The Applicants sought reconsideration of the decision in Canada (Attorney General) v Smykot, 2023 ABCA 131, decided April 20, 2023, which concerned the legal status of their firearms. The reconsideration Applications were brought under Rules 14.46 and 14.72. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Applications.

Rule 14.46 stipulates that in order for the Court of Appeal to reconsider its previous decisions, the Applicant must file and serve its Application for reconsideration, and have it returned before the filing of, and prior to the deadline for filing, the Applicant’s Factum. Parties who fail to obtain permission under Rule 14.46 are barred from arguing reconsideration by Rule 14.72.

The Court of Appeal noted that predictability and stability are important values in the legal system, and the Court is bound by its previous decisions. In determining whether to overturn its precedents, the Court of Appeal weighs and considers several criteria. The Court analyzed five factors.

First, it noted the recency of the precedent. Smykot was one year old and absent a patent error or a reason to doubt the precedent’s correctness, reconsideration would have undermined the stability of the law.

Second, it asked whether the precedent disapproved or was contrary to decisions from other Courts of appeal. Smykot determined that the standard form letters sent to firearm owners were not license revocations and thus could not be reviewed under the Firearms Act. Smykot was followed once by the Ontario Court of Appeal and called into question by the Federal Court. The Federal Court decision, however, did not determine whether the standard form letters triggered a right of review.

Third, it asked whether the precedent overlooked binding statute or authority. Here, the Court of Appeal noted that Smykot did not opine on the Court of Justice’s jurisdiction to decide Firearm Act appeals, and thus did not overlook binding authority.

Fourth, the Court of Appeal asked whether the precedent created settled expectations. Given the recency of the decision, it was likely that Smykot did not create settled expectations.

Fifth, whether the precedent arose from Reasons for Judgment Reserved or a Memorandum of Judgment. Smykot came from a reserved Judgment.

After considering the five factors and determining that Smykot had not been decided on a deficient record, the Court of Appeal dismissed the reconsideration applications.