Alberta Court of Appeal reference

On September 26, 1996, the government of Alberta under Premier Ralph Klein submitted a reference question to the Alberta Court of Appeal under section 27 of the Judiciary Act. The Court was asked to determine whether the Firearms Act was in relation to matters under the jurisdiction of the federal government.^{[c 1]} The government posed four questions to the Court:

1. Do the licensing provisions, insofar as they relate to an ordinary firearm, constitute an infringement of the jurisdiction of the Legislature of Alberta with respect to the regulation of property and civil rights pursuant to section 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867?
2. If the answer to the question posed in subsection (1) is “yes”, are the licensing provisions ultra vires the Parliament of Canada insofar as they regulate the possession or ownership of an ordinary firearm?
3. Do the registration provisions, as they relate to an ordinary firearm, constitute an infringement of the jurisdiction of the Legislature of Alberta with respect to the regulation of property and civil rights pursuant to section 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867?
4. If the answer to the question posed in subsection (1) is “yes”, are the registration provisions ultra vires the Parliament of Canada insofar as they require registration of an ordinary firearm?^{[c 2]}

The governments of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, the Northwest Territories, Yukon, and national pro gun organizations intervened arguing the provisions were ultra vires of Parliament. The government of Ontario intervened arguing only the registration was ultra vires of Parliament.^[2] Two organizations, the Alberta Council of Women's Shelters and the Coalition for Gun Control intervened in support of the Firearms Act.^[2]

The Alberta Court of Appeal upheld the constitutional validity of the Firearms Act, with Chief Justice Catherine Fraser, Justice Mary M. Hetherington and Justice Ronald Berger writing three separate reasons approving the legislation.^[2] Justices Carole Conrad and Howard Lawrence Irving wrote separate dissents.^[3]

The government of Alberta argued the law was in relation to personal property and thus was a matter in the jurisdiction of the province. However, the federal government argued the law was in the realm of criminal law, which is under federal jurisdiction.