Victims of the Danforth Ave. shooting have filed a $150-million lawsuit against the manufacturer of the stolen weapon used by the lone gunman Faisal Hussain, who killed two people and injured 13 others during the July 22, 2018 attack.

In a statement of claim from the proposed class action served on Monday, six representative plaintiffs claimed the Massachusetts-based Smith & Wesson Corp. was negligent in the design and manufacture of the M&P (Military and Police) 40 series, a .40-calibre semi-automatic pistol, failing to install the “smart gun technology” that would allow the weapon to fire only when activiated by an authorized user.

“(The) Defendant breached its duty to the Class because it was aware, long before making the Handgun available for sale in Canada, that handguns designed and manufactured without smart gun technology were: deficient; unsafe; inherently and unnecessarily dangerous; and a significant risk to members of the public,” said the statement of claim filed by Samantha Price, Skye McLeod, Kenneth Price, Claire Smith, Patrick McLeod and Jane McLeod.

Representatives of Smith & Wesson could not be reached for comment Monday night. The allegations in the statement of claim have not been tested in court. The class action has not be certified.

The plaintiffs asked the court to certify three classes: persons shot and injured or killed; other injuried persons; and family members.

Samantha Price, then 18, daughter of Kenneth Price and Clare Smith, survived a bullet wound to the hip while celebrating her birthday near the scene. Skye McLeod, then also 18, was injured while fleeing the gunman. Patrick and Jane McLeod are Skye’s parents.

Patrick McLeod said victims have formed the group Danforth Families for Safe Communities to advocate to get handguns off the street and were referred this summer through a mutual contact to the Bay St. law firm Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP.

“The way they presented (the argument) to us made a lot of sense,” McLeod, a retired Toronto Police officer, told the Star in an interview Monday night. “If there’s smart gun technology installed, that incident would not have occurred.”

According to the claim, Smith & Wesson told the United States government it would incorporate smart gun technology in new firearms designs by March 2003.

In 2005, President George W. Bush signed a law to protect firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products, according to American media reports.

That same year, the company launched the M&P 40 series without the use of safety technology and this particular model was sold in Canada in 2013, said the plaintiffs.

The lawsuit says smart handguns have one or more systems that include biometric technologies like fingerprint or palm-print recogntion, dynamic grip recognition, electronic signature authentication, vascular biometrics and voice identification; automated identification technologies like radio-frequency identification, proximity tokens or magnetic rings to allow the weapon to fire only when activated by an authorized person.

On July 22, 2018, around 10 p.m., gunman Hussain walked along Danforth Avenue in the Greektown, shooting pedestrians before opening fire on crowded restaurants, killing 18-year-old Reese Fallon and 10-year-old Julianna Kozis, injuring dozens of others who were fleeing from the shooter.

Hussain, 29, fatally shot himself in the right temple in front of the Danforth Church with the Smith & Wesson .40 calibre handgun he used in the attack — a weapon police have since said was reported stolen in 2016 after being legally acquired by a Saskatchewan gun shop.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Citing Statistics Canada data, the plaintiffs said the rate of gun thefts in “break and enter” crimes had more than tripled between 2009 and 2017, with 309 incidents reported in 2009 and 1,175 thefts in 2017. Firearm related violent crime in Canada rose by 42 per cent between 2013 and 2017, when 145 homicides were committeed in Canada with handguns, the lawsuit said.

“(The) Defendant should be condemned to pay punitive damages for its callous disregard of the safety and security of ordinary Canadians harmed by Defendant’s ultra-hazardous products,” said their statement of claim.

Clarification - Dec. 17, 2019: This article was edited from a previous version to make clear the six representative plaintiffs were referred this summer through a mutual contact to the Bay St. law firm Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP.

Nicholas Keung is a Toronto-based reporter covering immigration. Follow him on Twitter: @nkeung