Category: Appellate Practice Page 1 of 3

Democracy Watch and its Implications for the Practice of Channeling Limited Judicial Supervision to Appellate Courts

On August 10, 2026

In Administrative Law, Appellate Practice, Law Reform, Supreme Court of Canada

Matter Commented On: Democracy Watch v Canada (Attorney General), 2026 SCC 28 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Democracy Watch and its Implications for the Practice of Channeling Limited Judicial Supervision to Appellate Courts

This post assesses the implications of the Supreme Court’s unanimous and important decision in Democracy Watch for those many scenarios in which a provincial legislature channels some part, but only some part, of the judicial supervision of a regulatory tribunal to the province’s appellate courts. The drafting technique, at least in Alberta, is quite consistent. Step one, make provision for an appeal of a decision of a regulator to the Court of Appeal with a short limitation period; step two, confine that appeal to points of law or jurisdiction (i.e. no appeal on findings of fact or mixed findings of law and fact); step three, stipulate that the appeal is not as of right, but is subject to a leave or permission to appeal application; step four, confirm, by way of a broadly drafted privative clause, that the usual avenues for judicial review in the Court of King’s Bench are foreclosed.

Yatar v TD Insurance Meloche Monnex: Limited Statutory Rights of Appeal and The Availability of Judicial Review

By Shaun Fluker

On April 10, 2024

In Administrative Law, Appellate Practice, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Shaun Fluker, Drew Yewchuk, and Nigel Bankes

Case Commented On: Yatar v TD Insurance Meloche Monnex, 2024 SCC 8 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Yatar v TD Insurance Meloche Monnex: Limited Statutory Rights of Appeal and The Availability of Judicial Review

This post discusses the recent Supreme Court decision in Yatar v TD Insurance Meloche Monnex, 2024 SCC 8 (CanLII) (Yatar). The decision addresses the availability of judicial review of administrative decisions when the legislature has established a restricted statutory right of appeal for those same decisions. This unanimous decision is an important affirmation of the continued availability of judicial review – at least for grounds of review not covered by the statutory appeal right. However, it seems likely that this decision, especially when read together with the Court’s decision in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 (CanLII) (Vavilov) will encourage parallel or sequential filings under both the statutory appeal provisions and for judicial review.

Alphabow’s Regulatory Appeal: The AER Hearing Panel Misunderstood Their Job

By Drew Yewchuk

On March 11, 2024

In Administrative Law, Appellate Practice, Energy, Oil & Gas

By: Drew Yewchuk

Decision Commented on: Alphabow Energy Ltd: Regulatory Appeals of AER Orders (Regulatory Appeals 1943516 and 1943521), 2024 ABAER 001 (Alphabow)

PDF Version: Alphabow’s Regulatory Appeal: The AER Hearing Panel Misunderstood Their Job

This is a comment on an Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) hearing panel decision following a regulatory appeal of enforcement action against a company that was failing to meet the AER’s expectations for regulatory compliance.

Because of an administrative law mistake by the AER hearing panel, the decision is not what it should be. The AER’s handling of financially troubled corporations with large closure liabilities, significant unpaid debts, compliance troubles, and financial problems is a multi-billion dollar policy problem for Alberta. The decision should have assessed the AER’s policy approach to one of these companies, but the hearing panel misunderstood their role and assessed only procedural fairness and ‘reasonableness’ in the restricted sense that word applies on judicial review. As a result, the decision is less interesting than it should be, since it only finds that what the AER did was legal and says nothing about whether it was good policy or in the public interest.

Stores Block Meets Vavilov: The Status of Pre-Vavilov ABCA Decisions

By Nigel Bankes

On May 1, 2023

In Administrative Law, Appellate Practice, Utility Regulation

By: Nigel Bankes

Decision commented on: ATCO Electric Ltd v Alberta Utilities Commission, 2023 ABCA 129 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Stores Block Meets Vavilov: The Status of Pre-Vavilov ABCA Decisions

This case is an appeal of the ATCO Fort McMurray fire decision of the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC). In this case, a panel of the Court of Appeal made an important statement as to the status of previous court decisions on AUC-related matters that were rendered prior to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65.

Dispensing Speedy Justice: The Supreme Court of Canada & Decisions from the Bench

By Lisa Silver

On May 22, 2018

In Access to Justice, Appellate Practice

By: Lisa Ann Silver

PDF Version: Dispensing Speedy Justice: The Supreme Court of Canada & Decisions from the Bench

Recently, I was asked to comment on the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision on R v Stephan, 2018 SCC 21. The decision, given from the Bench immediately after the argument of the appeal, took many media outlets by surprise. The media, and to a large extent, lawyers, are not accustomed to speedy decision-making from the Supreme Court. We collectively expect the Court to reserve judgment and then, after months of diligent research and writing, the Court issues an unassuming missive that the judgment will be rendered on X date at Y time. I have often waited at my computer close to the appointed hour in order to immerse myself in the expectation of a new judgment release. For instance, I eagerly awaited the release of R v Marakah, [2017] 2 SCR 608 and R v Jones, [2017] 2 SCR 696, at 9:45 a.m. EST to be first in line to the lines of decision-making, which would, we all hoped, reveal the answers to the perplexing issues raised by the s. 8 issues surrounding the seizure of text messages found on a 3^rd party’s smart phone. True, the Supreme Court could disappoint as reality often does not live up to expectations. But at least we had 200 paragraphs on which to mull over how we should have or ought to have known better. So, when the Stephan decision was rendered so quickly, I began to wonder if this was a trend on the part of the Supremes or whether it was merely my own biases coming into play. I was determined, therefore, to see if in fact the Supreme Court is rendering from the Bench more often than in the past and if so, why.