The following 2016 court cases are being posted as for your information.
New Cases as of November
Canada (Attorney General) v. Igloo Vikski Inc., 2016 SCC 38
An example of the Court’s application of the reasonableness standard of review in the context of highly specialized subject matter (import tariff classification).
Canada (Attorney General) v. Bri-Chem Supply Ltd., 2016 FCA 257 (CanLii)
A good summary of the court – tribunal – administrator hierarchy and the principles behind it: tribunals are constrained by the rulings and guidance given by courts that govern the facts and issues in a case; tribunals should try to follow their earlier decisions unless there is good reason to depart from them and administrators must follow tribunal decisions except where these can be distinguished or if the administrator can precisely identify and articulate specific elements of a tribunal decision that is likely wrong.
Edmonton (City) v. Edmonton East (Capilano) Shopping Centres Ltd., 2016 SCC 47
As of November 4, 2016 the latest from the Supreme Court of Canada on standard of review. The court is sharply divided. The majority reversed the Court of Appeal and applied the presumption of deference on judicial review. The minority found the standard of review to be correctness on the basis that the statutory scheme embodied in the Municipal Government Act along with the Board’s lack of relative expertise in statutory interpretation rebutted the presumption of deference in this case.
Of note: the Court was unanimous in finding that the statutory right of appeal in and of itself does not give rise to correctness review absent explicit legislative guidance.
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (Radio-Canada) v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2016 FC 933 - 2016-08-15.
See in particular paragraphs 97 – 104 for discussion regarding the application of the Privacy Act to institutions of the federal government.
Access to Justice
Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FCA 200 (CanLII)
In this case the Federal Court of Appeal upheld the ruling of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) that a claimant who wishes to challenge discriminatory federal legislation must do so thorough a Charter claim rather than a human rights complaint. As Professor Jennifer Koshan notes in her ABlawg post of Septebmer 30, 2016 http://ablawg.ca/
, the case has implications for access to justice.