Sharlene M. Telles-Langdon

The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction to suspend the operation of an Order-in-Council requiring air travellers entering Canada to undergo mandatory quarantine at a government-authorized accommodation or designated quarantine facility while awaiting COVID-19 test results.

The applicants challenged the measures under sections 7 and 9 of the Charter, arguing they constituted arbitrary detention and were not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice since travellers arriving by land or who tested positive were permitted to quarantine at home.

The Federal Court dismissed the motion, finding that while the applicants raised a serious issue regarding arbitrariness, they failed to establish irreparable harm and the balance of convenience heavily favored maintaining the public health measures, which were based on the precautionary principle and aimed to prevent the spread of new, highly transmissible COVID-19 variants.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered a reference question regarding the constitutionality of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, Part 5 of the Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1.

The Act establishes a federal carbon pricing scheme applicable to provinces that have not adopted sufficiently stringent carbon pricing mechanisms.

The majority held that the Act is constitutional under the national concern branch of the Peace, Order, and Good Government power, as establishing minimum national standards to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is a matter of national concern.

The fuel charge and excess emissions charge were found to be valid regulatory charges, not taxes.

Justice Huscroft dissented, arguing that the Act improperly expands federal jurisdiction over greenhouse gas emissions, which are generated by virtually all provincial activities.

This decision addresses motions for leave to intervene and to file records in a constitutional reference concerning the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.

The motion judge granted leave to intervene to twelve parties, including three Attorneys General as of right and nine additional parties seeking discretionary leave.

The judge declined to grant leave to one individual applicant.

The decision also addresses the scope of factums, oral argument time allocation, and the relaxed approach to supplementing the record in constitutional references as a court of first instance.