Service and the Chief Provincial Firearms Officer - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, rejected Holland's argument, holding that the Commissioner had not fettered his discretion - See paragraphs 17 to 23.

Courts - Topic 2286

Jurisdiction - Bars - Academic matters or moot issues - Holland, a security consultant at an abortion clinic, applied for a registration permit to carry a restricted weapon under s. 110 of the Criminal Code, but was refused - Holland applied for judicial review - The Crown argued that a discretionary remedy should not be granted because the issue was moot since the legislation under which the decision in question was made was repealed and replaced by the Firearms Act - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that it would determine the merits of the case - The court noted that the permit sought continued to be provided for under the new legislation, albeit by a different procedure - The court noted that if it found that the impugned decision ought to be set aside, the court would direct appropriate procedures for reconsideration of the application - See paragraphs 1 to 16.

Criminal Law - Topic 1445.1

Firearms - Restricted weapon certificate - [See Administrative Law - Topic 262 , Administrative Law - Topic 8264 , and Courts - Topic 2286 ].

Cases Noticed:

Abell v. Commissioner of Royal Canadian Mounted Police - see R. v. Abell.

R. Abell (1979), 3 Sask.R. 181; 49 C.C.C.(2d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9, footnote 5].

Turenko v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police Commissioner, [1985] 1 F.C. 669; 55 N.R. 314 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 11, footnote 6].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 27, footnote 8].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 110(1), sect. 110(2) [para. 10].

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, sect. 43(c), sect. 43(e) [para. 8].

Firearms Act, S.C. 1995, c. 39, sect. 129 [para. 14].

Counsel:

Rod J.A. Gregory, for the applicant;

Don Tomkins, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Davidson and Gregory, Edmonton, Alberta, for the applicant;

Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard on January 12, 2000, at Edmonton, Alberta, by MacKay, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on September 1, 2000.