Administrative Law - SCC

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions, with a majority substantially adopting Justice Nordheimer’s reasons and a dissent that would have allowed the appeal for reasons substantially aligned with Justice Pardu.

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order for a new Tax Court hearing before a different judge after multiple violations of official language rights of witnesses and counsel, and the related interpretation right of the unilingual party.

In consolidated constitutional reference appeals, the Court upheld the cooperative capital markets framework and confirmed the draft federal statute was within Parliament's general trade and commerce power.

It held the memorandum did not legally bind provincial legislatures or impermissibly transfer primary legislative authority, and that the federal scheme validly targeted systemic risk and financial crime.

An Indigenous rights-holder sought judicial review over the federal law-making process, alleging a duty to consult before introduction and enactment of omnibus environmental legislation that could affect Treaty 8 harvesting rights.

A majority held the reviewing court lacked jurisdiction under the Federal Courts Act because the impugned ministerial conduct was legislative in character and not reviewable as action of a federal board, commission, or tribunal.

The Court further held the duty to consult does not attach to the legislative process itself, given separation of powers, parliamentary sovereignty, and parliamentary privilege.

The appeal was dismissed, while leaving open that enacted legislation may still be challenged through constitutional and other established remedies where rights are adversely affected.

Appeal from a labour arbitration ruling concerning dismissals of legislative security guards and claimed parliamentary privilege over employee management and exclusion of strangers.

The majority held the claimed immunity from external labour review was not shown to be necessary to the legislature’s constitutional functions, so the grievances could proceed.

A concurring set of reasons found the governing provincial statute dispositive because the legislature had subjected employee management to that regime absent a derogation.

The dissent would have found privilege established and would have barred arbitral jurisdiction.

The Court allowed the appeal and restored the trial judgment dismissing the action to annul municipal by-laws as untimely and prescribed.

It held that challenges alleging abusive zoning must be brought within a reasonable time, and that the 10-year prescriptive period had expired.

On judicial review of a regulator’s refusal to approve a proposed law school with a mandatory religious covenant, the appellate court addressed statutory authority, administrative reasonableness, and constitutional balancing.

The majority held the regulator could consider barrier effects on equal access, diversity, and public confidence when assessing the public interest, and could proceed through its chosen member-vote process.

Applying the Doré/Loyola framework, the court found a proportionate balance between limited religious freedom impacts and significant equality-related statutory objectives.

The regulator’s non-approval decision was restored.

In an appeal from judicial review proceedings, the appellants challenged a law society decision refusing accreditation to a proposed law school because of a mandatory covenant restricting sexual intimacy to marriage between a man and a woman.

The majority held that the regulator had statutory authority to consider the covenant’s impact on equal access, diversity in the profession, and potential harm to LGBTQ prospective students.

Applying the Doré/Loyola framework, the Court found the decision proportionately balanced freedom of religion with statutory public-interest objectives and was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed, with concurring reasons and a dissent that would have allowed the appeal.

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld decisions finding that complaints challenging Indian Act registration provisions were bare attacks on legislation, not discrimination in the provision of services under s. 5 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The Tribunal’s dismissal was upheld because legislation itself is not a service under that provision.

A Métis federal inmate challenged correctional authorities’ use of psychological and actuarial risk tools for Indigenous offenders, alleging statutory and Charter breaches.

The Court held that authorities breached their duty under s. 24(1) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act by continuing to rely on the tools without taking reasonable steps to confirm validity for Indigenous persons.

The Court declined to find violations of ss. 7 or 15 of the Charter on the evidentiary record.

Declaratory relief was granted in light of the prolonged and ineffective grievance history, but no broader injunctive remedy was ordered.

A lawyer appealed a professional misconduct finding based on in-court incivility during a securities prosecution.

The majority held that reasonableness review applied and accepted the disciplinary framework, but found its application unreasonable on the record.

The Court concluded the allegations were made in good faith with sufficient factual foundation in context.

The appeal was allowed and the complaints were dismissed.

The Court allowed the appeal and quashed an originating application for judicial review of a religious congregation’s disfellowship decision.

It held that judicial review is generally limited to public decision makers, that there is no free-standing procedural fairness claim without an underlying legal right, and that ecclesiastical issues in this dispute were non-justiciable.

The Court dismissed an appeal challenging a workplace safety regulation and an administrative penalty imposed after a fatal forestry incident.

The majority held the regulation was within delegated authority and upheld the tribunal’s interpretation allowing an employer-owner to be penalized under the governing scheme.

Dissenting judges would have found the regulation invalid or the penalty interpretation patently unreasonable.

Constitutional appeal concerning whether a provincial liquor-control provision limiting possession of non-provincially sourced alcohol violated s. 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Court held that s. 121 bars laws that in essence and primary purpose restrict interprovincial trade like tariffs, but does not invalidate laws whose trade impacts are incidental to broader regulatory objectives.

It also held that lower courts cannot depart from binding precedent absent genuinely transformative legal developments or new social and legislative facts.

Applying that framework, the impugned provision's main purpose was provincial control of liquor distribution and use, not trade restriction.

The appeal was allowed and the provision was upheld.

The appeal concerned a specific claim for compensation based on historic pre-emption of Indigenous village lands and alleged Crown breaches before and after Confederation.

The Court held that reasonableness review applied to the Tribunal’s validity decision and restored findings that fiduciary obligations were breached in relation to the village lands.

The majority concluded the Tribunal reasonably found both pre-Confederation and post-Confederation fiduciary breaches and reasonably interpreted the extended meaning of the Crown for statutory responsibility.

The appeal was allowed and the Tribunal’s validity decision was restored, with compensation issues left to the compensation stage.

The Court considered whether Quebec’s workplace injury regime must be interpreted and applied with the employer’s duty to reasonably accommodate disabled workers under the provincial charter.

It held that workers disabled by workplace injury are entitled to accommodation protections when rights to return to work and suitable employment are assessed.

The appeal was dismissed and the matter was remitted to the Administrative Labour Tribunal for reconsideration with accommodation obligations in view.

The Court reviewed whether the transportation regulator reasonably dismissed a discrimination complaint for lack of standing.

The majority held the regulator applied an unduly rigid approach that effectively barred public interest complaints and therefore acted unreasonably.

The appeal was allowed in part and the matter was returned for full reconsideration, including whether to hear the complaint on a proper exercise of discretion.

A dissent would have upheld the regulator’s gatekeeping approach and restored its dismissal.

The Court held Yukon breached the Chapter 11 modern treaty land-use planning process by making major final-stage changes not properly proposed earlier and not grounded in changing circumstances.

Yukon’s approval was quashed, and the parties were returned to the s. 11.6.3.2 stage.

The Court rejected the Court of Appeal’s approach of resetting the process to an earlier stage and emphasized judicial restraint with robust legality review in modern treaty implementation.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Barreau du Québec’s appeal from the Quebec Court of Appeal.

The majority held the Administrative Tribunal of Québec reasonably interpreted section 102 of the Act respecting administrative justice to permit a non-advocate chosen by the Minister to prepare and file written proceedings before the social affairs division.

It further held this interpretation was consistent with the legislative scheme, including section 129(b) of the Act respecting the Barreau du Québec.

The Court allowed the appeal in part in a labour grievance over mandatory after-hour standby duties for federal immigration lawyers.

The majority held the adjudicator reasonably found the directive was not a fair and reasonable exercise of management rights under the collective agreement, so that portion of the adjudicator’s order was restored.

However, the Court agreed the directive did not infringe section 7 liberty interests, because the impacts on personal time did not engage fundamental personal choices protected by the Charter.