Case information

Administrative law — Boards and tribunals — Canadian International Trade Tribunal —Jurisdiction — Appeals — Judicial review — Standard of review — Applicant seeking to import airsoft pistol — Canada Border Services Agency determining that pistol met Criminal Code definition of replica firearm and that importation was prohibited on that basis — Whether Court of Appeal erring by applying reasonableness standard to Tribunal’s unjustified exclusion of relevant evidence, thereby failing to properly assess procedural fairness breach — Whether Tribunal exceeding jurisdiction by making determinations grounded in criminal law — Whether Court of Appeal erring in upholding classification of pistol as “replica firearm” without properly assessing its adaptability to discharge a projectile at a velocity sufficient to constitute a “firearm” under the Criminal Code — Whether applicant deprived of meaningful opportunity to respond — Whether Tribunal’s conduct gave rise to reasonable apprehension of bias — Whether Court of Appeal erring in upholding Tribunal’s refusal to consider expert evidence on the basis that the tested device was not the exact physical unit, despite undisputed evidence that the test device was assembled from identical parts bearing the same manufacturer part numbers as the good in issue

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Applicant James B. Byrne attempted to import an airsoft pistol into Canada. The Canada Border Services Agency detained the pistol on the basis that it met the definition of a replica firearm under s. 84(1) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46 and was therefore a prohibited device per tariff item 9898.00.00 of the schedule to the Customs Tariff, S.C. 1997, c. 36.

The Canadian International Trade Tribunal dismissed Mr. Byrne’s appeal. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Byrne’s application for judicial review.