Bernard Letarte

The appellant challenged the appointment of a unilingual Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick as inconsistent with the province’s constitutional language guarantees.

The majority held that s. 16(2) of the Charter, interpreted purposively and in light of New Brunswick’s unique constitutional commitment to substantive linguistic equality, requires the holder of that unipersonal and highly symbolic office to be able to understand and communicate in both official languages when performing their functions.

The Court concluded that this requirement limits the exercise of the appointment power under s. 58 of the Constitution Act, 1867, but does not invalidate the office itself or amount to a constitutional amendment.

The appeal was allowed and a declaration issued, while the appointment and prior acts of the office holder were left undisturbed.

A three-judge dissent would have held that the Charter guarantees institutional rather than personal bilingualism and does not constitutionally mandate a bilingual appointee.

Air carriers challenged federal regulations providing standardized compensation to passengers for flight delays, cancellations, denial of boarding, and lost or damaged baggage, arguing the regulations conflicted with the exclusivity principle in Article 29 of the Montreal Convention as implemented by the Carriage by Air Act and were therefore ultra vires the Canadian Transportation Agency's regulation-making authority under the Canada Transportation Act.

The Supreme Court held that the exclusivity principle applies only to 'actions for damages' that share the characteristics of judicial proceedings seeking individualized compensation tied to injury caused by another.

Because the impugned regulations create a consumer protection scheme providing standardized statutory entitlements irrespective of harm actually suffered, they do not constitute 'actions for damages' and do not fall within Article 29's scope.

The Court also clarified that the Mohan framework governs admissibility of expert evidence on questions of international law.

Appeal dismissed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal was asked by reference whether the Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, S.C. 2019, c. 24, was ultra vires Parliament's jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal held the Act was valid except for ss. 21 and 22(3), which it found impermissibly altered Canada's constitutional architecture.

Both the Attorney General of Quebec and the Attorney General of Canada appealed.

The Supreme Court upheld the entire Act as constitutionally valid under s. 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, finding that its pith and substance — protecting the well-being of Indigenous children, youth and families by promoting culturally appropriate child and family services and advancing reconciliation — falls squarely within Parliament's jurisdiction over Indians and Lands reserved for the Indians.

The Court also held that ss. 21 and 22(3) do not alter the constitutional architecture: s. 21 is a valid anticipatory incorporation by reference provision, and s. 22(3) is a permissible legislative restatement of the doctrine of federal paramountcy.

The applicant, a judge facing complaints before the Inquiry Committee of the Canadian Judicial Council, sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Committee regarding preliminary matters.

The Attorney General of Canada moved to strike the application as premature.

The applicant brought a motion to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of a leave to appeal application before the Supreme Court of Canada regarding previous struck applications.

The Federal Court dismissed the motion for a stay and granted the motion to strike, concluding that the application for judicial review of the interlocutory decision was premature as it did not raise exceptional circumstances calling into question the rule of law.

The applicant, a federally appointed judge, sought a stay of an impending Canadian Judicial Council inquiry into his conduct pending the determination of several judicial review applications challenging the validity of the complaints process.

The Federal Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the underlying judicial review applications were premature because the administrative process was ongoing.

The Court held that the applicant failed to meet the three-part test for a stay, specifically noting that the issues were not serious as they were premature, and that the harm alleged was inherent to the disciplinary process and not irreparable.

The Director of Military Prosecutions applied for judicial review of a decision by the Deputy Chief Military Judge not to assign a replacement military judge to preside over the court martial of the Chief Military Judge following a recusal.

The Federal Court held that it had jurisdiction to review the decision and dismissed the application, finding that the decision not to assign another judge due to reasonable apprehension of bias and language constraints was reasonable.

The Canadian Maritime Workers Council brought a constitutional challenge against sections 509 and 510 of the Marine Transportation Security Regulations, alleging violations of sections 2(d), 7, and 15 of the Charter.

The provisions govern security clearances for port workers.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding it was bound by the Federal Court of Appeal's decision in Reference re Marine Transportation Security Regulations which addressed similar Charter arguments.

The applicant failed to establish a new legal issue or a fundamental shift in evidence to justify departing from stare decisis.

The section 15 claim was also rejected because the regulations distinguish based on degree of proximity rather than protected family or marital status.

The Court considered whether section 27 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act removes Crown immunity from discovery when the Crown is not a party.

It held that immunity can be displaced only by clear statutory language, and section 27 applies only to proceedings against the Crown.

Because neither the Crown nor the chief investigator was a party, the investigator could refuse discovery.

The appeal was allowed and the respondents’ discovery motion was dismissed with costs throughout.

This appeal addressed federal Crown civil liability for the Minister of Justice's handling of mercy applications after a wrongful conviction.

The Court held that the mercy power was a core policy function protected by qualified immunity, and liability required bad faith or serious recklessness rather than simple fault.

The appellant did not prove that ministers acted in bad faith or that any alleged review failures caused compensable loss.

The Court also rejected additional damages, punitive damages, and claimed extrajudicial fees tied to alleged abuse of process.

On an appeal concerning judicial appointment eligibility under s. 98 of the Constitution Act, 1867, the appellants challenged the interpretation adopted by the Quebec Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court held that the appellants failed to demonstrate any interpretive error in the lower court's analysis of s. 98.

Arguments relying on the prior reference regarding ss. 5 and 6 of the Supreme Court Act were rejected as inapplicable because the constitutional and statutory contexts differed.

The appeal was dismissed for essentially the reasons given by the Quebec Court of Appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision declaring s. 144 of the Act respecting industrial accidents and occupational diseases inoperative in relation to a requirement to pay issued under s. 126(4) of the Employment Insurance Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding a conflict of legislative purposes between the federal provision, which aims to recover overpayments summarily without regard to provincial exemptions, and the provincial provision exempting income replacement benefits from seizure.

The provincial provision was held to be constitutionally inoperative under the doctrine of federal paramountcy.

The appellant, a status Indian living part-time off-reserve, earned interest income on term deposits at a caisse populaire located on a reserve.

The Minister of National Revenue assessed the income and refused to apply the tax exemption under section 87 of the Indian Act.

Applying the connecting factors approach from Bastien Estate, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the interest income was situated on a reserve because the contract was entered into on a reserve with an institution carrying on business there, and the income was payable there.

The appeal was allowed, and the income was declared exempt from taxation.

The appellant, a status Indian, earned interest income on term deposits at a caisse populaire located on a reserve.

The Minister of National Revenue assessed the income as taxable, and the lower courts upheld the assessment on the basis that the caisse generated its revenues in the 'commercial mainstream' off the reserve.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, applying the connecting factors approach from Williams.

The Court held that the location of the debtor, the place of payment, the residence of the payee, and the source of the invested capital all pointed to the reserve.

The fact that the financial institution generated its revenues in the commercial mainstream was legally irrelevant to the location of the appellant's interest income.

The income was therefore exempt from taxation under section 87 of the Indian Act.

The Attorney General of Quebec appealed a decision dismissing its claim that the federal government was required to share in the costs of social services provided in schools and support services provided to persons with disabilities under the Canada Assistance Plan.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that social services in schools were not 'welfare services' because their primary object was to support the educational mission of schools, not to fight poverty.

Furthermore, the Court held that the federal government was already sharing the costs of support services for persons with disabilities requiring continuous assistance under the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977, which triggered the residual exception in the Canada Assistance Plan.

The appellant, a former member of the Canadian Forces, brought a class action against the Crown challenging the deduction of his disability pension from his long-term disability benefits.

The Crown argued the action should be stayed because the lawfulness of the deduction could only be challenged by judicial review.

Applying TeleZone, the Supreme Court held that the Federal Court has jurisdiction to entertain the action and declined to exercise its residual discretion to stay the proceedings, as the essential character of the claim was for alleged breaches of s. 15(1) of the Charter rather than a veiled application for judicial review.

During a labour dispute, veterinarians employed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) stopped working, halting meat inspections at Quebec slaughterhouses.

The CFIA subsequently ordered the uninspected meat destroyed.

The slaughterhouse operators sued the veterinarians and their union for damages in the Quebec Superior Court.

The defendants brought recourses in warranty against the CFIA.

The CFIA moved to dismiss, arguing the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction because its decision had not been quashed on judicial review by the Federal Court.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the CFIA's appeal, holding that judicial review is not a prerequisite for a civil action for damages against the federal Crown, and that a lawful administrative decision can still constitute a civil fault under Quebec law.

The appellant generic drug manufacturer sought damages against the federal Crown for losses incurred when Health Canada prohibited the sale of its drug.

The Crown successfully moved for summary judgment in the lower courts on the basis that the appellant was required to first invalidate the prohibition decision via judicial review.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, applying its companion decision in TeleZone.

The Court held that section 17 of the Federal Courts Act grants concurrent jurisdiction over claims for damages against the Crown, and nothing in the Act requires a plaintiff to successfully challenge the underlying administrative decision on judicial review before pursuing a tort action.

The appellant obtained import permits from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to import wheat.

The permits were revoked while the cargo was en route, and a new permit with different conditions was issued, causing the appellant to incur additional costs.

The appellant brought an action for damages in the Federal Court without first seeking judicial review of the licensing decisions.

The Crown successfully moved to strike the claim on the basis that judicial review was a prerequisite.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, applying its companion decision in TeleZone, holding that the Federal Court has concurrent jurisdiction over claims for damages against the Crown and that a prior successful judicial review application is not required.

The respondent, a prison inmate, spent over four years in solitary confinement.

He brought an action for damages in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the federal Crown and a prison warden, alleging arbitrary detention and cruel and unusual punishment contrary to the Charter.

The appellants argued that the claim was a collateral attack on the segregation orders and that the respondent must first seek judicial review in the Federal Court.

The Supreme Court of Canada, applying its concurrent decision in TeleZone, held that the Federal Courts Act does not grant the Federal Court exclusive jurisdiction over such damages claims, and the provincial superior court has jurisdiction to hear the action without prior judicial review.

The respondent, TeleZone Inc., brought an action for damages against the federal Crown in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice after its application for a telecommunications licence was rejected by Industry Canada.

The Attorney General of Canada challenged the jurisdiction of the Superior Court, arguing that based on the Grenier principle, the claim was a collateral attack on the Minister's decision and that TeleZone had to first seek judicial review in the Federal Court.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, overruling Grenier.

The Court held that the Federal Courts Act and the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act grant concurrent jurisdiction to provincial superior courts to hear damages claims against the federal Crown, and there is no requirement to first quash the underlying administrative decision via judicial review in the Federal Court.