A Canadian military security officer has filed a lawsuit against the federal government and American gunmaker SIG Sauer after an injury from an alleged unintentional discharge from a service pistol.
The incident involved Master Warrant Officer Jamie Deslaurier, who wounded his foot after his C22 sidearm, Canada’s version of the P320, fired while still in the holster during training in April 2024 at a range in Borden, Ontario.
Deslaurier is seeking 3 million Canadian dollars ($2.1 million) from Ottawa and 4 million dollars ($2.9 million) from the arms manufacturer, claiming the weapon is defective and citing officials moving ahead with its adoption despite known safety concerns, according to CBC News.
“I was extremely angry with the fact that we procured this weapon and it’s been employed in the Canadian Forces,” he told the outlet.
Court filings allege investigators mishandled evidence at the scene, limiting production of a finalized conclusion.
Separately, a technical review cited possible “user error,” a finding disputed by Deslaurier’s lawyer, Lane Foster, saying key evidence was not preserved.
“They were unable to conclusively determine what happened,” Foster said, adding his client was “the most skilled with weapons handling.”
Foster noted that his client wants the pistol recalled or modified. “Something needs to happen there,” he said.
The case marks the second reported incident involving the C22 system in Canadian service, following a 2020 shooting involving a special forces soldier, which prompted a temporary pause in its rollout.
Defending Reliability
Sources said that SIG Sauer did not respond to a request for comment regarding Deslaurier’s case.
However, the company and its Victoria-based segment MD Charlton have repeatedly maintained in online forums that the P320 “cannot, under any circumstances, discharge without a trigger pull.”
SIG Sauer also claimed the allegations were driven by competitors seeking to damage the weapon’s reputation ahead of a Canadian government tender to replace the military’s handguns.
That assertion proved unfounded, and the company ultimately won the federal contract.
Canada’s Department of National Defence also declined to comment on the matter, citing ongoing litigation.
