3 total
Judicial review of Canada Summer Jobs Attestation requirement dismissed; proportionate balancing of Charter rights found.
The applicants sought judicial review of the Minister's decision to require an Attestation for the 2018 Canada Summer Jobs program, which required applicants to attest that their core mandate respects individual human rights, including reproductive rights.
The right-to-life organization refused to sign and its funding application was rejected.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the Attestation was intra vires the Department of Employment and Social Development Act and was not made in bad faith or with a closed mind.
While the Attestation minimally engaged freedom of religion and expression, it reflected a proportionate balancing with the statutory objective of ensuring an inclusive labour market and protecting human rights.
Rule 317 of the Federal Courts Rules applies to section 44 ATIA de novo reviews.
The applicants appealed a prothonotary's order dismissing their motion for production of documents under Rule 317 of the Federal Courts Rules in the context of an application under section 44 of the Access to Information Act (ATIA).
The prothonotary had ruled that Rule 317 does not apply to de novo reviews under section 44.
The Federal Court allowed the appeal, concluding that a section 44 review is a judicial review of the institutional head's decision to disclose records, and therefore Rule 317 applies.
The Court referred the matter back to the prothonotary to determine outstanding issues of timeliness and overbreadth.
CRA does not need judicial authorization to obtain donor identities during a legitimate charity audit.
The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) audited the Redeemer Foundation, a registered charity, regarding its forgivable loan program.
The CRA requested and obtained donor information from the Foundation without prior judicial authorization, and subsequently used this information to reassess the donors' tax returns.
The Foundation applied for judicial review, arguing the CRA needed judicial authorization under section 231.2(2) of the Income Tax Act to obtain information about unnamed persons.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the Minister was entitled to the donor information under the broad audit powers in section 231.1(1) combined with the charity's record-keeping obligations under section 230(2)(a), and that judicial authorization was not required when the information was sought for the legitimate purpose of auditing the charity.
