News & Blog
Featured News
Public Law - On the Docket
-
When we think about the broad direction of government policy, we generally think about the statutes introduced by the legislature. However, the reality is that much of the laws that impact us are subordinate legislation: regulations, rules, and policies that are enacted by Ministers, boards and agencies, or other government actors pursuant to rule-making power provided to them under legislation. For nearly a decade, challenges to subordinate legislation were extremely challenging. The Supreme Court of Canada’s 2013 decision in Katz Group Canada Inc v Ontario (Health and Long‑Term Care) set a high bar for challenging such subordinate legislation. The Court in that case held subordinate legislation “must be ‘irrelevant’, ‘extraneous’ or ‘completely unrelated’ to the statutory purpose to be found to be ultra vires on the basis of inconsistency with statutory purpose.”
The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision today in Law Society of Saskatchewan v Abrametz is a significant one for all lawyers practicing before administrative tribunals. In brief, the decision confirms that the three-part Blencoe test for delay and abuse of process in administrative proceedings continues in force. To establish that a delay rises to the level of abuse of process, a party must establish...
A recent decision of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT) provides rare guidance on the issues that can arise when counsel to an administrative tribunal enters private practice and begins to advise parties to matters before the tribunal. In Certain Container Chassis, the CITT rejected a motion seeking to remove counsel to a complainant because counsel had recently been employed by the Tribunal.
On December 13, 2020, news broke that Cleveland’s professional baseball team was changing its name. After the 2021 season, the Cleveland baseball team will no longer use the name “Indians”.
In 2017, the Canada Food Inspection Agency (the “CFIA”) determined that wines produced by Psagot Winery, a vineyard located within an Israeli settlement in the West Bank, could be sold in Canada with a “Product of Israel” label to meet “country of origin” labelling requirements required under the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act and the Food and Drugs Act. This decision was challenged by Dr. David Kattenburg, a Canadian activist, on the basis that the wine was in fact produced on occupied Palestinian territory and not within Israel, making the labelling of “Product of Israel” false and misleading and therefore contrary to the applicable legislation.
The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and the National Concern Doctrine: A Rights-Based Approach?Over the past two days, the Supreme Court of Canada heard appeals from decisions of the Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario Courts of Appeal on the constitutionality of the federal government’s Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (the “GGPPA” or the “Act”).
In recent years, aggrieved candidates have not had much luck seeking relief against their political parties in court. Courts have held that because unincorporated associations, such as political parties, do not exercise public authority, they are not subject to public law remedies like judicial review.
Laws against price-gouging have come to Ontario. On Saturday, March 28, 2020, the provincial government issued a press release announcing that it was enacting an Order to prohibit price-gouging. The press release announced that that Order “prohibits persons, including retailers, from selling necessary goods for unconscionable prices”. The press release also announced that the definition of unconscionable prices would be “consistent with well-established principles from the Consumer Protection Act.”
In the season of giving the Supreme Court of Canada has given lawyers and legal scholars the greatest gift of all: a new approach to the standard of review.
On September 24, 2019, the United Kingdom Supreme Court released a historic decision nullifying the recent prorogation of Parliament obtained on the advice of the British Prime Minister. The implications of the decision are potentially far-reaching as a matter of public law, even though the Court took pains to describe its decision as a “one off.”
