Regina

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 applicant employer sought to revoke an order issued by a Review Officer of the Pay Equity Office, which directed it to take specific steps to achieve pay equity.

The employer retained a compensation consultant who identified serious flaws in the job evaluations, banding structure, and male wage line determinations underlying the order.

The consultant developed a new pay equity plan for the employer.

As the application was unopposed and the consultant's evidence of the order's flaws was uncontradicted, the Tribunal revoked the relevant schedules of the order and directed the employer to post and implement its newly developed pay equity plan.