Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Scope of warrantless inspection powers not decided due to absence of a live controversy; both sides accepted s. 102 as the only inspection authority.

• Central question was whether the Chief Firearms Officer (CFO) can attach conditions to shooting range approvals under s. 29 of the Firearms Act; the court held the CFO lacks that authority.

• Text, context, and purpose analysis showed no express power to condition approvals, and implied powers doctrine did not supply one.

• Persuasive authority from New Brunswick (Springfield Sports Club) supported the conclusion that conditional approvals are outside the CFO’s remit.

• The regulatory scheme provides alternative tools—particularly revocation for “good and sufficient reason”—making conditions unnecessary as a matter of practical necessity.

• Disposition favored the applicant, including a costs award of $7,500, underscoring the clear statutory limits on the CFO’s approval powers.

Background and parties
The dispute arose between a long-standing Toronto shooting club and the provincial firearms regulator. The non-profit club operates the last remaining range in the city and holds an approval issued under s. 29 of the Firearms Act. The regulator is the Chief Firearms Officer for Ontario, an official designated to administer the Act in the province.

Facts of the case
Following an inspection in 2024, the regulator issued a new approval that purported to add conditions. One condition required the closure of two of the range’s ten firing lanes for safety reasons; another stated the range could be inspected at the regulator’s discretion. The club brought an application seeking declarations that the regulator lacked authority to conduct warrantless inspections and to impose conditions on approvals.

Issues before the court
Two issues were placed before the court. First, whether the regulator had the power to conduct warrantless inspections of the club’s range. Second, whether the regulator could lawfully attach conditions to a shooting range approval under the Firearms Act and its Regulations.

Ruling on inspection powers
The court declined to rule on inspection powers because there was no live controversy requiring determination. Both parties agreed that s. 102 of the Firearms Act governs inspections of the range, and the club did not challenge the validity of that provision or any specific inspection in this proceeding.

Ruling on conditional approvals
The court held that the regulator has no authority to attach conditions to a shooting range approval. The Act’s s. 29 sets out approval and revocation powers, while the Regulations detail extensive safety and compliance obligations; neither text grants a power to condition approvals. The court rejected the argument that an implied power was “practically necessary,” emphasizing that Parliament elsewhere expressly authorized conditions on other instruments (e.g., licences and certain authorizations) but not on range approvals, signaling a deliberate choice. Persuasive support came from a New Brunswick appellate decision reaching the same conclusion. The statutory scheme’s availability of revocation for “good and sufficient reason” further demonstrated that conditional approvals were unnecessary to achieve public safety objectives.

Outcome and costs
The application was allowed. The court granted a declaration that the regulator lacks authority to impose conditions on a shooting range approval. As agreed by the parties, the applicant received costs fixed at $7,500. The reasons were heard on July 16, 2025 and released on August 25, 2025 by Justice S. Nakatsuru.