Ottawa

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.

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.