The legal battle over Canada’s controversial firearm prohibition and buyback program is entering its most significant stage yet. On November 9, 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada is scheduled to hear appeals challenging the federal government’s 2020 Order in Council (OIC) that prohibited thousands of models and variants of firearms classified by Ottawa as “assault-style” firearms. The outcome could determine not only the future of the buyback program but also the limits of federal authority to prohibit firearms through regulation rather than legislation.
Regardless of where Canadians stand on firearm ownership, the Court’s decision is expected to have lasting implications for firearm regulation, property rights, and the government’s ability to implement major public policy changes through Orders in Council.
How We Got Here
On May 1, 2020, the federal government introduced an Order in Council prohibiting approximately 1,500 models and variants of firearms. Since then, additional firearms have been added to the prohibited list through later regulatory changes.
The government argued these firearms were designed primarily for military use and should not be available for civilian ownership. Firearm advocacy organizations, hunters, sport shooters, collectors, and several provincial governments challenged the decision, arguing many of the affected firearms had been legally owned and safely used for decades.
What Is the Buyback Program?
The federal government’s compensation program allows eligible owners of prohibited firearms to surrender qualifying firearms in exchange for financial compensation.
The program generally includes:
- Compensation for eligible prohibited firearms.
- Collection or deactivation options.
- Separate processes for businesses and individual owners.
- Mandatory disposal of prohibited firearms after the amnesty period ends.
The declaration period for individuals has already closed, and collection and compensation activities are underway.
Why Is the Supreme Court Hearing the Case?
The Supreme Court is not deciding whether guns are “good” or “bad.”
Instead, the Court will examine legal questions such as:
Did the Federal Government Exceed Its Authority?
One of the central arguments is whether Cabinet had the legal authority to prohibit such a large class of firearms through an Order in Council under the Criminal Code and Firearms Act, rather than through legislation passed by Parliament.
Opponents argue the government effectively rewrote firearm classifications without proper parliamentary debate.
The federal government argues existing legislation gives Cabinet this regulatory authority.
Was the Classification Reasonable?
Another issue is whether the prohibited firearms meet the statutory definition intended by Parliament.
Many affected firearms had previously been classified as non-restricted or restricted and were legally owned by licensed Canadians.
The Court will consider whether the government’s interpretation of the law was reasonable.
Administrative Law
The case also raises broader questions about how courts should review decisions made by Cabinet.
Rather than determining firearm policy itself, the Court will examine whether the government’s decision-making process complied with Canadian administrative law principles.
Who Is Challenging the Ban?
Several firearm organizations and individual owners are involved in the appeals.
Numerous organizations have also sought intervener status, representing a wide range of perspectives, including firearm owners, public safety advocates, civil liberties organizations, sport shooting groups, and taxpayer organizations.
What Happens if the Government Wins?
If the Supreme Court upholds the federal government’s position:
- The prohibition remains in force.
- The buyback program continues.
- The extended amnesty eventually expires after the Court issues its decision.
- Remaining prohibited firearms would need to be surrendered, deactivated, exported where lawful, or otherwise disposed of according to federal requirements.
What Happens if the Challengers Win?
If the Court rules against the government, several outcomes are possible.
The Court could:
- Strike down all or part of the Order in Council.
- Require the government to reconsider its regulations.
- Clarify the limits of Cabinet’s regulatory powers.
- Suspend the effect of its decision temporarily to allow Parliament time to respond.
Because Supreme Court decisions often include nuanced reasoning, the result may not be a simple “win” or “lose.”
Why Has the Amnesty Been Extended?
Originally, owners were expected to comply within earlier deadlines.
However, after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal, the federal government extended the amnesty until 90 days after the Court releases its decision. This allows owners to avoid being penalized while the legality of the prohibition is under judicial review.
The Broader Debate
The case reflects a broader national debate about public safety and firearm regulation.
Supporters of the prohibition argue:
- It removes firearms they consider unsuitable for civilian ownership.
- It is part of a broader strategy to reduce gun violence.
- The government has a responsibility to regulate firearms in the interest of public safety.
Critics argue:
- Licensed firearm owners are already among the most highly screened citizens in Canada.
- Criminals primarily obtain firearms through illegal trafficking rather than lawful ownership.
- The buyback program is expensive and may have limited impact on violent crime.
- Hunters, farmers, sport shooters, and collectors are disproportionately affected.
These competing perspectives are part of the public policy debate, while the Supreme Court’s role is to determine the legality of the government’s actions—not to decide which policy is preferable.
Why This Decision Matters Beyond Firearms
Legal experts note the Court’s decision could influence future governments in areas beyond firearms.
It may clarify:
- The limits of federal regulatory power.
- When Cabinet can make significant policy changes through regulation.
- How courts review major executive decisions.
- The relationship between Parliament and the executive branch.
For that reason, constitutional scholars, administrative law experts, governments, advocacy organizations, and firearm owners are all watching the case closely.
Looking Ahead
The appeal is scheduled to be heard on November 9, 2026, with several interveners expected to participate. A written decision will likely follow months later. Until then, the federal government has extended the amnesty period and paused enforcement deadlines tied to the buyback program.
Whatever the outcome, the Supreme Court’s ruling is expected to become one of the most significant firearms law decisions in Canadian history, shaping not only firearm policy but also the scope of executive authority in Canada for years to come.
Sources
- Supreme Court of Canada – Appeal Docket and Hearing Schedule
- Government of Canada – Assault-Style Firearms Compensation Program
- Government of Canada – Amnesty Extension Announcement
- The Canadian Press – Supreme Court to Hear Firearms Ban Challenge
- Public Safety Canada – Firearms Buyback Program
This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Court proceedings remain ongoing, and the final outcome will depend on the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision.
Leave a Reply