Conflicting decision does not mean one that results from differing exercise of discretion

GENERAL

Conflicting decision does not mean one that results from differing exercise of discretion

Applicant women’s clinic sought leave to appeal from decision refusing interlocutory injunction restraining federal government from destroying data about unrestricted firearms contained in Firearms Registry, requiring federal government to allow access to all persons legally entitled to have access to registry and to continue employment of all staff to allow that to happen, and to continue to register all transfers of non-restricted firearms. On motion for leave to appeal, applicant limited its challenge to refusal to grant injunction preventing destruction of data. Leave to appeal refused. Quebec government’s success in obtaining interlocutory injunction requiring continuation of registry for unrestricted firearm did not amount to conflicting decision. Conflicting decision means decision which applies different principles, not decision that results from differing exercise of discretion. Quebec decision took place in context of division of powers analysis, where province asserted interest in data, and proposed to establish its own registry for unrestricted weapons. This is far different from subject challenge under ss. 7 and 15 of Charter. Motion judge concluded that application fell short in establishing that irreparable harm would result in event interlocutory injunction was not granted. Motion judge concluded that there was scant evidence that repeal of requirement to also register individual non-restricted firearms would have any effect on risk of violence towards women. He was entitled to consider this in assessing whether to grant injunction. Applicant’s interest in preservation of data also depended on this link. Motion judge made no errors in principle which would justify appellate intervention.
Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic v. Canada (Oct. 4, 2012, Ont. S.C.J. (Div. Ct.), Pardu J., File No. 457/12) Leave to appeal from 104 W.C.B. (2d) 398, 222 A.C.W.S. (3d) 67 was refused. 104 W.C.B. (2d) 996.