Category Archives: Supreme Court of Canada

Dunsmuir: Much Ado about Nothing

Cases Considered: Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9

PDF Version:  Dunsmuir: Much Ado about Nothing

The majority judgment in Dunsmuir, written by Justices Bastarache and Lebel JJ. (writing also for Fish, Abella, and McLachlin JJ.), begins by setting out its grandiose intention to re-examine judicial review principles in Canadian administrative law with the view to making them more workable and coherent. In an initial glance, one is immediately struck by how such an immense and significant task is built upon a seemingly insignificant set of facts. The appellant, a former non-unionized provincial employee who was dismissed with pay in lieu of notice, sought to uphold a grievance arbitrator’s ruling that his employment be reinstated. In dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court judgment follows that of both the New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench and Court of Appeal. One cannot also help but notice that in purporting to reformulate the pragmatic and functional approach to substantive judicial review, Dunsmuir consists of three concurring but inconsistent sets of reasons. Indeed, it is difficult to envision Dunsmuir as a defining moment in Canadian administrative law along the lines of CUPE Local 963 v. New Brunswick Liquor Board, [1979] 2 SCR 227, Nicholson v. Haldimand-Norfolk Police Commissioners, [1979] 1 SCR 311, Knight v. Indian Head School Division, [1990] 1 SCR 653, Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 SCR 982, or Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 SCR 817. This is because Dunsmuir falls well short of its lofty ambitions. Binnie J.’s reasons aside, Dunsmuir is little more than formal acknowledgement of recent shifts in, and deficiencies with, the Supreme Court’s attitude towards substantive judicial review.

Continue reading →

Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick: Standards of Review and Employment Contracts

Cases Considered: Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9

PDF Version: Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick: Standards of Review and Employment Contracts

Dunsmuir was employed by the Province of New Brunswick as an office holder “at pleasure”. His probationary period was extended twice and the employer reprimanded him three times during the course of employment. Finally, a formal letter of reprimand was sent to Dunsmuir warning him that failure to improve his performance would result in further disciplinary action up to and including dismissal. The employer concluded that Dunsmuir was not right for the job, and a formal letter of termination was delivered to Dunsmuir’s lawyer the next day. A grievance was denied and then referred to adjudication under New Brunswick’s Public Service Labour Relations Act (“PSLRA”), R.S.N.B. 1973, c. P 25. A preliminary issue of statutory interpretation arose as to whether, where dismissal was with notice or pay in lieu thereof, the adjudicator was authorized to determine the reasons underlying the province’s decision to terminate. Ultimately, the adjudicator made no finding as to whether the discharge was or was not for cause. As Dunsmuir’s employment was hybrid in character, the adjudicator held that he was entitled to and did not receive procedural fairness in the employer’s decision to terminate his employment. He declared that the termination was void ab initio and ordered Dunsmuir reinstated as of the date of dismissal, adding that in the event that his reinstatement order was quashed on judicial review, he would find the appropriate notice period to be eight months.

Continue reading →

The Metaphysical Court: Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick and the Standard of Review

Cases Considered: Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9

PDF Version: The Metaphysical Court: Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick and the Standard of Review

Introduction
The standard used by courts to review administrative decision-making is of central importance to energy and resource development law. Key decisions about regulation of utilities, supervision of energy markets, development of energy projects and facilities, and environmental obligations imposed on resource development, are authorized by legislation, and made and implemented by regulatory authorities. While for the most part, most of the time, the focus of everyone involved is simply on the making and implementing of those regulatory decisions, the courts retain the constitutional power to review and ultimately control this exercise of regulatory authority. Thus, the question of how the courts will exercise that power – the level of deference they will employ and how willing they will be to override regulatory decision-makers – is the fundamental backdrop against which these decisions are made.

Continue reading →

The Death of Constitutional Exemptions? Alberta RCMP Officer Sentenced to Mandatory Four Years for Manslaughter with a Firearm

Cases Considered: R. v. Ferguson, 2008 SCC 6

PDF Version: The Death of Constitutional Exemptions? Alberta RCMP Officer Sentenced to Mandatory Four Years for Manslaughter with a Firearm

The death of 23 year old Darren Varley in the custody of the RCMP in Pincher Creek made headlines in October 1999. Varley was shot by an RCMP officer, Constable Michael Ferguson, who was charged with second-degree murder but eventually convicted by a jury of the lesser offence of manslaughter after a four week trial in 2004 (2 earlier trials having resulted in hung juries). Justice G.C. Hawco of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench granted Ferguson a constitutional exemption from s. 236(a) of the Criminal Code, which imposed a mandatory minimum sentence of four years for manslaughter with a firearm, and granted a conditional sentence of two years less one day (2004 ABQB 928). The Crown appealed, and a majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal held that the mandatory minimum sentence could not be avoided (2006 ABCA 261). Constable Ferguson appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, which dismissed his appeal on February 29, 2008.

Continue reading →