Reference Re Constitutional Question Act (B.C.), (1991) 127 N.R. 161 (SCC)
Judge | Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Stevenson, JJ. |
Court | Supreme Court (Canada) |
Case Date | August 15, 1991 |
Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
Citations | (1991), 127 N.R. 161 (SCC);58 BCLR (2d) 1;83 DLR (4th) 297;[1991] 6 WWR 1;28 ACWS (3d) 652;[1991] SCJ No 60 (QL);[1991] 2 SCR 525;1991 CanLII 74 (SCC);JE 91-1267;1 Admin LR (2d) 1;[1991] ACS no 60;127 NR 161;1 BCAC 241 |
Ref. Re Constitutional Question Act (1991), 127 N.R. 161 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
....................
In The Matter Of a reference to the Court of Appeal of the Province of British Columbia, pursuant to the provisions of the Constitutional Question Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 63, of the questions contained in an order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council of British Columbia, being No. 287, dated February 27, 1990;
And In The Matter Of the Canada Assistance Plan, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-1;
And In The Matter Of a certain agreement, dated March 23, 1967, pursuant to Part 1 of the Canada Assistance Plan, Between the Government of Canada, represented by the Minister of National Health and Welfare of Canada, and the Government of the Province of British Columbia, represented by the Minister of Social Welfare of British Columbia.
Between:
The Attorney General of Canada (appellant) v. The Attorney General of British Columbia (respondent), The Attorney General for Ontario, The Attorney General of Manitoba, The Attorney General for Alberta, The Attorney General for Saskatchewan, The Native Council of Canada and The United Native Nations of British Columbia (intervenors)
(No. 22017)
Indexed As: Reference Re Constitutional Question Act (B.C.)
Supreme Court of Canada
Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, Sopinka,
Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and
Stevenson, JJ.
August 15, 1991.
Summar y:
In 1967 the Government of Canada, pursuant to the Canada Assistance Plan, entered into agreements with the provincial governments to pay them contributions toward their expenditures of social assistance and welfare. Amounts paid under the agreements rose from $151 million in 1967 to an estimated $5.5 billion in 1989-90. To reduce expenditures and reduce the federal budget deficit, the federal Government enacted legislation (the Government Expenditures Restraint Act), to limit the growth of payments made under the Canada Assistance Plan to financially stronger provinces (currently British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario). The Government of British Columbia referred two questions to the British Columbia Court of Appeal pursuant to the Constitutional Question Act (B.C.). These questions were:
(1) Has the Government of Canada any authority to limit its obligation under the Canada Assistance Plan or its agreement thereunder with the Province of British Columbia?; and
(2) Do the terms of the agreement between Canada and British Columbia, the subsequent conduct of the federal government under the agreement and the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan Act give rise to a legitimate expectation that the federal government would introduce no legislation to limit its obligation under the agreement or the plan without the consent of British Columbia?
The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a decision reported (1990), 46 B.C.L.R.(2d) 73; 71 D.L.R.(4th) 99; 45 Admin. L.R. 34, answered "No" to the first question. Four of the five judges sitting on the reference answered "yes" to the second question, while the other justice would have answered the second question in the negative. The Attorney General of Canada appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal. The court answered "Yes" to the first question and "No" to the second question.
Administrative Law - Topic 2007
Natural justice - Circumstances when rules inapplicable - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "... the rules governing procedural fairness do not apply to a body exercising purely legislative functions" - See paragraph 58.
Administrative Law - Topic 2267
Natural justice - The duty of fairness - Reasonable expectation or legitimate expectation - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "there is no support in Canadian or English cases for the position that the doctrine of legitimate expectations can create substantive rights. It is part of the rules of procedural fairness which can govern administrative bodies. Where it is applicable, it can create a right to make representations or to be consulted. It does not fetter the decision following the representations or consultation" - See paragraph 57 - Further, "the rules governing procedural fairness do not apply to a body exercising purely legislative functions" - See paragraph 58.
Administrative Law - Topic 2267
Natural justice - The duty of fairness - Reasonable expectation or legitimate expectation - The government of British Columbia argued that the terms of a federal provincial agreement under the Canada Assistance Plan Act, the conduct of the federal government pursuant to the agreement and the provisions of the Plan gave rise to a legitimate expectation that the federal government would introduce no bill into Parliament to limit its obligation under the agreement or the Plan without the consent of the British Columbia government - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected British Columbia's argument because the doctrine of legitimate expectations does not apply to the legislative process - See paragraphs 29 to 85.
Constitutional Law - Topic 23
General principles - Raising constitutional questions - Requirement of justiciability - The British Columbia Constitutional Question Act allowed the Lieutenant Governor in Council to refer "any matter" to the court - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "this broad wording imposed no limit on the type of question which may be asked. Nevertheless, the court has a discretion to refuse to answer questions which are not justiciable" - The court thereafter discussed how to determine whether questions are justiciable - See paragraph 25.
Constitutional Law - Topic 23
General principles - Raising constitutional questions - Requirement of justiciability - The Lieutenant Governor in Council of British Columbia posed two questions to the British Columbia Court of Appeal under the Constitutional Question Act (B.C.) - The questions were (1) whether the federal government had authority to limit its obligations under the Canada Assistance Plan and a federal/provincial agreement thereunder, and (2) whether the federal government's conduct gave rise to a legitimate expectation that the government would not change its obligations under the Plan and the agreement without the consent of British Columbia - The Supreme Court of Canada held that these questions raised matters that were justiciable and should be answered by the court - See paragraphs 25 to 28.
Constitutional Law - Topic 409
Powers of Parliament and the Legislatures - Power of a sovereign body to restrict itself respecting the "manner and form" of subsequent legislation - In 1967 the Government of Canada, pursuant to the Canada Assistance Plan, entered into agreements with the provincial governments to pay them contributions toward their expenditures on social assistance and welfare - In 1990, to reduce expenditures, the federal Government enacted legislation to amend the Plan and limit the growth of payments to financially stronger provinces (Government Expenditures Restraint Act, s. 2) - It was argued that s. 2 was ultra vires because the federal Parliament had restricted itself in the Plan respecting the "manner and form" of subsequent legislation - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected this argument - See paragraphs 67 to 74.
Constitutional Law - Topic 8863
Spending powers - Federal/provincial agreements - Canada Assistance Plan - The following question was posed under the British Columbia Constitutional Question Act: Has the Government of Canada any statutory, prerogative or contractual authority to limit its obligation under the Canada Assistance Plan, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-1, and its Agreement with the Government of British Columbia dated March 23, 1967, to contribute 50% of the cost to British Columbia of assistance and welfare services? - The Supreme Court of Canada answered "Yes" to this question - See paragraphs 29 to 48.
Constitutional Law - Topic 8863
Spending powers - Federal/provincial agreements - Canada Assistance Plan - The following question was posed under the British Columbia Constitutional Question Act: Do the terms of the Canada Assistance Plan and a federal/provincial agreement thereunder, or the conduct of the federal government give rise to a legitimate expectation that the federal government would not introduce legislation to amend the agreement or Plan without the consent of British Columbia - The Supreme Court of Canada answered "No" to this question - The court held that the doctrine of legitimate expectations was part of the procedural rules governing administrative bodies, but the doctrine was not applicable to body exercising purely legislative functions - See paragraphs 29 to 85.
Constitutional Law - Topic 8863
Spending powers - Federal/provincial agreements - Canada Assistance Plan - In 1967 the Government of Canada, pursuant to the Canada Assistance Plan, entered into agreements with the provincial governments to pay them contributions toward their expenditures on social assistance and welfare - In 1990, to reduce expenditures, the federal Government enacted legislation to amend the Plan and limit the growth of payments to financially stronger provinces (Government Expenditures Restraint Act, s. 2) - It was argued that s. 2 was ultra vires because the federal government lacked jurisdiction to amend the law so as to change the agreement - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected this argument - See paragraphs 75 to 84.
Cases Noticed:
Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and National Anti-Poverty Organization v. Attorney General of Canada, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 735; 33 N.R. 304; 115 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 10].
Constitutional Amendment References 1981 (Manitoba, Newfoundland and Quebec), [1981] 1 S.C.R. 753; 39 N.R. 1; 11 Man.R.(2d) 1; 34 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. l; 95 A.P.R. 1, appld. [para. 13 et seq.].
Auditor General of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 49; 97 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 26].
Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342; 92 N.R. 110; 75 Sask.R. 82, refd to. [para. 26].
Quebec Constitutional Amendment Reference (No.2); Attorney General of Quebec v. Attorney General of Canada 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. 27].
Reference Re Magistrate's Court of Quebec, [1965] S.C.R. 772, refd to. [para. 51].
Lord's Day Alliance of Canada v. Attorney-General for Manitoba, [1925] A.C. 384, refd to. [para. 51].
Attorney General for Ontario v. Attorney General for Canada, [1912] A.C. 571 refd to. [para. 51].
Reference Re Waters and Water-Powers, [1929] S.C.R. 200, refd to. [para. 51].
Old St. Boniface Residents Association Inc. v. Winnipeg (City) et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1170; 116 N.R. 46; 69 Man.R.(2d) 134, refd to. [para. 56].
Bates v. Lord Hailsham, [1972] 3 All E.R. 1019, refd to. [para. 58].
Martineau v. Matsqui Institution Disciplinary Board, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 602; 30 N.R. 119; 106 D.L.R.(3d) 385; 13 C.R.(3d) 1; 50 C.C.C.(2d) 353, refd to. [para. 58].
Yukon Territory (Commissioner) v. Canada (1987), 45 D.L.R. (4th) 108, leave to appeal refused [1988] 1 S.C.R. xii; 88 N.R. 320, refd to. [para. 58].
Penikett v. Canada - see Yukon Territory (Commissioner) v. Canada.
West Lakes Ltd. v. South Australia (1980), 25 S.A.S.R. 389 (So. Aust. S.C.), refd to. [paras. 62, 74].
Attorney General for New South Wales v. Trethowan, [1932] A.C. 526 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 68].
Mercure v. Saskatchewan, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 234; 83 N.R. 81; 65 Sask.R. 1, refd to. [para. 68].
R. v. Mercure - see Mercure v. Sas-katchewan.
R. v. Drybones, [1970] S.C.R. 282, refd to. [para. 72].
R. v. Hogan, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 574; 2 N.R. 343, refd to. [para. 72].
Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act, 1980, Re, Churchill Falls (Labrador Corp. Ltd. et al. v. Newfoundland (Attorney General) et al., [1984] 1 S.C.R. 297; 53 N.R. 268; 47 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 125; 139 A.P.R. 125, refd to. [para. 79].
Reference Re Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act - see Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act, 1980, Re.
Statutes Noticed:
Bill C-69, An Act to amend certain statutes to enable restraint of government expenditures, 2nd sess., 34th Parl. (assented to on Feb. 1, 1990), generally [para. 5 et seq.].
Canada Assistance Plan, S.C. 1966-67, c. 45, sect. 5(2)(c) [para. 43].
Canada Assistance Plan, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-1, sect. 4, sect. 5(1), sect. 5(2)(c), sect. 6(2), sect. 6(3), sect. 8(1), sect. 8(2), sect. 9(2) [para. 7 et seq.].
Canada Assistance Plan, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-1, sect. 4, sect. 5(1), sect. 5(2)(c), sect. 5.1, sect. 6(2), sect. 6(3), sect. 8(1), sect. 8(2), sect. 9(2) [para. 7 et seq.].
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, generally [para. 59].
Constitution Act, 1907, generally [para. 22].
Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 54 [paras. 30, 59, 63]; sect. 92(13), sect. 92(16) [para. 80].
Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 36(1) [para. 21].
Constitutional Question Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 63, generally [para. 1 et seq.]; sect. 1, sect. 6 [para. 7].
Emergencies Act, R.S.C. 1985 (Fourth Supp.), c. 22, sect. 40(1), sect. 40(2) [para. 41].
Government Expenditures Restraint Act, S.C. 1991, c. 9, generally [para. 5]; sect. 2 [paras. 7, 68 et seq.].
Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, sect. 10 [para. 43]; sect. 42(1) [paras. 7, 33, 70].
Statute Revision Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-20, sect. 6(e), sect. 6(f) [para. 43].
Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26, sect. 36 [para. 7].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Bagehot, Walter, The English Constitution (2nd Ed. 1872), p. 14 [para. 61 Eng.].
Bagehot, Walter, La Constitution anglaise, 1869, p 19 [para. 61 Fr.].
Beaudoin, Gérald-A., La Constitution du Canada, 1990, p. 92 [para. 59].
Counsel:
W.I.C. Binnie, Q.C., Peter W. Hogg, Q.C., and Maureen E. Baird, for the appellant;
E. Robert A. Edwards, Q.C., and Patrick O'Rourke, for the respondent;
Christopher D. Bredt and Tanya Lee, for the intervenor, the Attorney General for Ontario;
Vic Toews, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Manitoba;
Stan Rutwind, for the intervenor, the Attorney General for Alberta;
Donald J. Dow, for the intervenor, the Attorney General for Saskatchewan;
Marvin R. V. Storrow, Q.C., and Maria Morellato, for the intervenor, the Native Council of Canada and the United Nations of British Columbia.
Solicitors of Record:
John C. Tait, Q.C., Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant;
Ministry of the Attorney General, Victoria, B.C., for the respondent;
Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the Attorney General for Ontario;
Department of Justice Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the Attorney General of Manitoba;
Attorney General's Department, Edmonton, Alberta, for the Attorney General for Alberta;
Brian Barrington-Foote, Regina, Saskatchewan, for the Attorney General for Saskatchewan;
Blake, Cassels & Graydon, Vancouver, B.C., for the Native Council of Canada and the United Native Nations of B.C.
This appeal was heard on December 11 and 12, 1990, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Stevenson, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The following decision was de-livered for the court in both official languages by Sopinka, J., on August 15, 1991.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., (2014) 458 F.T.R. 1 (FC)
...3 S.C.R. 624; 218 N.R. 161; 96 B.C.A.C. 81; 155 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 388]. Reference Re Constitutional Question Act (B.C.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 525; 127 N.R. 161; 1 B.C.A.C. 241; 1 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 388]. Reference Re Canada Assistance Plan (B.C.) - see Reference Re Constitution......
-
Quebec (Attorney General) v. Alliance du personnel professionnel et technique de la santé et des services sociaux, 2018 SCC 17
...adoption of a remedial measure does not “constitutionalize” it so as to fetter its repeal: Reference re Canada Assistance Plan (B.C.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 525, at p. 563. Here, however, the provincial government signed a Pay Equity Agreement on June 24, 1988 which changed the legal landscape by......
-
Médecins canadiens pour les soins aux réfugiés c. Canada (Procureur général),
...Inc. v. Brown, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1532, (1989), 59 Man.R. (2d) 161; Reference Re Canada Assistance Plan (B.C.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 525, (1991), 83 D.L.R. (4th) 297; Ross River Dena Council Band v. Canada, 2002 SCC 54, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 816; Operation Dismantle Inc. et al. v. The Queen et al., 284 C......
-
Kelly et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2013] O.T.C. Uned. 1220
...L.M. Sossin, Boundaries of Judicial Review , 2nd ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 2012). [144] In Reference Re Canada Assistance Plan (B.C.) , [1991] 2 S.C.R. 525 at para. 26, the Supreme Court stated at paras. 26: 26. While there may be many reasons why a question is non-justiciable, in this appeal......
-
Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., (2014) 458 F.T.R. 1 (FC)
...3 S.C.R. 624; 218 N.R. 161; 96 B.C.A.C. 81; 155 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 388]. Reference Re Constitutional Question Act (B.C.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 525; 127 N.R. 161; 1 B.C.A.C. 241; 1 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 388]. Reference Re Canada Assistance Plan (B.C.) - see Reference Re Constitution......
-
Quebec (Attorney General) v. Alliance du personnel professionnel et technique de la santé et des services sociaux, 2018 SCC 17
...adoption of a remedial measure does not “constitutionalize” it so as to fetter its repeal: Reference re Canada Assistance Plan (B.C.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 525, at p. 563. Here, however, the provincial government signed a Pay Equity Agreement on June 24, 1988 which changed the legal landscape by......
-
Médecins canadiens pour les soins aux réfugiés c. Canada (Procureur général),
...Inc. v. Brown, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1532, (1989), 59 Man.R. (2d) 161; Reference Re Canada Assistance Plan (B.C.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 525, (1991), 83 D.L.R. (4th) 297; Ross River Dena Council Band v. Canada, 2002 SCC 54, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 816; Operation Dismantle Inc. et al. v. The Queen et al., 284 C......
-
Kelly et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2013] O.T.C. Uned. 1220
...L.M. Sossin, Boundaries of Judicial Review , 2nd ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 2012). [144] In Reference Re Canada Assistance Plan (B.C.) , [1991] 2 S.C.R. 525 at para. 26, the Supreme Court stated at paras. 26: 26. While there may be many reasons why a question is non-justiciable, in this appeal......
-
US Supreme Court's Decision On Obamacare Could Impact Shared Spending In Canada
...such a challenge being tantamount to biting the hand that feeds them. However, in Reference Re Canada Assistance Plan (B.C.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 525, the Attorney General of Manitoba, as Intervener, did dare to suggest that a withdrawal or reduction of previously promised funding from the fede......
-
Yukon Court Of Appeal Finds Duty To Consult Exists When Recording Mineral Claims
...requirement that governments consult with First Nations before introducing legislation (see Reference Re Canada Assistance Plan (B.C.),[1991] 2 S.C.R. 525 at 563). Such a limitation on the duty to consult would, however, only apply to the introduction of the legislation itself, and could no......
-
Ross River Dena Council v. Government Of Yukon
...consult with First Nations before introducing legislation (see Reference Re Canada Assistance Plan (B.C.), 1991 CanLII 74 (SCC), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 525 at 563). Such a limitation on the duty to consult would, however, only apply to the introduction of the legislation itself, and could not just......
-
Table of Cases
... [1922] 1 A.C. 191 , 60 D.L.R. 513 , [1922] 1 W.W.R. 20 (P.C.) ................... 251−52, 349 Reference Re Canada Assistance Plan, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 525, 83 D.L.R. (4th) 297 , [1991] 6 W.W.R. 1 ....................................................... 259 Reference re Employment Insuran......
-
Table of cases
...1148, 40 D.L.R. (4th) 18, [1987] S.C.J. No. 44 ........................................... 66 Reference Re Canada Assistance Plan, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 525, 83 D.L.R. (4th) 297, [1991] S.C.J. No. 60 .......................................................................................................
-
Table of cases
...1 S.C.R. 1148 ................................................................293, 294 Re Canada Assistance Plan (British Columbia), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 525 .............. 350 Re Canada Labour Code, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 50 ............................................162, 352 Re Drummond Wren, [1945]......
-
The Federal Courts and Administrative Law
...Finlay v Canada (Minister of Finance) , [1986] 2 SCR 607 at 632, Le Dain J [ Finlay ]; Reference Re Canada Assistance Plan (BC) , [1991] 2 SCR 525 at 545, Sopinka J; Reference re Secession of Québec , [1998] 2 SCR 217 at para 28; Highwood Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Judicial Commit......