Attorney General of Canada

Three provincial appellants challenged the constitutionality of the federal Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, which established minimum national standards of greenhouse gas price stringency operating as a backstop to provincial pricing systems.

The courts below were divided, with the Saskatchewan and Ontario Courts of Appeal upholding the Act while the Alberta Court of Appeal struck it down.

A 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court held that the Act's pith and substance is the establishment of minimum national standards of greenhouse gas price stringency to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and that this matter falls within Parliament's jurisdiction under the national concern branch of the peace, order, and good government power.

The majority further held that the fuel and excess emissions charges are constitutionally valid regulatory charges rather than taxes.

The appeals by the Attorneys General of Saskatchewan and Ontario were dismissed and the appeal by the Attorney General of British Columbia was allowed, with Côté J. dissenting in part and Brown and Rowe JJ. fully dissenting.

An Indigenous rights-holder sought judicial review over the federal law-making process, alleging a duty to consult before introduction and enactment of omnibus environmental legislation that could affect Treaty 8 harvesting rights.

A majority held the reviewing court lacked jurisdiction under the Federal Courts Act because the impugned ministerial conduct was legislative in character and not reviewable as action of a federal board, commission, or tribunal.

The Court further held the duty to consult does not attach to the legislative process itself, given separation of powers, parliamentary sovereignty, and parliamentary privilege.

The appeal was dismissed, while leaving open that enacted legislation may still be challenged through constitutional and other established remedies where rights are adversely affected.

The appeal concerned a specific claim for compensation based on historic pre-emption of Indigenous village lands and alleged Crown breaches before and after Confederation.

The Court held that reasonableness review applied to the Tribunal’s validity decision and restored findings that fiduciary obligations were breached in relation to the village lands.

The majority concluded the Tribunal reasonably found both pre-Confederation and post-Confederation fiduciary breaches and reasonably interpreted the extended meaning of the Crown for statutory responsibility.

The appeal was allowed and the Tribunal’s validity decision was restored, with compensation issues left to the compensation stage.

The appellant challenged rectification orders that had rewritten corporate resolutions to avoid unintended tax consequences from unwinding a financing structure.

The Court held that rectification requires an antecedent agreement with definite and ascertainable terms that was incorrectly recorded in the instrument.

A generalized objective of tax neutrality, without a specific prior agreement on the term to be corrected, was insufficient.

Applying ordinary rectification principles in the tax context, the majority rejected retroactive correction of an agreement that had been accurately recorded but produced an unwelcome result.

The appeal was allowed, with a dissent that would have upheld rectification for implementation error.

In related pan-national class proceedings, the court considered whether supervisory superior court judges may sit together outside their home provinces to hear motions in implementing a settlement.

The court held that, where subject-matter and personal jurisdiction exist and no coercive powers are required, judges may exercise discretionary authority to sit extraprovincially if local law does not prohibit it.

The court concluded this authority is available under the relevant class proceedings statutes and, in any event, aligns with inherent jurisdiction principles.

The court rejected a mandatory video-link condition, while confirming that openness and practical access remain relevant discretionary considerations.

The appeals were allowed and the cross-appeal was dismissed.

The appeal concerned whether monetary penalties imposed under section 163.2 of the Income Tax Act engage section 11 Charter protections as criminal proceedings or true penal consequences.

The Court addressed whether it should exercise discretion to hear a constitutional issue despite missing notice in the lower courts once notice had been given in this Court.

The majority held the regime is administrative, aimed at compliance and deterrence, and does not impose true penal consequences.

The appellant was therefore not a person charged with an offence for section 11 purposes.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appeal concerned whether Charter damages may be claimed against the provincial Crown for wrongful prosecutorial non-disclosure without pleading malice.

The Court held that malice is not required, but imposed a stringent threshold requiring intentional withholding, actual or imputed knowledge of materiality and likely impairment of full answer and defence, a Charter breach, and causation of legally cognizable harm.

The reasons emphasized good-governance limits to prevent defensive prosecution practices and unmeritorious civil claims, while preserving remedies for serious constitutional violations.

The claimant was permitted to pursue an amended pleading for s. 24(1) damages based on the alleged disclosure failures leading to wrongful convictions and prolonged incarceration.

In two joined criminal appeals, the court considered whether mandatory minimum imprisonment terms in s. 95(2) of the Criminal Code for possession of loaded prohibited or restricted firearms violated s. 12 of the Charter.

The majority held that while the impugned minimums were not grossly disproportionate for the respondents themselves, they were grossly disproportionate in reasonably foreseeable licensing-type scenarios and therefore unconstitutional.

The infringement was not justified under s. 1, and the mandatory minimum provisions were declared of no force or effect.

The respondents' individual fit sentences were nevertheless upheld.

The Court dismissed Quebec’s appeal and held that Parliament could constitutionally require destruction of long-gun registry records under its criminal law power, while confirming Quebec had no legal entitlement to compel transfer of the data.

The Court allowed the appeal and held that the labour relations regime imposed on RCMP members infringed freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter.

It found the scheme lacked sufficient employee choice and independence for meaningful collective bargaining, and that excluding RCMP members from the statutory federal regime also infringed s. 2(d).

The infringements were not justified under s. 1, and invalidity of the offending statutory exclusion was suspended for 12 months.

The appellant sought to block disclosure of portions of drug submission records requested under federal access to information legislation.

The Court clarified notice obligations, severance duties, and the evidentiary burden on a third party resisting disclosure under statutory exemptions for trade secrets, confidential information, and probable harm.

The majority held that the third party had not proven that the remaining redacted material met the claimed exemptions on the record.

The Court affirmed that appellate intervention was available where the reviewing judge did not adequately apply governing legal principles to the evidence.

The appeals were dismissed and disclosure orders stood, subject to redactions already accepted.