OECTA v. Ont. (A.G.), 2001 SCC 15

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C. and L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 08, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2001 SCC 15;(2001), 267 N.R. 10 (SCC);144 OAC 1;196 DLR (4th) 577;[2001] 1 SCR 470;267 NR 10;[2001] CarswellOnt 580

OECTA v. Ont. (A.G.) (2001), 267 N.R. 10 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2001] N.R. TBEd. MR.008

Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association, Marshall Jarvis, Claire Ross and Annemarie Ross (appellants) v. Attorney General for Ontario (respondent)

Ontario Public School Boards' Association, Toronto District School Board, Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario, Joleene Kemp, David Edwards and Robert Churchill (appellants) v. Attorney General for Ontario and Attorney General of Quebec, Attorney General of Manitoba, Attorney General of British Columbia, Attorney General for Alberta, Ontario Catholic School Trustees' Association, Association franco-ontarienne des conseils scolaires catholiques, Association des conseillers(ères) des écoles publiques de l'Ontario, Alberta Catholic School Trustees' Association, Board of Lethbridge Roman Catholic Separate School District No. 9, Dwayne Berlando, Boards of Education of the Regina School Division No. 4, Saskatchewan Rivers School Division No. 119, Swift Current School Division No. 94, Weyburn School Division No. 97, Yorkton School Division No. 93, Estevan School Division No. 95, Saskatoon School Division No. 13, Moose Jaw School Division No. 1, Public School Boards' Association of Alberta, Board of Trustees of the Edmonton School District No. 7 and Cathryn Staring Parrish (interveners)

(27363; 2001 SCC 15)

Indexed As: Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association et al. v. Ontario (Attorney General) et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C. and L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.

March 8, 2001.

Summary:

The Education Quality Improvement Act, S.O. 1997, c. 31 (EQIA), brought about fundamental changes in the governance and funding of education in Ontario. The appli­cants applied for declarations that various parts of the EQIA were unconstitutional and of no force and effect.

The Ontario Court (General Division), in a decision reported at 69 O.T.C. 321, held that the EQIA, insofar as it removed the taxation power from the Roman Catholic educational community, violated s. 93(1) of the Consti­tution Act, 1867. The Attorney General of Ontario et al. appealed that finding. Some of the appli­cants appealed the findings that: the EQIA, as well as the funding model pre­scribed by O. Reg. 287/98, did not violate s. 93(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867; the EQIA did not violate the s. 93(1) rights of public schools; the EQIA was not invalidated on the basis of the doctrine of constitutional convention; the EQIA was not an impermis­sible delegation to the Minister of Finance of the power to impose school taxes by regula­tion.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 120 O.A.C. 116, allowed the Attorney General's appeal and dismissed the other appeals. Some of the applicants appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Constitutional Law - Topic 63

General - Conventions - Nature of - The Ontario Education Quality Improvement Act removed the power of school boards to determine and levy property tax rates - The applicants submitted that the Act contra­vened the doctrine of constitutional con­vention - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the submission - Consti­tutional conventions related to the prin­ciples of responsible government, not to how a particular power, which was clearly within a provincial government's jurisdic­tion, was to be exercised - The design of the public education system in Ontario was not the type of issue over which a consti­tutional convention could develop and, even if it was, there was no evidence of such a convention developing in Ontario - Further, such a convention would be inconsistent with the plenary power over education given to the provinces in s. 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 - See para­graphs 63 to 66.

Constitutional Law - Topic 605

Powers of parliament and the legislatures -Delegation of power - Taxing powers - Section 257.12(1)(b) of the Ontario Edu­cation Quality Improvement Act (EQIA) permitted the Minister of Finance to make regulations prescribing the tax rates for school purposes - The applicants submit­ted that the power delegated to the Minis­ter to prescribe the tax rates was unconsti­tutional because it violated the preamble and ss. 53 and 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867 - The Supreme Court of Canada disagreed - The EQIA met the require­ments of no taxation without representation incorporated in the Constitution's preamble - Section 54 was not relevant - Section 53 was not violated where the bill originated in the legislature, the delegation was effected using express and unambiguous words, and the tax that the Minister del­egated the authority to impose was intra vires the province - See paragraphs 67 to 79.

Constitutional Law - Topic 9542

Education - Separate or denominational schools - Extent of constitutional guaran­tees under s. 93, Constitution Act 1867 - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the protections of s. 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 - The court held that separate school boards in Ontario had neither a right to independent taxation nor an abso­lute right to independent management and control - Thus, public school boards in the province also did not have such rights - Subject to s. 93, public school boards as an institution had no constitutional status.

Constitutional Law - Topic 9542

Education - Separate or denominational schools - Extent of constitutional guaran­tees under s. 93, Constitution Act 1867 - Roman Catholic school boards in Ontario had the right to tax their supporters in 1867 - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 93(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867, did not guarantee that right to tax - Sec­tion 93(1) protected the right to funding for denominational education, not the specific mechanism through which that funding was delivered - See paragraphs 48 to 56.

Constitutional Law - Topic 9549

Education - Separate or denominational schools - Ontario - The Ontario Education Quality Improvement Act (EQIA) created a new governance and funding model for all school boards in Ontario, including both public and separate (denominational) boards - To address a disparity of rev­enues between urban and rural boards and between separate and public boards, the EQIA allocated funds on a per-pupil basis - It removed the ability of school boards to set property tax rates for education pur­poses, centralizing this taxation power in the hands of the Minister of Finance - It limited the power of school boards to control their budgets and expenditures, while guaranteeing local control over denominational expenditures - The EQIA also allowed the Minister of Education and Training to take control of a school board temporarily if financial problems arose, subject to certain protections - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the EQIA did not violate s. 93(1) of the Con­stitution Act, 1867 - The EQIA affected only secular aspects of education - It did not prejudicially affect denominational aspects of education or any non-denomi­national aspects required to deliver the protected denominational elements - See paragraphs 35 to 47.

Constitutional Law - Topic 9549

Education - Separate or denominational schools - Ontario - [See both Constitu­tional Law - Topic 9542 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 9555

Education - Separate or denominational schools - Taxes - [See both Constitu­tional Law - Topic 9542 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 9623

Education - Particular matters - Funding - [See second Constitutional Law - Topic 9542 ].

Education - Topic 8010

Separate schools - General - Funding - [See second Constitutional Law - Topic 9542 ].

Education - Topic 8012

Separate schools - General - Taxation - [See both Constitutional Law - Topic 9542 ].

Cases Noticed:

Reference Re Roman Catholic Separate High Schools Funding, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1148; 77 N.R. 241; 22 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 1].

Reference Re Bill 30, An Act to Amend the Education Act (Ont.) - see Reference Re Roman Catholic Separate High Schools Funding.

Winnipeg (City) v. Barrett, [1892] A.C. 445 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

Brophy v. Attorney General of Manitoba, [1895] A.C. 202 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

Ottawa Separate Schools Trustees v. Mackell, [1917] A.C. 62 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

Ottawa Separate Schools Trustees v. Ottawa Corp., [1917] A.C. 76 (P.C.), dist. [para. 5].

Hirsch v. Protestant School Commissioners of Montreal, [1928] A.C. 200 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

Roman Catholic Separate School Trustees for Tiny v. R., [1928] A.C. 363 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

Greater Hull School Board v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1984] 2 S.C.R. 575; 56 N.R. 99, refd to. [para. 5].

Protestant School Board of Greater Montreal et al. v. Québec (Procureur général) et al., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 377; 92 N.R. 327; 20 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 5].

Greater Montreal Protestant School Board v. Quebec (Attorney General) - see Protestant School Board of Greater Montreal et al. v. Québec (Procureur général) et al.

Renvoi relatif à la Loi sur l'instruction publique, L.Q. 1988, c. 84, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 511; 154 N.R. 1; 56 Q.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 5].

Reference Re Education Act (Qué.) - see Renvoi relatif à la Loi sur l'instruction publique, L.Q. 1988, c. 84.

Quebec Education Reference - see Renvoi relatif à la Loi sur l'instruction publique, L.Q. 1988, c. 84.

Ontario Home Builders' Association et al. v. Board of Education of York Region et al., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 929; 201 N.R. 81; 93 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 5].

Adler v. Ontario et al., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 609; 204 N.R. 81; 95 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 5].

Public School Boards' Association of Alberta et al. v. Alberta (Attorney Gen­eral) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 49; 260 N.R. 127; 266 A.R. 201; 228 W.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 5].

Waldman v. Canada (2000), 7 IHRR 368, refd to. [para. 5].

Mahe, Martel, Dubé and Association d'Ecole Georges et Julia Bugnet v. Alberta, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 342; 105 N.R. 321; 106 A.R. 321, refd to. [para. 15].

Reference Re Public Schools Act (Man.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 839; 149 N.R. 241; 83 Man.R.(2d) 241; 36 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 15].

Arsenault-Cameron et al. v. Prince Edward Island, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 3; 249 N.R. 140; 184 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 44; 559 A.P.R. 44, refd to. [para. 15].

Ottawa Separate Schools, Re (1917), 41 O.L.R. 259 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Ontario Public School Boards' Association et al. v. Ontario (Attorney General) (1997), 37 O.T.C. 22; 151 D.L.R.(4th) 346 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 22].

Eurig Estate v. Ontario Court (General Division), Registrar, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 565; 231 N.R. 55; 114 O.A.C. 55, refd to. [para. 25].

Ottawa Separate School Trustees v. Ottawa (City) (1915), 34 O.L.R. 624 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

Constitutional Amendment References 1981 (Man., Nfld., Qué.), [1981] 1 S.C.R. 753; 39 N.R. 1; 11 Man.R.(2d) 1; 34 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 95 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 63].

Reference Re Resolution to Amend the Constitution - see Constitutional Amendment References 1981 (Man., Nfld., Qué.).

Patriation Reference - see Constitutional Amendment References 1981 (Man., Nfld., Qué.).

Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217; 228 N.R. 203; 161 D.L.R.(4th) 385 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 64].

Quebec Constitutional Amendment Refer­ence (No. 2); Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General) et l'Asso­ciation Canadienne-Française de l'Ontar­io and Grand Council of the Crees (of Quebec), [1982] 2 S.C.R. 793; 45 N.R. 317, refd to. [para. 65].

Reference Re Objection by Quebec to a Resolution to Amend the Constitution - see Quebec Constitutional Amendment Reference (No. 2); Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General) et l'Association Canadienne-Française de l'Ontario and Grand Council of the Crees (of Quebec).

Agricultural Products Marketing Act, R.S.C. 1970, Re, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1198; 19 N.R. 361; 84 D.L.R.(3d) 257, refd to. [para. 68].

Westbank First Nation v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 134; 246 N.R. 201; 129 B.C.A.C. 1; 210 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 71].

Burns, Executors v. Minister of National Revenue, [1947] S.C.R. 132, revd. in part [1950] A.C. 213, refd to. [para. 73].

Attorney General v. Wilts United Dairies, Ltd. (1921), 37 L.T.R. 884 (C.A.), affd. (1922), 91 L.J.K.B. 897 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 77].

Gruen Watch Co. of Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1950] O.R. 429 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 77].

Bulova Watch Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1951] O.R. 360 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. National Fish Co., [1931] Ex. C.R. 75, refd to. [para. 77].

Hodge v. R. (1883), 9 App. Cas. 117 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 77].

Statutes Noticed:

British North America Act, 1867, preamble [para. 69]; sect. 53, sect. 54, sect. 90 [para. 67]; sect. 93(1) [para. 3].

Common Schools in Upper Canada, An Act respecting, C.S.U.C. 1859, c. 64, sect. 7, sect. 20, sect. 26 [para. 11].

Constitution Act, 1867 - see British North America Act, 1867.

Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E-2, sect. 234(2), sect. 234(3) [para. 14].

Education Quality Improvement Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 31, generally [para. 6].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Kelsey, Brian A., An Educator's Guide to Funding and Governance (1999), pp. 118 [para. 12]; 138 to 151 [para. 17].

Small, Joan, Money Bills and the Use of the Royal Recommendation in Canada: Practice versus Principle? (1995), 27 Ottawa L. Rev. 33, pp. 35, 40 [para. 70].

Counsel:

Paul J. J. Cavalluzzo and Fay C. Faraday, for the appellants, the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association, Marshall Jarvis, Claire Ross and Annemarie Ross;

Brian A. Kelsey, Q.C., Maurice A. Green, Michael A. Hines and Elizabeth Shilton, for the appellants, the Ontario Public School Boards' Association, the Toronto District School Board, the Ontario Sec­ondary School Teachers' Federation, the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario, Joleene Kemp, David Edwards and Robert Churchill;

Janet E. Minor, Robert E. Charney, and Michel Y. Hélie, for the respondent;

Monique Rousseau, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Quebec;

Eugene B. Szach and Denis Guénette, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Manitoba;

Timothy Leadem, for the intervener, the Attorney General of British Columbia;

Robert C. Maybank, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Alberta;

Peter D. Lauwers, for the intervener, the Ontario Catholic School Trustees' Asso­ciation;

Paul S. Rouleau, for the interveners, the Association franco-ontarienne des conseils scolaires catholiques and the Association des conseillers(ères) des écoles publiques de l'Ontario;

James E. Redmond, Q.C., and K. P. Fee­han, for the interveners, the Alberta Catholic School Trustees' Association, the Board of Lethbridge Roman Catholic Separate School District No. 9 and Dwayne Berlando;

Robert G. Richards, Q.C., for the interveners, the Boards of Education of Regina School Division No. 4, Saskatchewan Rivers School Division No. 119, Swift Current School Division No. 94, Weyburn School Division No. 97, Yorkton School Division No. 93, Moose Jaw School Division No. 1, Saskatoon School Division No. 13, and Estevan School Division No. 95;

Dale Gibson, for the interveners, the Pub­lic School Boards' Association of Alberta, the Board of Trustees of the Edmonton School District No. 7 and Cathryn Star­ing Parrish.

Solicitors of Record:

Cavalluzzo Hayes Shilton McIntyre & Cornish, Toronto, Ontario, for the appel­lants, the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association, Marshall Jarvis, Claire Ross and Annemarie Ross;

Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellants, the Ontario Public School Boards' Associ­ation, the Toronto District School Board, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario, Joleene Kemp, David Edwards and Robert Churchill;

The Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent;

The Department of Justice, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Quebec;

The Department of Justice, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the intervener, the Attor­ney General of Manitoba;

The Ministry of the Attorney General, Victoria, British Columbia, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Brit­ish Columbia;

The Department of Justice, Edmonton, Alberta, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Alberta;

Miller Thomson, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Ontario Catholic School Trustees Association;

Heenan Blaikie, Toronto, Ontario, for the interveners, the Association franco-ontarienne des conseils scolaires catho­liques and the Association des conseil­lers(ères) des écoles publiques de l'On­tario;

Fraser Milner Casgrain, Edmonton, Alberta, for the interveners, the Alberta Catholic School Trustees' Association, the Board of Lethbridge Roman Catholic Separate School District No. 9 and Dwayne Berlando;

MacPerson Leslie & Tyerman, Regina, Saskatchewan, for the interveners, the Boards of Education of Regina School Division No. 4, Saskatchewan Rivers School Division No. 119, Swift Current School Division No. 94, Weyburn School Division No. 97, Yorkton School Divi­sion No. 93, Moose Jaw School Division No. 1, Saskatoon School Division No. 13, and Estevan School Division No. 95;

Dale Gibson Associates, Edmonton, Alberta, for the interveners, the Public School Boards' Association of Alberta, the Board of Trustees of the Edmonton School District No. 7 and Cathryn Star­ing Parrish.

This appeal was heard on November 8, 2000, by McLachlin, C.J.C., and L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Basta­rache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. Iacobucci, J., delivered the following decision for the court in both official languages on March 8, 2001.