Canada (Governor General in Council) v. Mikisew Cree First Nation

Canada (Governor General in Council) v. Mikisew Cree First Nation
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2016-12-07
Neutral citation
2016 FCA 311
File numbers
A-29-15
Notes
A correction was made on July 13, 2017
Reported Decision
Decision Content
Date: 20161207
Docket: A-29-15
Citation: 2016 FCA 311
CORAM:
PELLETIER J.A.
WEBB J.A.
DE MONTIGNY J.A.
BETWEEN:
THE GOVERNOR GENERAL IN COUNCIL, MINISTER OF ABORIGINAL
AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT,
MINISTER OF FINANCE, MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT,
MINISTER OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS, MINISTER OF TRANSPORT,
AND MINISTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Appellants
and
CHIEF STEVE COURTOREILLE ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND THE MEMBERS OF THE MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION
Respondent
Heard at Edmonton, Alberta, on May 12, 2016.
Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on December 7, 2016.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:
DE MONTIGNY J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY:
WEBB J.A.
CONCURRING REASONS BY:
PELLETIER J.A.
Date: 20161207
Docket: A-29-15
Citation: 2016 FCA 311
CORAM:
PELLETIER J.A.
WEBB J.A.
DE MONTIGNY J.A.
BETWEEN:
THE GOVERNOR GENERAL IN COUNCIL, MINISTER OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT,
MINISTER OF FINANCE, MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT, MINISTER OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS, MINISTER OF TRANSPORT, AND MINISTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Appellants
and
CHIEF STEVE COURTOREILLE ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND THE MEMBERS OF THE MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
DE MONTIGNY J.A.
[1] This is an appeal and cross-appeal of a judgment rendered on December 19, 2014 (the Reasons for Judgment) by Justice Hughes of the Federal Court (the Judge) granting in part the application for judicial review of Chief Steve Courtoreille of the Mikisew Cree First Nation (Mikisew Cree), claiming that the Governor General in Council, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Natural Resources (collectively the appellants) breached their duty to consult the Mikisew Cree on the development and introduction in Parliament of two omnibus bills that reduced federal regulatory oversight on works and projects that might affect their treaty rights to hunt, fish and trap.
[2] This case raises an issue that has not yet been dealt with by any appeal court: does the Crown have an obligation to consult when contemplating changes to legislation that may adversely impact treaty rights, and if so, to what extent? Indeed, the Supreme Court explicitly went out of its way in Rio Tinto Alcan Inc. v. Carrier Sekani Tribal Council (2010 SCC 43 at para. 44, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 650 [Rio Tinto]) to decline addressing that issue, “leav[ing] for another day the question of whether government conduct includes legislative action” for the purpose of triggering the duty to consult and, where appropriate, to accommodate Aboriginal groups. The Judge below recognized, for the first time, that the Crown had such a duty to consult with the Mikisew Cree when the two omnibus bills were introduced in Parliament. The content of the duty included the giving of notice to the Mikisew Cree of the portions of each of those bills that could potentially have an impact on their treaty rights, as well as the provision of a reasonable opportunity to make submissions.
[3] Having carefully considered the submissions made by the parties, both orally and in writing, I am of the view that this appeal should be granted. In particular, I find that legislative action is not a proper subject for an application for judicial review under the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, and that importing the duty to consult to the legislative process offends the separation of powers doctrine and the principle of parliamentary privilege.
I. Facts [4] The facts leading to this case are not complex and can be briefly summarized. The Mikisew Cree is a band within the meaning of the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-5, whose traditional territory is located in northeastern Alberta, and whose ancestors adhered to Treaty No. 8, which guarantees their right to hunt, trap and fish throughout the territory covered by that treaty.
[5] In 2012, the Minister of Finance introduced Bill C-38, enacted as the Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act, 1st. Sess., 41st Parl., 2012 (assented to 29 June 2012), S.C. 2012, c. 19 and Bill C-45, enacted as the Jobs and Growth Act 2012, 1st. Sess., 41st Parl., 2012 (assented to 14 December 2012), S.C. 2012, c. 31. These two omnibus bills resulted in the repeal of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, S.C. 1992, c. 37; the enactment of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, S.C. 2012, c. 19, s. 52 (CEAA, 2012); as well as in amendments to the Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14, the Species at Risk Act, S.C. 2002, c. 29, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, S.C. 1999, c. 33 and the Navigable Waters Protection Act, renamed the Navigation Protection Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-22 (NPA).
[6] Mikisew Cree alleges that the omnibus bills reduced the types of projects that were subject to federal environmental assessment, reduced the navigable waters that required federal approval to build obstructing works on them, diminished the protection of fish habitat, and reduced the requirements to approve effects on species at risk. Since environmental assessments and other federal approval mechanisms typically allow First Nations to voice their concerns about effects on its treaty rights to hunt, fish and trap, and have those rights accommodated, the Mikisew Cree argue that this reduction in oversight may affect their treaty rights and accordingly, the Crown should have consulted with it during the development of that legislation and upon its introduction in Parliament. The Mikisew Cree sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the Crown before the Federal Court.
II. The impugned decision [7] On the standard of review, the Judge noted that the application required a de novo consideration of the circumstances, and as such there was no standard of review.
[8] First, the Judge found that the application was not precluded by subsection 2(2) of the Federal Courts Act, which states that a “federal board, commission or other tribunal” does not include, amongst others, “the Senate, the House of Commons, [or] any committee or member of either House”. While he took issue with the applicant’s characterization of the matter as “executive” rather than “legislative” in nature, the Judge noted that the applicant was not seeking judicial review of the content of the bills, of decisions of committees or members upon their introduction in Parliament, or of any particular decision of a minister in implementing legislation. Rather, it was his view that judicial review of the actual process undertaken by ministers “before legislation has been drafted and presented to Parliament” was being sought (Reasons for Judgment at para. 22).
[9] Second, the Judge found that the matter was justiciable, entailing the determination of whether a legal and enforceable duty to consult existed, and that the matter was not premature (Reasons for Judgment at para. 29).
[10] Third, the Judge found that if there was a duty to consult, it could not trigger any judicial intervention before a bill was introduced into Parliament by virtue of the separation of powers doctrine. The Judge acknowledged the tension between the traditional reluctance of courts to impose any procedural requirements upon the legislative process, and the constitutional duty to consult arising from section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), c. 11. He found that neither Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 257 [Tsilhqot’in] nor Grassy Narrows First Nation v. Ontario (Natural Resources), 2014 SCC 48, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 447 [Grassy Narrows] stood for the proposition that legislation constitutes Crown conduct for the purposes of the duty to consult, and that certain passages of Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2004 SCC 73, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 511 [Haida Nation] and Rio Tinto suggest the contrary, since in both such cases, the court refused to dictate a particular regulatory scheme that Parliament should adopt to comply with the duty to consult. On that reasoning, the Judge found that the duty to consult was not triggered by legislative provisions that made “procedural changes”, such as the provisions of the CEAA, 2012 and of the Fisheries Act that allow the Crown to transfer its duty to consult to provincial authorities; public notification requirements in the NPA; time-limits and restrictions on public participation in environmental assessments as found under the CEAA, 2012; and the transfer of responsibilities for pipeline and powerline regulations and species at risk certifications to the National Energy Board.
[11] In response to the applicant’s argument that the duty to consult and judicial review could nonetheless attach to the policy development occurring prior to the decision to draft legislation, the Judge found that restraints on the executive’s policy choices to develop legislation is a restraint on the legislative branch itself, relying mainly on Ontario v. Criminal Lawyers’ Association of Ontario, 2013 SCC 43, [2013] 3 SCR 3 [Criminal Lawyers’ Association] and Reference re Canada Assistance Plan (B.C.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 525, 83 D.L.R. (4th) 297 [re Canada Assistance Plan]. He found that the ministers acted in their legislative capacity in reaching the decision at issue in the application, and that the above-noted cases applied in the Aboriginal context since the result of applying the duty to consult to the law-making process would equally place procedural constraints on Parliament (Reasons for Judgment at paras. 65-67). He further noted that the law-making process requires flexibility, and that having the duty to consult apply to this process would constrain it.
[12] The Judge then considered whether the honour of the Crown in its dealings with Aboriginal peoples mandated a departure from the traditional separation of powers doctrine with respect to the legislative process. On this point, he noted that Treaty No. 8 contained no special provisions that would “allow the Mikisew, in preference to other Canadians, to intervene in the legislative process before a bill that may, in some arguable way, interfere with the Mikisew’s treaty rights of fishing and trapping” (Reasons for Judgment at para. 71). Although the Judge qualified this proposition by indicating that “[t]his does not mean that all legislative conduct will automatically fail to constitute Crown conduct for the purpose of triggering a duty to consult”, he found that intervention in the law-making process in this case would compromise parliamentary sovereignty. He therefore concluded that if there was a duty to consult, it could not trigger any judicial intervention prior to the introduction of a bill in Parliament.
[13] Fourth, the Judge applied the test from Haida Nation to establish whether a duty to consult exists, which asks whether (1) the Crown has knowledge, real or constructive, of the potential existence of an Aboriginal or treaty right, and (2) contemplates conduct that (3) might adversely affect it (Haida Nation at para. 35). Regarding knowledge of the Aboriginal or treaty right, the Judge acknowledged the Crown’s concession that it has knowledge of Mikisew Cree’s treaty rights. With respect to the requirement of Crown conduct, the Judge proceeded on the assumption that the steps ministers take prior to the introduction of a bill in Parliament constitute Crown conduct that can give rise to the duty to consult (Reasons for Judgment at para. 84). As for the potential adverse effects, the Judge found that the reduction of navigable waters that are protected under the NPA and the reduction of protection to fish habitat under the Fisheries Act constitute a sufficient potential risk to fishing and trapping rights to trigger the duty to consult. He emphasized that potential harm is sufficient under the Haida Nation test. However, with respect to the CEAA, 2012, the Judge found that the narrower scope of consideration of environmental effects should not affect Aboriginal peoples given subsection 5(1) of the CEAA, 2012, and that the amendments to the Species at Risk Act would not allow individuals to engage in activities that affect listed wildlife species. The Judge concluded that for the provisions which triggered a duty to consult (i.e., those found in the NPA and in the Fisheries Act), it could have been triggered when the omnibus bills were introduced to Parliament (Reasons for Judgment at para. 99).
[14] The Judge went on to discuss the extent of that duty, concluding that the amendments to the NPA and the Fisheries Act triggered a duty to give notice and a reasonable opportunity to make submissions, but did not result in a duty to accommodate, because the provisions had not yet been applied to any specific situations that would trigger the higher end of the spectrum of consultation described in Haida Nation.
[15] Fifth, the Judge found that the appropriate remedy was a declaration to the effect that the Crown had a duty to consult with the Mikisew Cree at the time each omnibus bill was introduced in Parliament by giving notice and an opportunity to provide submissions. On injunctive relief, he found that there would be no value in such an order, which would be impossible to define and would unduly fetter the workings of government (Reasons for Judgment at para. 106). The Judge found that the constitutional nature of the duty to consult allowed the court to review the conduct at issue, but that in deciding on a remedy, it should grant no relief beyond a declaration in recognition of the constitutional responsibilities of the legislative branch (Reasons for Judgment at para. 107). Since the omnibus bills had already been enacted, a declaration that the Crown should consult would be pointless; however, the Judge found that a declaration on the existence of the duty to consult would have practical value for the parties’ future obligations in implementing Treaty No. 8.
III. Issues [16] I agree with the respondent that the issues on the appeal and cross-appeal overlap, and that there is no use in parsing them out. Overall, the case raises the following questions:
Did the Judge err in conducting a judicial review of legislative action contrary to the Federal Courts Act? Did the Judge err by failing to respect the doctrine of separation of powers or the principle of parliamentary privilege? Did the Judge err in concluding that the duty to consult had been triggered? Did the Judge err in determining the appropriate remedy?
[17] As I dispose of this appeal on the basis of issues A and B, issues C and D will not be addressed in my analysis below.
IV. Analysis [18] There is no dispute between the parties that the issues raised on this appeal are subject to the standard of correctness as questions of law (Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235), except for any factual findings underlying the existence of the duty to consult, which are reviewable on palpable and overriding error (Haida Nation at para. 61), and the Judge’s discretionary decision regarding the remedy to grant, which is also subject to deference (Mining Watch Canada v. Canada (Fisheries and Oceans), 2010 SCC 2 at para. 43, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 6). I shall therefore proceed with my analysis, keeping in mind these various standards of review.
A. Did the Judge err in conducting a judicial review of legislative action contrary to the Federal Courts Act? [19] The first hurdle that an applicant must surmount when filing a proceeding in the Federal Court is jurisdictional. As a statutory court, the Federal Court must have been granted jurisdiction by Parliament to deal with the subject matter of the proposed application or action (ITO – Int’l Terminal Operators Ltd. v. Miida Electronics Inc., [1986] 1 S.C.R. 752 at p. 766, 28 D.L.R. (4th) 641; Canada (Attorney General) v. TeleZone Inc., 2010 SCC 62 at para. 43, [2010] 3 S.C.R. 585 [TeleZone]).
[20] When the Federal Courts Act was adopted in 1971, an important consideration was the need for a national and coherent perspective on judicial review of federal public bodies; as a result, the jurisdiction of the former Exchequer Court was expanded to confer on the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal the exclusive supervisory function to review the decisions of federal decision-makers (see Hupacasath First Nation v. Canada (Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada), 2015 FCA 4 at para. 52, 379 D.L.R. (4th) 737; Canada v. Tremblay, 2004 FCA 172, [2004] 4 F.C.R. 165).
[21] By its very nature, judicial review is concerned with the rule of law and the objective of ensuring that government officials, from the highest ranking representatives to those operating at the lower echelons, act within the boundaries of the law. As the Supreme Court stated in TeleZone, “[j]udicial review is directed at the legality, reasonableness, and fairness of the procedures employed and actions taken by government decision makers” (at para. 24). It is concerned with government action, and not with legislation.
[22] This rationale is reflected in the wording of sections 18 and 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act, along with the definition provided for “federal board, commission or other tribunal” at paragraph 2(1) and the exclusion from that definition of the Senate and House of Commons at paragraph 2(2) of that same Act. These provisions read as follows:
Definitions
Définitions
2 (1) In this Act,
2 (1) Les définitions qui suivent s’appliquent à la présente loi.
federal board, commission or other tribunal means any body, person or persons having, exercising or purporting to exercise jurisdiction or powers conferred by or under an Act of Parliament or by or under an order made pursuant to a prerogative of the Crown, other than the Tax Court of Canada or any of its judges, any such body constituted or established by or under a law of a province or any such person or persons appointed under or in accordance with a law of a province or under section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867;
office fédéral Conseil, bureau, commission ou autre organisme, ou personne ou groupe de personnes, ayant, exerçant ou censé exercer une compétence ou des pouvoirs prévus par une loi fédérale ou par une ordonnance prise en vertu d’une prérogative royale, à l’exclusion de la Cour canadienne de l’impôt et ses juges, d’un organisme constitué sous le régime d’une loi provinciale ou d’une personne ou d’un groupe de personnes nommées aux termes d’une loi provinciale ou de l’article 96 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867.
Senate and House of Commons
Sénat et Chambre des communes
(2) For greater certainty, the expression “federal board, commission or other tribunal”, as defined in subsection (1), does not include the Senate, the House of Commons, any committee or member of either House, the Senate Ethics Officer, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner with respect to the exercise of the jurisdiction or powers referred to in sections 41.1 to 41.5 and 86 of the Parliament of Canada Act or the Parliamentary Protective Service.
(2) Il est entendu que sont également exclus de la définition de « office fédéral » le Sénat, la Chambre des communes, tout comité ou membre de l’une ou l’autre chambre, le conseiller sénatorial en éthique, le commissaire aux conflits d’intérêts et à l’éthique à l’égard de l’exercice de sa compétence et de ses attributions visées aux articles 41.1 à 41.5 et 86 de la Loi sur le Parlement du Canada et le Service de protection parlementaire.
Extraordinary remedies, federal tribunals
Recours extraordinaires : offices fédéraux
18 (1) Subject to section 28, the Federal Court has exclusive original jurisdiction
18 (1) Sous réserve de l’article 28, la Cour fédérale a compétence exclusive, en première instance, pour :
(a) to issue an injunction, writ of certiorari, writ of prohibition, writ of mandamus or writ of quo warranto, or grant declaratory relief, against any federal board, commission or other tribunal; and
a) décerner une injonction, un bref de certiorari, de mandamus, de prohibition ou de quo warranto, ou pour rendre un jugement déclaratoire contre tout office fédéral;
(b) to hear and determine any application or other proceeding for relief in the nature of relief contemplated by paragraph (a), including any proceeding brought against the Attorney General of Canada, to obtain relief against a federal board, commission or other tribunal.
b) connaître de toute demande de réparation de la nature visée par l’alinéa a), et notamment de toute procédure engagée contre le procureur général du Canada afin d’obtenir réparation de la part d’un office fédéral.
Extraordinary remedies, members of Canadian Forces
Recours extraordinaires : Forces canadiennes
(2) The Federal Court has exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and determine every application for a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, writ of certiorari, writ of prohibition or writ of mandamus in relation to any member of the Canadian Forces serving outside Canada.
(2) Elle a compétence exclusive, en première instance, dans le cas des demandes suivantes visant un membre des Forces canadiennes en poste à l’étranger : bref d’habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, de certiorari, de prohibition ou de mandamus.
Remedies to be obtained on application
Exercice des recours
(3) The remedies provided for in subsections (1) and (2) may be obtained only on an application for judicial review made under section 18.1.
(3) Les recours prévus aux paragraphes (1) ou (2) sont exercés par présentation d’une demande de contrôle judiciaire.
Application for judicial review
Demande de contrôle judiciaire
18.1 (1) An application for judicial review may be made by the Attorney General of Canada or by anyone directly affected by the matter in respect of which relief is sought.
18.1 (1) Une demande de contrôle judiciaire peut être présentée par le procureur général du Canada ou par quiconque est directement touché par l’objet de la demande.
Time limitation
Délai de présentation
(2) An application for judicial review in respect of a decision or an order of a federal board, commission or other tribunal shall be made within 30 days after the time the decision or order was first communicated by the federal board, commission or other tribunal to the office of the Deputy Attorney General of Canada or to the party directly affected by it, or within any further time that a judge of the Federal Court may fix or allow before or after the end of those 30 days.
(2) Les demandes de contrôle judiciaire sont à présenter dans les trente jours qui suivent la première communication, par l’office fédéral, de sa décision ou de son ordonnance au bureau du sous-procureur général du Canada ou à la partie concernée, ou dans le délai supplémentaire qu’un juge de la Cour fédérale peut, avant ou après l’expiration de ces trente jours, fixer ou accorder.
Powers of Federal Court
Pouvoirs de la Cour fédérale
(3) On an application for judicial review, the Federal Court may
(3) Sur présentation d’une demande de contrôle judiciaire, la Cour fédérale peut :
(a) order a federal board, commission or other tribunal to do any act or thing it has unlawfully failed or refused to do or has unreasonably delayed in doing; or
a) ordonner à l’office fédéral en cause d’accomplir tout acte qu’il a illégalement omis ou refusé d’accomplir ou dont il a retardé l’exécution de manière déraisonnable;
(b) declare invalid or unlawful, or quash, set aside or set aside and refer back for determination in accordance with such directions as it considers to be appropriate, prohibit or restrain, a decision, order, act or proceeding of a federal board, commission or other tribunal.
b) déclarer nul ou illégal, ou annuler, ou infirmer et renvoyer pour jugement conformément aux instructions qu’elle estime appropriées, ou prohiber ou encore restreindre toute décision, ordonnance, procédure ou tout autre acte de l’office fédéral.
Grounds of review
Motifs
(4) The Federal Court may grant relief under subsection (3) if it is satisfied that the federal board, commission or other tribunal
(4) Les mesures prévues au paragraphe (3) sont prises si la Cour fédérale est convaincue que l’office fédéral, selon le cas :
(a) acted without jurisdiction, acted beyond its jurisdiction or refused to exercise its jurisdiction;
a) a agi sans compétence, outrepassé celle-ci ou refusé de l’exercer;
(b) failed to observe a principle of natural justice, procedural fairness or other procedure that it was required by law to observe;
b) n’a pas observé un principe de justice naturelle ou d’équité procédurale ou toute autre procédure qu’il était légalement tenu de respecter;
(c) erred in law in making a decision or an order, whether or not the error appears on the face of the record;
c) a rendu une décision ou une ordonnance entachée d’une erreur de droit, que celle-ci soit manifeste ou non au vu du dossier;
(d) based its decision or order on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it;
d) a rendu une décision ou une ordonnance fondée sur une conclusion de fait erronée, tirée de façon abusive ou arbitraire ou sans tenir compte des éléments dont il dispose;
(e) acted, or failed to act, by reason of fraud or perjured evidence; or
e) a agi ou omis d’agir en raison d’une fraude ou de faux témoignages;
(f) acted in any other way that was contrary to law.
f) a agi de toute autre façon contraire à la loi.
Defect in form or technical irregularity
Vice de forme
(5) If the sole ground for relief established on an application for judicial review is a defect in form or a technical irregularity, the Federal Court may
(a) refuse the relief if it finds that no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred; and
(b) in the case of a defect in form or a technical irregularity in a decision or an order, make an order validating the decision or order, to have effect from any time and on any terms that it considers appropriate.
(5) La Cour fédérale peut rejeter toute demande de contrôle judiciaire fondée uniquement sur un vice de forme si elle estime qu’en l’occurrence le vice n’entraîne aucun dommage important ni déni de justice et, le cas échéant, valider la décision ou l’ordonnance entachée du vice et donner effet à celle-ci selon les modalités de temps et autres qu’elle estime indiquées.
[23] On a plain reading of these provisions, there would appear to be two requirements for this Court or the Federal Court to be validly seized of an application for judicial review. First, that there be an identifiable decision or order in respect of which a remedy is sought. Second, that the impugned decision or order be made by a “federal board, commission or other tribunal”. In the case at bar, the second of these conditions is clearly not met.
[24] It is difficult to conceive of any discrete decision made by the Governor in Council or the various ministers that would be the subject of this application for judicial review. Indeed, the relief requested by the respondent is of a declaratory and injunctive nature with respect to the development of the omnibus bills. The Judge found as much at paragraph 16 of his reasons, where he stated explicitly that “[t]his is not a review of any decision or order of a federal board”. He did say, later on in his reasons, that “there is a sufficient legal basis for the Court to review the matter judicially: namely, whether the legal and enforceable duty to consult applies to the decisions at issue” (Reasons for Judgment at para. 29), and that “the [m]inisters acted in their legislative capacity to make decisions that were legislative in nature” (Reasons for Judgment at para. 66) [emphasis added]. It is not clear, however, what particular decisions he was referring to in the above-referenced passages. If it is the decision to move forward with a policy initiative with a view to bringing proposed legislation to Cabinet for approval and eventually, to Parliament for adoption, it would presumably not meet the requirement for a formal decision as it would be inchoate in nature and not formally recorded.
[25] Be that as it may, this is not the argument put forward by the respondent. Instead, it argues that the Federal Courts Act does not require that there be a “decision”, but only a “matter” triggering rights to judicial review. They rely for that proposition on the reasons of this Court in Air Canada v. Toronto Port Authority et al., 2011 FCA 347, [2013] 3 F.C.R. 605 (per Stratas J.) [Air Canada], which the Judge quoted at length and purportedly applied. The crux of the Court’s reasoning can be grasped from the following excerpt:
Subsection 18.1(1) of the Federal Courts Act provides that an application for judicial review may be made by the Attorney General of Canada or by anyone directly affected by “the matter in respect of which relief is sought”. A “matter” that can be subject of judicial review includes not only a “decision or order”, but any matter in respect of which a remedy may be available under section 18 of the Federal Courts Act: Krause v. Canada, [1999] 2 F.C. 476 (C.A.). Subsection 18.1(3) sheds further light on this, referring to relief for an “act or thing,” a failure, refusal or delay to do an “act or thing”, a “decision”, an “order” and a “proceeding.” Finally, the rules that govern applications for judicial review apply to “applications for judicial review of administrative action”, not just applications for judicial review of “decisions or orders”: Rule 300 of the Federal Courts Rules.
Air Canada at para. 24
[26] Assuming that the focus of the inquiry is whether the decision-maker has done anything which may have triggered rights on the part of the aggrieved party to bring a judicial review, the respondent still has to establish that the Federal Court is empowered to act and to provide a remedy. Typically, the kind of remedies available on an application for judicial review are couched with a view to ensuring that the legal framework within which the executive branch of the government must act is complied with. The language of subsections 18.1(3) and (4) is permeated with notions that partake to administrative law (consider, for instance, the following terms used in these subsections: “unlawfully”, “unreasonably delayed”, “invalid or unlawful”, “quash, set aside or set aside and refer back for redetermination”, “prohibit or restrain”, “acted without jurisdiction, acted beyond its jurisdiction or refused to exercise its jurisdiction”, “failed to observe a principle of natural justice”, “erred in law”, “erroneous finding of fact”, “acted in any other way that was contrary to law”). This is clearly not the kind of language used in relation to legislative action. To the extent, therefore, that the ministers and the Governor in Council were acting in their legislative capacity in developing the two omnibus bills, as argued by the appellants, judicial review would clearly not be available. This brings me to the second requirement for the Federal Court (and this Court) to have jurisdiction pursuant to sections 18 and 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act.
[27] Sections 18 and 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act make it clear that it is only those decisions made and actions taken by a “federal board, commission or other tribunal” that can be the subject of the supervisory jurisdiction of the Federal Court (and of the Federal Court of Appeal pursuant to section 28 of the Federal Courts Act). It is well established that the test for determining whether a person or body falls within the definition of those words as found in subsection 2(1) involves two questions. First, what is the particular jurisdiction or power that is being exercised, and second (and more importantly), what is the source of that jurisdiction or power (see Anisman v. Canada (Border Services Agency), 2010 FCA 52 at paras. 29-31, 400 N.R. 137; Air Canada at para. 47). As D.J.M. Brown and J.M. Evans put it in Judicial Review of Administrative Action in Canada, looseleaf (Toronto: Thomson Reuters Canada, 2016) at para. 2:4310:
In the result, the source of a tribunal’s authority, and not the nature of either the power exercised or the body exercising it, is the primary determinant of whether it falls within the definition. The test is simply whether the body is empowered by or under federal legislation or by an order made pursuant to a prerogative power of the federal Crown. [references omitted] [emphasis in the original]
[28] The respondent argues that ministers are not acting as members of Parliament empowered to legislate by Part IV of the Constitution Act, 1867 (U.K.), 30 & 31 Vict., reprinted in R.S.C. 1986, App. II, No. 5 during the policy development phase of law making, but rather, they are exercising their executive powers as Cabinet ministers responsible for their departments pursuant to various departmental acts (see Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-6; Department of Environment Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-10; Department of Fisheries and Oceans Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-15; Department of Transport Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-18; Department of Natural Resources Act, S.C. 1994, c. 41; Financial Administration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-11). These various statutes provide for the appointment of ministers; establish the scope of their mandates; provide a basic framework of powers, duties and functions they may exercise in delivering on their mandates and for which they are accountable; create departments over which they preside; and organize resources to support them in the discharge of their responsibilities. Nowhere, however, do these acts refer even implicitly to their role as policy-makers or to the development of legislation for introduction into Parliament. This is not to say that such a responsibility is not part of their mandate as ministers; but it flows from the Constitution itself and from our system of parliamentary democracy, and not from a delegation of powers from Parliament to the executive. The exercise of such powers is not reviewable by way of judicial review (Southam Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1990] 3 F.C.R. 465 at paras. 27-29, 73 D.L.R. (4th) 289 (FCA)).
[29] The respondent proposes that a distinction be drawn between ministers acting as policy-makers and ministers acting as legislators. Indeed, the respondent argued that the law-making process can be neatly split between the consultation part, on the one hand, and the various steps following the approval by the relevant Cabinet policy committee of the memorandum through which policy approval and authority to draft a bill is sought, on the other. But as shown by a document describing the law-making process at the federal level published by the Privy Council Office and to which the Judge referred at length in paragraphs 31 to 36 of his reasons (see Guide to Making Federal Acts and Regulations, 2d ed., 2001, Affidavit of Douglas Nevison, Exhibit H, Appeal Book, vol. 19 at p. 5752 and ff.), the legislative process is a fluid exercise involving many players, both at the political and at the government officials level. It would be artificial to parse out the elements of a minister’s functions associated to either its executive or legislative functions for the purpose of drawing a red line between the dual roles of the members of Cabinet.
[30] In that respect, I am of the view that the Judge correctly found that the power that the ministers exercised in the entire course of the law-making process was legislative in nature. He rightly came to that conclusion after quoting from the decision of the majority of the Supreme Court in Criminal Lawyers’ Association at paragraph 28 (per Karakatsanis J.):
Over several centuries of transformation and conflict, the English system evolved from one in which power was centralized in the Crown to one in which the powers of the state were exercised by way of distinct organs with separate functions. The development of separate executive, legislative and judicial functions has allowed for the evolution of certain core competencies in the various institutions vested with these functions. The legislative branch makes policy choices, adopts laws and holds the purse strings of government, as only it can authorize the spending of public funds. The executive implements and administers those policy choices and laws with the assistance of a professional public service. The judiciary maintains the rule of law, by interpreting and applying these laws through the independent and impartial adjudication of references and disputes, and protects the fundamental liberties and freedoms guaranteed under the Charter.
[31] I shall return in the next section of these reasons to the concept of the separation of powers and its consequences in the case at bar. Suffice it to say, for the moment, that making policy choices and adopting laws are explicitly recognized as functions of the legislative branch. It is also worth noting that Justice Karakatsanis, in the above-quoted excerpt, refers to the “legislative branch” as opposed to the “legislature”; she thereby implicitly recognized that the legislative function is not under the exclusive purview of parliamentarians in our system of government, where Cabinet ministers are by convention elected members of Parliament and are “a hyphen which joins, a buckle which fastens, the legislative part of the state to the executive part of the state” [emphasis in the original], to use the words of Walter Bagehot, The English Constitution, 2d ed. (London and Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson & Son, 1872) at p. 14.
[32] In that context, it is difficult to understand why the Judge adopted a restrictive interpretation of subsection 2(2) of the Federal Courts Act. While admitting that this provision would preclude the intervention of the Court if the proceedings could be said to engage the parliamentary process, he emphasized that it was the process undertaken by the ministers before any piece of legislation had been drafted and presented to Parliament that was at stake here. Not only does this finding appear to run counter to his view that the ministers acted in their legislative capacity when they made the decisions leading to the formulation and introduction of the omnibus bills to Parliament (see Reasons for Judgment at para. 66), but it also seems at odds with a contextual and purposive construction of subsection 2(2) of the Federal Courts Act. When read in its historical perspective, and bearing in mind the true nature of judicial review, the exclusion of the Senate and of the House of Commons in that subsection is not only meant to protect the existing function of parliamentary privilege by ensuring that judicial review is not extended to ministers acting in their capacity as members of Parliament or Senators, as the respondent would have it, but more broadly to preclude judicial review of the legislative process at large. When ministers are engaged in the law-making process, at whatever stage, they are not acting as statutory decision-makers but as legislators, and their actions and decisions are immune from judicial review.
[33] Finally, the respondent relied on two cases in support of its argument that a distinction must be drawn between ministers acting in their parliamentary roles, that is, after a bill has received Cabinet approval and is introduced in Parliament, and ministers acting as members of the executive in the process of developing the policy and recommendations leading up to the decision to formulate and introduce a bill. The first is Tsuu T’ina Nation v. Alberta (Environment),