Alexander M. Gay

This appeal concerned the constitutionality of section 12 of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, which limits parliamentary privilege, specifically freedom of speech and debate, for members of the Committee regarding the disclosure of classified information.

The application judge had declared section 12 ultra vires Parliament.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that Parliament possesses the plenary legislative authority under section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867 to define and limit its own privileges, including freedom of speech and debate, without requiring a constitutional amendment.

The court found that section 12 is intra vires the federal Parliament, emphasizing that Parliament can legislate to define the scope of its own powers and privileges, especially when members voluntarily accept such limits.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario addressed whether "termination of employment for any reason that does not relate to a breach of discipline or misconduct" in s. 236(3) of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act (FPSLRA) includes constructive dismissal.

The appellant, an undesignated separate agency, sought to dismiss the employee's constructive dismissal claim for lack of jurisdiction, arguing it should be resolved via grievance.

The Court affirmed the motion judge's decision, holding that constructive dismissal falls within the broad meaning of "termination for any reason" under s. 236(3), thereby preserving the employee's right to sue in court, as undesignated separate agency employees lack access to third-party adjudication for non-disciplinary terminations under the FPSLRA.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a law professor with expertise in constitutional law and national security, appealed a decision denying him public interest standing to challenge the constitutionality of section 12 of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act.

Section 12 prevents Parliamentary privilege from being invoked if a member of the Committee is prosecuted for disclosing protected information.

The application judge had denied standing without addressing the merits.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the application judge erred in principle by requiring factual context and diversity of viewpoints for a pure question of constitutional law regarding Parliament's competence to abridge Parliamentary privilege without constitutional amendment.

Senator Michael Duffy sued the Senate of Canada for over $7 million in damages, alleging his suspension and denial of expenses were politically motivated, unconstitutional, and violated his Charter rights, despite his acquittal on criminal charges.

The Senate moved to dismiss the action, asserting parliamentary privilege.

The court granted the Senate's motion, finding that the Senate's decisions regarding member discipline, internal affairs, proceedings, and freedom of speech were protected by parliamentary privilege and thus immune from judicial review.