By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: Judicial Review is about the Legality of State Decision-Making

Case Commented On: Highwood Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Judicial Committee) v Wall, 2018 SCC 26 (CanLII)

The Supreme Court of Canada has reversed the Alberta Court of Appeal decision in Wall v Judicial Committee of the Highwood Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, 2016 ABCA 255 (CanLII) which ruled the Highwood Congregation decision to expel one of its members was subject to judicial review on the basis of an alleged breach of procedural fairness. In this unanimous judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeal stretched the reach of judicial review too far in holding that this mechanism of judicial oversight applies to a decision of a non-state actor.

Continue reading →

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: Judicial Review on the Vires of Subordinate Legislation

Case Commented On: West Fraser Mills Ltd. v British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal), 2018 SCC 22 (CanLII)

Judicial review on the vires of subordinate legislation is a subject I previously examined in a March 2016 post concerning subordinate legislation enacted by the Alberta College of Pharmacists and its dispute with Sobeys over the use of consumer inducements in retail pharmacies. I noted back in 2016 there was some uncertainty over the standard of review a court should apply when reviewing the vires of legislation enacted by a statutory tribunal or other delegate. Indeed, the whole concept of judicial review on the vires of subordinate legislation is a bit murky in Canadian administrative law. The Supreme Court’s decision in West Fraser Mills Ltd. v British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal), 2018 SCC 22 (CanLII) addresses the topic, but unfortunately the Court is split and fails to situate its reasoning with the Court’s Katz Group Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Health and Long Term Care,  2013 SCC 64 (Katz) decision which also addresses the principles governing a vires determination of subordinate legislation. The majority in West Fraser Mills rules that the principles set out in Dunsmuir govern judicial review on the enactment of subordinate legislation by a statutory tribunal, and therefore where the tribunal’s governing legislation provides for the power to enact subordinate legislation the presumption of reasonableness applies to a review on the vires of that legislation. The dissenting justices hold the standard ought to be correctness.

Continue reading →

By: Hasna Shireen

PDF Version: Are the Alberta Ethics Commissioner’s actions subject to parliamentary privilege or judicial review?

Case Commented On: McIver v Alberta (Ethics Commissioner), 2018 ABQB 240

Ric Mclver, a member of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, made comments during Question Period about power companies. His comments were subject to a complaint that he was in conflict of interest as his wife is a sole shareholder and director of a power company. The Ethics Commissioner investigated and determined that he breached the Conflict of Interest Act, RSA 2000, c C-23 [CIA] [Any following references to legislative sections are assumed to be to the CIA unless otherwise noted] and eventually sanctioned Mr. McIver. He was ordered to apologize to pay $500 and to apologize to the Legislative Assembly. In an application for judicial review, Mr. McIver challenged the Ethics Commissioner’s decision and argued that she exceeded her jurisdiction in interfering with his free speech (McIver, para 2). Justice Janice Ashcroft of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench addressed the following issues.

1. What is the role of the Ethics Commissioner in this judicial review?
2. Is the decision to sanction Mr. McIver subject to judicial review, or is it protected by the constitutional doctrine of parliamentary privilege?
3. If the decision is subject to judicial review, did the Ethics Commissioner exceed her jurisdiction? (McIver, para 9)

Continue reading →