Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Attorney General),
| Jurisdiction | Federal Jurisdiction (Canada) |
| Judge | McLachlin, Beverley; LeBel, Louis; Deschamps, Marie; Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Charron, Louise; Rothstein, Marshall; Cromwell, Thomas Albert |
| Citation | 2011 SCC 53,[2011] 3 SCR 471,337 DLR (4th) 385,207 ACWS (3d) 185,[2011] ACS no 53,422 NR 248,[2011] SCJ No 53 (QL) |
| Date | 28 October 2011 |
| Court | Supreme Court (Canada) |
| Docket Number | 33507 |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
344 practice notes
-
Ursa Ventures Ltd. v. Edmonton (City), 2016 ABCA 135
...which to conduct the modern approach to statutory interpretation"); Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canada , 2011 SCC 53, ¶ 48; [2011] 3 S.C.R. 471, 497 ("This piece of legislative history .. strongly suggests that 'costs' was used as a term of art when the intention was to confer autho......
-
R. v. Khill,
...R. v. D.L.W., 2016 SCC 22, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 402; Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SCC 53, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 471; R. v. Sylvester, 2020 ABQB 27; R. v. Merasty, 2014 SKQB 268, 454 Sask. R. 49; R. v. Browne, [1973] N.I. 96; R. v. Ameralik, 2021 NUC......
-
Servellon Melendez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),
...[para. 22]. Alliance Pipeline Ltd. v. Smith (2011), 412 N.R. 66; 2011 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 22]. Canada (Attorney General) v. Mowat, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 471; 422 N.R. 248; 2011 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 22]. Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canada (Attorney General) - see Canada (Attorney Gen......
-
R. v. Rousselle, 2025 SCC 35
...R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 575; Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SCC 53, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 471; Kosicki v. Toronto (City), 2025 SCC 28; R. v. Alex, 2017 SCC 37, [2017] 1 S.C.R. 967; R. v. St. Pierre, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 791; R. v. Bouch......
Get Started for Free
314 cases
-
Ursa Ventures Ltd. v. Edmonton (City), 2016 ABCA 135
...which to conduct the modern approach to statutory interpretation"); Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canada , 2011 SCC 53, ¶ 48; [2011] 3 S.C.R. 471, 497 ("This piece of legislative history .. strongly suggests that 'costs' was used as a term of art when the intention was to confer autho......
-
R. v. Khill,
...R. v. D.L.W., 2016 SCC 22, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 402; Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SCC 53, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 471; R. v. Sylvester, 2020 ABQB 27; R. v. Merasty, 2014 SKQB 268, 454 Sask. R. 49; R. v. Browne, [1973] N.I. 96; R. v. Ameralik, 2021 NUC......
-
Servellon Melendez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),
...[para. 22]. Alliance Pipeline Ltd. v. Smith (2011), 412 N.R. 66; 2011 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 22]. Canada (Attorney General) v. Mowat, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 471; 422 N.R. 248; 2011 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 22]. Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canada (Attorney General) - see Canada (Attorney Gen......
-
R. v. Rousselle, 2025 SCC 35
...R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 575; Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SCC 53, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 471; Kosicki v. Toronto (City), 2025 SCC 28; R. v. Alex, 2017 SCC 37, [2017] 1 S.C.R. 967; R. v. St. Pierre, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 791; R. v. Bouch......
Get Started for Free
1 firm's commentaries
-
The Competition Tribunal Can Be Reviewed On Correctness
...Association, 2011 SCC 61, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 654. 6 Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SCC 53, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 471. 7 Tervita, supra note 1 at para. 8 Tervita, supra note 1 at para. 35. 9 R.S.C., 1985, c. 19 (2nd Supp.). 10 Tervita, supra note 1 at par......
26 books & journal articles
-
RENOVATING JUDICIAL REVIEW.
...note 7 at para 18. (134) Ibid at paras 39-40. (135) Another prominent example of this reasoning is Canada (AG) v Mowat, 2011 SCC 53, [2011] 3 SCR 471, a case that is frequently held up as an example of disguised correctness review. See Mullan, "Unresolved Issues", supra note 46 at 58-59; Ma......
-
Notes
...de Lévis Inc , 2007 SCC 14 at paras 85–90. 22 he Conference’s website can be accessed online: https://ulcc-chlc.ca. 23 2011 SCC 53, [2011] 3 SCR 471. 24 RSC 1985, c H-6. 25 Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act , SBC 2019, c 44 and United Nations Declaration on the Rights of I......
-
The Federal Courts and Administrative Law
...para 34, Rothstein J [ Alberta Teachers ]. 113 See, for example, Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v Canada (Attorney General) , [2011] 3 SCR 471 at paras 22–27, LeBel and Cromwell JJ (questions of law of central importance); Alberta Teachers , above note 112 at paras 33–43 (true qu......
-
Resisting criminal organizations: reconceptualizing the "political" in international refugee law.
...persons" in citizenship legislation). (34) See e.g. Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SCC 53, [2011] 3 SCR 471 [Mowat] (concluding that the term "expenses" does not incorporate "costs"); King v Burwell, 135 S Ct 2480, 192 L Ed (2d) 483 (2015) (deter......
Get Started for Free