Suing Canadian governments: Core public policy and operational decisions

• Published date: 01 December 2020
• Author: Alex Marland,Philip Osborne,Mario Levesque
• Date: 01 December 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/capa.12396

Suing Canadian governments:

Core public policy and

operational decisions

Abstract: Challenges in distinguishing between core policy and operational deci-

sions in the public policy process have spawned a legal grey area in Canadian pub-

lic administration. Governments are immune from civil liability for policy decisions

made by the cabinet yet they remain exposed to liability for operational decisions

by public servants. We seek to raise awareness of this nexus within the Canadian

public administration community by drawing on key interviews with lawyers,

former attorneys general, a former premier, a former judge and a legal scholar.

We explain that demarcating policy from operational decisions relies on written

documentation that is difficult to locate and may not exist. Clarity is desired, but

Canadian courts are reluctant to overrule a public authority’s opinion, which is

based on socio-economic and political considerations. We conclude with observa-

tions for public administrators.

Sommaire : Au sein de l’administration publique canadienne, la difficulté de dis-

tinguer entre la politique centrale et les décisions opérationnelles dans le proces-

sus d’élaboration des politiques publiques a créé une zone de flou juridique. Alors

que les gouvernements sont exempts de responsabilité civile en ce qui a trait aux

décisions stratégiques prises par le cabinet, ils sont tenus responsables pour les

décisions opérationnelles prises par les fonctionnaires. Nous visons à sensibiliser la

collectivité de l’administration publique canadienne à ce nexus en nous appuyant

sur des entrevues clés avec des avocats, d’anciens procureurs généraux, un ancien

premier ministre, un ancien juge et un juriste. Nous argumentons qu’établir une

distinction entre les politiques et les décisions opérationnelles repose sur des docu-

ments écrits qu’il est difficile de trouver et pourraient même ne pas exister. Nous

avons besoin de limpidité, mais les tribunaux canadiens font preuve de réticence

pour rejeter l’avis d’une autorité publique, qui est fondé sur des considérations

socio-économiques et politiques. Nous terminons par des observations destinées

aux administrateurs publics.

Introduction

When the media discovered that Ontario’s 2019 budget bill contained a pas-

sage replacing the Proceedings Against the Crown Act, 1990 with the Crown

Alex Marland

Philip Osborne

Mario Levesque

CANADIAN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION / ADMINISTRATION PUBLIQUE DU CANADA

VOLUME 63, NO. 4 (DECEMBER/DÉCEMBRE 2020), PP. 543–562

© The Institute of Public Administration of Canada/L'Institut d'administration publique du Canada 2020

Alex Marland is Professor, Department of Political Science, Memorial University of

Newfoundland, St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador. Philip Osborne is Director, Civil

Division, with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Justice and

Public Safety, St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador; opinions expressed in this article are

not necessarily those of his employer. Mario Levesque is Associate Professor, Department of

Politics & International Relations, Mount Allison University, Sackville, New Brunswick.

ALEX MARLAND, PHILIP OSBORNE, MARIO LEVESQUE

544

Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019, the province’s attorney general charac-

terized it as housekeeping to codify the common law (Ontario 2019; White

2019). The introduction of new constraints on suing the Ontario government

for its policy decisions reflects a principle that it is not the judiciary’s role to

intervene in elected legislators’ role in formulating public policy. Premier

Doug Ford explained his government’s rationale for the new legal regime:

You even look sideways and some special-interest groups out there [are] trying to sue you, you

know. It’s ridiculous. I’ve never seen anything like it. It’s tying up the courts. I want to clear

up the courts until real lawsuits can go through, for real people, for things that really matter.

There’s a lot of frivolous nonsense going on right now in the courts (quoted in White 2019).

Ford’s response is an acknowledgement that suits against the Crown are

on the rise and in and of themselves require a policy response. The new

legislation increases the legal threshold necessary to proceed with civil lit-

igation against the Ontario government, significantly limits government

liability for financial compensation, and institutes the need to obtain the

court’s permission in order to bring a suit against the government. It alters

standards of accountability and makes it more expensive and complex to

bring claims forward (Chamberlain 2019; Off 2019; White 2019). In seeking

court permission to proceed, evidence needs to be produced while being

exposed to cross examination by the Crown, without access to government

documents or witnesses. As well, the retroactive aspect of the new Act

allows the government to pursue dismissal of certain ongoing cases, shield-

ing operational decisions from litigation (Powers 2019; Crown Liability and

Proceedings Act, 2019, s.31(4)).

How Ontario courts interpret the Act might breathe new life across

Canada into sorting out when a government is legally accountable for its

actions. Since the 1970s, legal and academic communities in Western liberal

democracies have deliberated the topic of government liability for public

policy decisions (Bailey 2006: 155). In a seminal case, the Supreme Court

of Canada (SCC) ruled in Just v. British Columbia, 1989 that a cabinet has

the legal authority to determine government policy within its constitutional

domain (Lordon 1991: 13). The SCC is clear: a public authority is immune

from civil liability (that is, damages) where core policies are concerned.

Cabinet decisions can therefore negate a government’s duty of care to the

public. Politicking, not the courts, is the remedy for someone who is upset

with a political decision.

Just also held that a public authority—the decision-making body of either

the federal, provincial or municipal government—can be liable when the

public service implements core policy in a negligent manner. This reflects a

principle that government liability is necessary to maintain the rule of law.

The resulting apprehension within government has tangible implications for

public administration. For example, a department can introduce technology