Elizabeth Koudys

On a motion to strike a constitutional application challenging Ontario's funding of Roman Catholic and public schools to the exclusion of Jewish day schools and other independent faith-based schools, the court held it was not plain and obvious that the applicants could not satisfy the Bedford and Carter threshold for revisiting binding precedent.

The court found a reasonable prospect that changes in constitutional interpretation, state neutrality, international law, minority-rights jurisprudence, and the amendment adding s. 93A could fundamentally shift the parameters of the debate as against Ontario.

The claim against Canada was struck because education funding is a provincial matter, Canada had taken no impugned legislative action, and unincorporated treaty obligations were not directly enforceable against it in this proceeding.

The motion therefore succeeded only in part.

The applicants, unions representing safety-critical employees at Class 1 high-security nuclear sites, brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction staying the implementation of mandatory random and pre-placement drug and alcohol testing prescribed by a regulatory document (RegDoc) issued by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

The Federal Court applied the RJR-MacDonald tripartite test.

The Court found a serious issue to be tried regarding the legality and constitutionality of the testing, that the highly intrusive and non-consensual collection of bodily fluids constituted irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the applicants given the existing robust fitness-for-duty programs.

The motion for an interlocutory injunction was granted pending the final disposition of the application for judicial review.

The applicant, a former postsecondary student with disabilities, brought a Charter application challenging the constitutionality of the Canada Student Loans Program (CSLP) and the Ontario Student Assistance Program (OSAP).

The applicant argued that the 'time in study' structure of the programs disproportionately burdened students with disabilities, who often take longer to complete their studies and thus accrue more debt.

The court found that while the legislation establishing the CSLP did not violate s. 15(1) of the Charter, the operation and administration of the program infringed the applicant's equality rights by failing to redress the additional debt she accrued due to her disabilities.

The court held that this infringement was not justified under s. 1 of the Charter.

The court granted declaratory relief and ordered the return of monies paid by the applicant pursuant to the unconstitutional operation of the CSLP, but denied her request for Charter damages.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) not to establish a panel of scientists to review the continued registration of glyphosate products.

The PMRA concluded the applicants' Notice of Objection did not raise scientifically founded doubt about the validity of the evaluations.

The Federal Court found the PMRA's decision reasonable, holding that the applicants failed to present controlled, peer-reviewed studies contradicting the PMRA's conclusions.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.