Auer v. Auer

Listen to Podcast
Case Brief
Facts

Roland Auer and Aysel Auer divorced in 2008 after a 2004 marriage, with one child residing with the mother. Roland, the father, paid child support but challenged the validity (vires) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, arguing the Governor in Council (GIC) exceeded its authority under the Divorce Act by requiring the payer parent to bear a disproportionate share of child-related costs. The lower courts initially dismissed his challenge, applying a reasonableness standard of review informed by Katz Group principles. The Court of Appeal was divided on the applicable standard of review but ultimately dismissed the appeal.

Issues

What is the correct standard of review to apply when assessing the validity (vires) of subordinate legislation, specifically the Federal Child Support Guidelines, enacted by the Governor in Council under the Divorce Act? Did the Governor in Council exceed its authority in enacting the Federal Child Support Guidelines, and are the Guidelines therefore ultra vires?

Legal Analysis

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the presumptive standard of review for assessing the vires of subordinate legislation is reasonableness, as established in *Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov*. While principles from *Katz Group Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Health and Long-Term Care)* continue to inform reasonableness review, certain aspects, such as the requirement that subordinate legislation be 'irrelevant, extraneous, or completely unrelated' to the enabling statute's purpose to be considered ultra vires, are no longer applicable. The Court emphasized that reasonableness review focuses on justification, transparency, and intelligibility, considering factual and legal constraints. It is not a review of policy merits. The Court determined that the Governor in Council possesses broad authority under the Divorce Act to establish child support guidelines, subject to the constraint that the guidelines be based on the principle of joint financial obligation of spouses to maintain their children according to their relative abilities. The Court found the Guidelines respect this constraint.

Decision

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal. It held that the 'robust reasonableness standard' from *Vavilov* is the presumptive standard for reviewing the validity of subordinate legislation. The Court concluded that the Federal Child Support Guidelines fall reasonably within the scope of authority delegated to the Governor in Council under the Divorce Act and are therefore intra vires (within the scope of their power).

Transcript
Welcome back to Casepod, legal eagles! Today, we're diving into Auer v. Auer, a Supreme Court of Canada case that tackles child support guidelines and the power of government. Now, imagine this: Roland and Aysel Auer divorce. Roland pays child support, but he believes the Federal Child Support Guidelines are unfair. He argues the Governor in Council, that's the GIC, went too far when creating these guidelines, making him, as the payer parent, shoulder too much of the financial burden. So, he challenges the validity – the *vires* – of these guidelines. The lower courts weren't buying it, but it ended up at the Supreme Court. The big question here is: how do we even *judge* if these guidelines are legitimate? What's the correct "standard of review" we should use? And, more importantly, did the GIC overstep its bounds? The Supreme Court, in its wisdom, said the standard is "reasonableness," as established in the *Vavilov* case. Think of it as: Are the guidelines justifiable, transparent, and understandable? It's not about whether the *policy* is good, but whether it's legally sound. Now, some older cases, like *Katz Group*, suggested subordinate legislation had to be completely unrelated to the enabling statute's purpose to be considered ultra vires. The Court clarifies that's not quite the right approach anymore. *Vavilov* is the guiding light now. Essentially, the Divorce Act gives the Governor in Council broad authority to create these guidelines. But, there's a key constraint: the guidelines must be based on the principle of joint financial obligation. Both parents need to contribute based on their ability. And guess what? The Court found the guidelines *do* respect this principle. So, Roland's appeal was dismissed. The takeaway? *Vavilov's* "robust reasonableness" standard is the go-to when reviewing the validity of subordinate legislation. And, the Federal Child Support Guidelines? They're within the power delegated to the Governor in Council. A fascinating look at how the courts balance government power with individual rights. Join us next time for another deep dive into the world of legal cases!