What this site is about
This site is about an action commenced by Edgar Schmidt asking the Federal Court to declare the legal meaning of three provisions that require pre-enactment examinations of proposed legislation by the Minister of Justice or the Deputy Minister of Justice (Canada) as to the proposed legislation's legality and constitutionality, and certain reporting, depending on the outcome of those examinations. These provisions are
This site
- section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act
- section 3 of the Canadian Bill of Rights
- section 3 of the Statutory Instruments Act
This site
- allows you to consult the trial-related documents filed with the court
- allows you to consult certain interlocutory motion documents related to the action
- allows you to consult the documents related to the appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal
- gives you links to some related information: parliamentary records, scholarly discussion, media coverage and other useful sites (e.g. related to "whistleblowing")
The issue in the court action
The Department of Justice interprets the provisions in question as requiring an examination using what it calls a "credible argument" standard but what is, in fact, a "faintest possibility of legality" standard. If the department concludes that some argument, even one the department itself considers almost certain to fail, can be made in favour of the legality or constitutionality of the proposed regulation or bill, it considers that no report is required and proceeding with the regulation or bill is simply a matter of the regulation-maker's or government's "risk tolerance".
For example, under section 4.1 (see below), as long as some argument in favour of Charter compliance can be made -- even if the department itself thinks that it is likely or even almost certain that a court would not be persuaded by the argument --, no report to the House of Commons about the proposed legislation is considered to be required. See the departmental documents attached to the Statement of Agreed Facts, particularly the excerpt below, for details of the way the statutory examination provisions have been carried out.
Excerpt from one of the departmental documents:
"It is recommended that the following scale be employed in the advisory and legislative contexts when assessing the likelihood that a legal challenge to a particular initiative or measure will be successful. ...
1. Very Low (0-20%) -The likelihood of a successful challenge to the measure is remote. In other words, the likelihood of a successful challenge runs from non-existent to insignificant.
2. Low (21-40%)- Proceeding with the measure entails some likelihood of a successful challenge, but the measure Is likely to be sustained in the event of a court challenge. The likelihood is beyond the minimal range but, In terms of probabilities, the measure is more likely than not to survive the challenge.
3. Medium (41-60%)- The likelihood falls in to the middle zone where the prospects of a successful vs. unsuccessful challenge are evenly balanced .This may be due to uncertainty in the law or missing facts. Alternatively, it may occur where it is difficult to determine the weight that a court would give to the evidence or where the strengths and weaknesses of the case appear relatively evenly balanced.
4. High (61-80%) -It is more likely than not that the challenge to the measure will be successful. Connotes a condition of probable invalidity of the measure.
5. Very High (81-100%) -The likelihood of a successful challenge Is almost certain.
5(a) Minister's Statutory Obligation - This is engaged where the level of likelihood is at the far end of the fifth range and is due to manifest inconsistency between proposed legislation and the Charter. In such a case, the measure is manifestly unconstitutional, and no credible ( i.e.,reasonable and bona fide) argument exists in support of it, such that the Minister's statutory obligation to issue a report to the House of Commons is engaged. (Note that there is a separate process to be followed in such determinations. Inquiries respecting the Minister's reporting obligation should be directed to the Human Rights Law Section or the Legislative Services Branch.)" [bold red emphasis added]
The action asked the Federal Court to declare that what these provisions actually require is the formation of a considered opinion as to whether the proposed legislation is inconsistent or consistent with the Charter and a report to the House of Commons whenever the Minister considers that the better view is that any provision of the proposed legislation is inconsistent with the Charter.
The trial court decision on this claim was released March 2, 2016. Links to it are available on the Trial-Related page. An appeal of that decision to the Federal Court of Appeal was heard on 8 February 2017 and the appeal decision was given on March 20, 2018. A link to it is given on the same page. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was sought but the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal.
What we are left with is a manifestly mistaken interpretation that seriously undermines the supremacy of Parliament --
(how can the enactment of regulations that are believed to be almost certainly NOT authorized by Act of Parliament be reconciled with the supremacy of Parliament?) --
and the rule of law --
(how can making laws that the law-maker (or the government proposing the law to Parliament) believes to be unlawful or unconstitutional and then defending them against the public at the expense of the public treasury be reconciled with the principle that state actors are to act only in ways they honestly and reasonably believe to be in accordance with law -- that is, in accordance with the decisions of the public's democratically elected representatives expressed in the state's constitution and statutes?).
For example, under section 4.1 (see below), as long as some argument in favour of Charter compliance can be made -- even if the department itself thinks that it is likely or even almost certain that a court would not be persuaded by the argument --, no report to the House of Commons about the proposed legislation is considered to be required. See the departmental documents attached to the Statement of Agreed Facts, particularly the excerpt below, for details of the way the statutory examination provisions have been carried out.
Excerpt from one of the departmental documents:
"It is recommended that the following scale be employed in the advisory and legislative contexts when assessing the likelihood that a legal challenge to a particular initiative or measure will be successful. ...
1. Very Low (0-20%) -The likelihood of a successful challenge to the measure is remote. In other words, the likelihood of a successful challenge runs from non-existent to insignificant.
2. Low (21-40%)- Proceeding with the measure entails some likelihood of a successful challenge, but the measure Is likely to be sustained in the event of a court challenge. The likelihood is beyond the minimal range but, In terms of probabilities, the measure is more likely than not to survive the challenge.
3. Medium (41-60%)- The likelihood falls in to the middle zone where the prospects of a successful vs. unsuccessful challenge are evenly balanced .This may be due to uncertainty in the law or missing facts. Alternatively, it may occur where it is difficult to determine the weight that a court would give to the evidence or where the strengths and weaknesses of the case appear relatively evenly balanced.
4. High (61-80%) -It is more likely than not that the challenge to the measure will be successful. Connotes a condition of probable invalidity of the measure.
5. Very High (81-100%) -The likelihood of a successful challenge Is almost certain.
5(a) Minister's Statutory Obligation - This is engaged where the level of likelihood is at the far end of the fifth range and is due to manifest inconsistency between proposed legislation and the Charter. In such a case, the measure is manifestly unconstitutional, and no credible ( i.e.,reasonable and bona fide) argument exists in support of it, such that the Minister's statutory obligation to issue a report to the House of Commons is engaged. (Note that there is a separate process to be followed in such determinations. Inquiries respecting the Minister's reporting obligation should be directed to the Human Rights Law Section or the Legislative Services Branch.)" [bold red emphasis added]
The action asked the Federal Court to declare that what these provisions actually require is the formation of a considered opinion as to whether the proposed legislation is inconsistent or consistent with the Charter and a report to the House of Commons whenever the Minister considers that the better view is that any provision of the proposed legislation is inconsistent with the Charter.
The trial court decision on this claim was released March 2, 2016. Links to it are available on the Trial-Related page. An appeal of that decision to the Federal Court of Appeal was heard on 8 February 2017 and the appeal decision was given on March 20, 2018. A link to it is given on the same page. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was sought but the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal.
What we are left with is a manifestly mistaken interpretation that seriously undermines the supremacy of Parliament --
(how can the enactment of regulations that are believed to be almost certainly NOT authorized by Act of Parliament be reconciled with the supremacy of Parliament?) --
and the rule of law --
(how can making laws that the law-maker (or the government proposing the law to Parliament) believes to be unlawful or unconstitutional and then defending them against the public at the expense of the public treasury be reconciled with the principle that state actors are to act only in ways they honestly and reasonably believe to be in accordance with law -- that is, in accordance with the decisions of the public's democratically elected representatives expressed in the state's constitution and statutes?).
The statutory provisions in question
Section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act
|
Examination of Bills and regulations
4.1 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the Minister shall, in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Governor in Council, examine every regulation transmitted to the Clerk of the Privy Council for registration pursuant to the Statutory Instruments Act and every Bill introduced in or presented to the House of Commons by a minister of the Crown, in order to ascertain whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Minister shall report any such inconsistency to the House of Commons at the first convenient opportunity. Exception (2) A regulation need not be examined in accordance with subsection (1) if prior to being made it was examined as a proposed regulation in accordance with section 3 of the Statutory Instruments Act to ensure that it was not inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. |
Examen de projets de loi et de règlements
4.1 (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (2), le ministre examine, conformément aux règlements pris par le gouverneur en conseil, les règlements transmis au greffier du Conseil privé pour enregistrement, en application de la Loi sur les textes réglementaires ainsi que les projets ou propositions de loi soumis ou présentés à la Chambre des communes par un ministre fédéral, en vue de vérifier si l’une de leurs dispositions est incompatible avec les fins et dispositions de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, et fait rapport de toute incompatibilité à la Chambre des communes dans les meilleurs délais possible. Exception (2) Il n’est pas nécessaire de procéder à l’examen prévu par le paragraphe (1) si le projet de règlement a fait l’objet de l’examen prévu à l’article 3 de la Loi sur les textes réglementaires et destiné à vérifier sa compatibilité avec les fins et les dispositions de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés. |
Section 3 of the Canadian Bill of Rights
|
Duties of Minister of Justice
3. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the Minister of Justice shall, in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Governor in Council, examine every regulation transmitted to the Clerk of the Privy Council for registration pursuant to the Statutory Instruments Act and every Bill introduced in or presented to the House of Commons by a Minister of the Crown, in order to ascertain whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of this Part [the Canadian Bill of Rights] and he shall report any such inconsistency to the House of Commons at the first convenient opportunity. Exception (2) A regulation need not be examined in accordance with subsection (1) if prior to being made it was examined as a proposed regulation in accordance with section 3 of the Statutory Instruments Act to ensure that it was not inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of this Part. |
Devoirs du ministre de la Justice
3. (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (2), le ministre de la Justice doit, en conformité de règlements prescrits par le gouverneur en conseil, examiner tout règlement transmis au greffier du Conseil privé pour enregistrement, en application de la Loi sur les textes réglementaires, ainsi que tout projet ou proposition de loi soumis ou présentés à la Chambre des communes par un ministre fédéral en vue de rechercher si l’une quelconque de ses dispositions est incompatible avec les fins et dispositions de la présente Partie, et il doit signaler toute semblable incompatibilité à la Chambre des communes dès qu’il en a l’occasion. Exception (2) Il n’est pas nécessaire de procéder à l’examen prévu par le paragraphe (1) si le projet de règlement a fait l’objet de l’examen prévu à l’article 3 de la Loi sur les textes réglementaires et destiné à vérifier sa compatibilité avec les fins et les dispositions de la présente partie. |
Section 3 of the Statutory Instruments Act
|
EXAMINATION OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS
Proposed regulations sent to Clerk of Privy Council 3. (1) Subject to any regulations made pursuant to paragraph 20(a), where a regulation-making authority proposes to make a regulation, it shall cause to be forwarded to the Clerk of the Privy Council three copies of the proposed regulation in both official languages. Examination (2) On receipt by the Clerk of the Privy Council of copies of a proposed regulation pursuant to subsection (1), the Clerk of the Privy Council, in consultation with the Deputy Minister of Justice, shall examine the proposed regulation to ensure that (a) it is authorized by the statute pursuant to which it is to be made; (b) it does not constitute an unusual or unexpected use of the authority pursuant to which it is to be made; (c) it does not trespass unduly on existing rights and freedoms and is not, in any case, inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights; and (d) the form and draftsmanship of the proposed regulation are in accordance with established standards. Advise regulation-making authority (3) When a proposed regulation has been examined as required by subsection (2), the Clerk of the Privy Council shall advise the regulation-making authority that the proposed regulation has been so examined and shall indicate any matter referred to in paragraph (2)(a), (b), (c) or (d) to which, in the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice, based on that examination, the attention of the regulation-making authority should be drawn. Application (4) Paragraph (2)(d) does not apply to any proposed rule, order or regulation governing the practice or procedure in proceedings before the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court, the Tax Court of Canada or the Court Martial Appeal Court. |
EXAMEN DES PROJETS DE RÈGLEMENT
Envoi au Conseil privé 3. (1) Sous réserve des règlements d’application de l’alinéa 20a), l’autorité réglementante envoie chacun de ses projets de règlement en trois exemplaires, dans les deux langues officielles, au greffier du Conseil privé. As enacted by Parliament: Examen (2) Au reçu des copies d'un projet de règlement en application du paragraphe (1), le greffier du Conseil prive doit, en collaboration avec le sous-ministre de la Justice, examiner le projet de règlement afin de s'assurer a) qu’il est autorisé par la loi en application de laquelle il doit être établi; … c) qu’il ... n'est, en aucun cas, incompatible avec les fins et les dispositions [de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés et] de la Déclaration canadienne des droits; [emphasis added] As revised by public servants not having any authority to change the substance of what had been enacted by Parliament: (2) À la réception du projet de règlement, le greffier du Conseil privé procède, en consultation avec le sous-ministre de la Justice, à l’examen des points suivants : a) le règlement est pris dans le cadre du pouvoir conféré par sa loi habilitante; b) il ne constitue pas un usage inhabituel ou inattendu du pouvoir ainsi conféré; c) il n’empiète pas indûment sur les droits et libertés existants et, en tout état de cause, n’est pas incompatible avec les fins et les dispositions de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés et de la Déclaration canadienne des droits; d) sa présentation et sa rédaction sont conformes aux normes établies. Avis à l’autorité réglementante (3) L’examen achevé, le greffier du Conseil privé en avise l’autorité réglementante en lui signalant, parmi les points mentionnés au paragraphe (2), ceux sur lesquels, selon le sous-ministre de la Justice, elle devrait porter son attention. Application (4) L’alinéa (2) d) ne s’applique pas aux projets de règlements, décrets, ordonnances, arrêtés ou règles régissant la pratique ou la procédure dans les instances engagées devant la Cour suprême du Canada, la Cour d’appel fédérale, la Cour fédérale, la Cour canadienne de l’impôt ou la Cour d’appel de la cour martiale du Canada. |