EDITOR’S NOTE: This article originally appeared on The Trillium, a new Village Media website devoted exclusively to covering provincial politics at Queen’s Park.
If someone is in a bar fight at 18, should that prevent them from getting a gun licence decades later?
What if the violence in their past was against a spouse? And what if it was more recent?
The Trillium spoke with politicians and gun-control advocates about the discretion police have in Ontario to grant gun licences, prompted by government records we obtained about the decision to grant a licence to Jeremy Pearson, who killed his ex-girlfriend and then himself in 2013.
Their views were mixed, but they all called on the provincial government to stop blocking the release of information on gun licences that could help shed light on how the process works, and why it sometimes fails.
The government was forced to release records to The Trillium under a freedom-of-information (FOI) request after an order by the Information and Privacy Commissioner this past fall.
They showed that, despite a criminal record stemming from a kidnapping, he was issued a gun licence in 2005. In 2009, his licence was renewed even though he was facing a new charge after he was accused of stealing jewellery from someone he was privately buying firearms from, a later coroner’s investigation said.
The Trillium has since filed FOI requests for the firearms licence files for four further people, involved in similar, but more recent cases: all are dead, all killed others, and all are believed to have been issued gun licences, based on publicly available information about them.
The province is fighting the request. The opposition politicians and gun control advocates we spoke with called on the province to release the records to shed light on the licensing process.
"Being able to have these records hidden ... I think that's really wrong," said Liberal MPP Karen McCrimmon, who served in the Canadian military for 31 years.
"We need to learn from our past mistakes, and if we don't, if we hide them, all it means is that the mistakes are going to be repeated and more people are going to be harmed, so and I think that kind of transparency is absolutely essential, and it should not take a Freedom of Information (request) to get that kind of information," she said.
A.J. Somerset, a firearms expert who wrote "Arms: The Culture and Credo of the Gun" and a former reservist, said generally government documents should be public "unless there's a compelling reason for them not to ... because it might reveal investigative techniques."
But possible police mistakes should be open to scrutiny, he said.
"There's this overriding concern that these are instances where the police clearly screwed up, and by citing there are compelling reasons not to release the documents, what the police are really doing is protecting themselves from scrutiny," said Somerset, a licensed gun owner based in Windsor.
The Pearson case is one "where the police applied their judgment rather incorrectly and allowed somebody who had a history of violence to have a firearms licence," he said. "These things are supposed to be disqualifying, but really they just raise warning flags and result in a deeper investigation."
NDP MPP John Vanthof, who hails from the rural riding of Timiskaming-Cochrane, said he wants to see a system that is "as strong as possible" so licensed gun owners like himself can continue to own and use firearms.
The MPP said while there's a "very fine line" between using information to safeguard people and "voyeurism," he disagrees with blocking access to information entirely.
"Given the cases that we've seen, I'm concerned that the government isn't more forthcoming with the information," said Vanthof. "If someone who has a history of violence, someone who in the one case is just coming off probation from a violent act, there is a big question mark whether or not that person should be able to purchase a firearm and the fact that that person was able to shows that there might be a flaw or there is a flaw in the system and the only way you can figure out how to improve the flaw is ... to be open and transparent of what happened."
Heidi Rathjen, a survivor of the Polytechnique massacre and co-ordinator of PolySeSouvient, said she thought it was "scandalous" that the documents were kept from the public for all these years.
"Why wouldn't these things be made public? If this system allowed somebody to have a gun and they used it to kill somebody, we need to find out what happened," said Rathjen, "How do you improve the system if you don't know why ... what the rationale was to allow such an individual to have a gun and how would you prevent the next one?"
She said often police are "silent" on whether a perpetrator had a gun licence. If the individual is alive, that information could become public in court years later, but sometimes that remains a mystery when the person has died, Rathjen noted.
It's been reported that the killers had licences in three of the four cases for which the government has refused to hand over licensing documents. It's unclear in the fourth case involving Christopher Doncaster, who killed two police officers and himself in Innisfil in 2022.
McCrimmon, the MPP for Kanata—Carleton who is a licensed gun owner, said information about these cases is important as it shows "sometimes people who do own firearms legally do bad things with them," countering the narrative from the pro-gun lobby.
Hunter Kell, press secretary for Solicitor General Michael Kerzner, said in response to questions about the government denying access to the documents that "it would be inappropriate to publicly provide information regarding individual freedom of information applications" and that the decision can be appealed.
On the Pearson case, Kell said licensing is a "multi-prong approach guided by the principles laid out in the Firearms Act," but added that it was "not appropriate for the ministry to publicly address an individual case."
McCrimmon said cases like Pearson's have brought into question whether the amount of discretion the provincial chief firearms officer (CFO) — who oversees the gun control system in Ontario and can grant, revoke or refuse a gun licence — and individual police officers have is appropriate.
An OPP officer approved Pearson's licence application in February 2005 after interviewing him. This followed the end of his probation in May of the previous year and a fight he was involved in outside a bar in August 2004.
An in-person interview is not required for all licence approvals.
"I have a very strong commitment to the idea that ... it's a privilege to own a firearm and that the standards that one would need to be given that privilege should be as high as possible," said McCrimmon, adding that she thinks any history of violence, or threat of violence, should be a red flag. "Some people do need a firearm, that's how they feed their family, I get it, out in rural areas and out in the wilderness, but for the rest of us, you don't need a firearm."
McCrimmon said the first response to a licensing application in instances that involve a history of violence should be "no."
"I think that should never be allowed on the first go," she said, though she added that there should be a legislated appeal process, which could be done by the province.
"You'll have to pay the money to appeal it, it'll have to be full disclosure, and then it'll have to be more than one person saying, 'yes, this is acceptable,'" she said.
McCrimmon acknowledged that a system which falls under shared jurisdiction can be challenging to manoeuvre, but she thinks the province can "designate the amount of discretion that the CFOs have."
The CFO did not respond to a request for an interview before publication.
Currently, the federal Firearms Act notes under section 5 on eligibility that the CFO "shall have regard to whether the person" has been convicted or discharged of "an offence in the commission of which violence against another person was used, threatened or attempted" or criminal harassment among other offences, has a history of violence or has been treated for mental illness in an institutional setting "and whether or not the person was confined to such a hospital, institute or clinic, that was associated with violence or threatened or attempted violence."
A spokesperson for the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) outlined the general licensing process, noting there are more than 30 eligibility criteria built into the Canadian Firearms Information System (CFIS) and that licence applications are "approved through an automated process" if an individual meets all the criteria.
Ongoing eligibility for these individuals is reviewed if someone contacts the CFO with a concern about a licence holder or a "trigger mechanism" through law enforcement, the OPP stated.
The applications of those who don't meet one of the eligibility criteria would then be sent to the CFO "for an investigative review."
"In determining the eligibility of an applicant, the Firearms Officer is governed by the principles laid out in section 5 of the (Firearms Act)," the OPP said, adding that before July 2021 and passage of the federal government's Bill C-71," eligibility consideration was required and limited to the previous five years."
"Prior to July 2021, a history of violence outside of the previous five years was not captured and therefore would not automatically trigger a 'flag,'" the OPP noted.
The process to get a firearms includes taking a firearms safety course, an application that includes criminal record information, the names and addresses of conjugal partners and references and a waiting period, noted Somerset.
But an in-person interview isn't automatically part of the process "unless the police decide they want one, but ... that's very rare," he added.
Vanthof said it's hard to say whether or not police officers have too much discretion when it comes to approving gun licences.
In the Pearson case, "something went wrong," he said, noting the details aren't known in the other four cases so it's difficult to give "a blanket yes or no."
But he said he thinks crimes where someone intentionally physically harms another should preclude them from having a gun licence, but for changes to be made to the system, specific "failures" need to be known, which goes back to the issue of disclosing information.
He said though the current system is "strong," people need to trust that individuals with guns have gone through a proper process "to ensure that they are qualified and safe to use them, and when the government blocks release of information that doesn't add to that feeling of safety."
Meanwhile, Rathjen said one of the flaws of the gun licensing system is "there is just too much discretion."
"That discretion contributes to people who shouldn't have guns getting access to guns being allowed to keep their license, to keep their guns when there are many, many factors that would justify removal of the guns," she said.
But she said some discretion is needed and that she doesn't think a history of violence should automatically preclude someone from getting a licence.
"There are some cases where it looks bad on paper, but in reality, it wouldn't be justified, and I mean, that's the reason why this is so complex, because it's hard to draw a line in terms of behaviour and risk factors," she said. "There needs to be some level of assessment of the risks."
Somerset and Vanthof agreed.
"The obvious and easy answer is to say, 'well, no, nobody with a history of violence should be allowed to have a firearms license,' but then in practice, if you started looking at some of the scenarios that could come up, then that might seem unjust," said Somerset.
He gave the example of an 18-year-old who gets in a fight at a bar and is convicted of simple assault and then has a clean record for 22 years and applies for a licence at the age of 40.
"In those kinds of situations, it might be unjust," he said, adding that offences more serious than simple assault should be "disqualifying" when it comes to licensing.
Somerset said there should be some police discretion.
"The problem is that that's a human judgment and human judgments are imperfect," he said, adding that he thinks the province could provide "firmer guidelines for that discretion in certain areas."
For instance, with domestic violence convictions, the guidelines could state that a person is only eligible for a firearms licence after the expiration of their prohibition order "if certain overriding circumstances existed," Somerset said.
The Trillium reached out to Minister Kerzner's office with several questions about whether the province was considering limiting police discretion, or if there are crimes that should preclude individuals from getting a licence.
"Violence in all forms is unacceptable in Ontario. We are working with policing and community partners to provide them with the tools, training and resources they need to keep Ontario communities safe and resilient. Our government remains open to options to further than important work," said Kell in response.
Retired OPP staff sergeant Doug Carlson, who ran northwestern Ontario’s gun control system for about years, described his approach to licensing as "aggressive," saying he would revoke or refuse licences for around 100 people each year.
For example, Carlson said he would revoke a person's licence for a few years if they made threats during a nasty separation, even if there was no conviction.
Generally, he said he thinks the "system works quite well."
"The reason I'll say that is because you don't hear too many screw-ups," Carlson said. "That would be pretty obvious about people getting firearms, or getting licences that shouldn't have. Now are they getting firearms when they shouldn't have? Yes, one of the biggest reasons is because we no longer have a registry."
He was referring to the former Stephen Harper government's decision to scrap the long-gun registry, which covered non-restricted firearms like rifles and shotguns. Other categories include restricted and prohibited firearms.
Rathjen pointed to federal legislation, which has improved in the past few years. That includes is Bill C-71, which means incidents more than five years prior can now trigger a “flag” in the licensing process.
But she also outlined what she considers to be flaws, such as the consideration of mental illness related to violence — something she thinks should be expanded.
"There's lots of mental illness that isn't necessarily associated with violence, which could constitute a reasonable justification for somebody not to own guns, like drug abuse or alcohol or dementia," she said.
Another step forward, she said, is Bill C-21, federal legislation that passed in December and includes the revocation of a licence and removal of guns for individuals subject to a protection order, which includes restraining orders.
-With files from Patrick Cain
