Att. Gen. of Can. v. Inuit Tapirisat et al.

Listen to Podcast
Case Brief
Facts

The Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and the National Anti-poverty Organization (respondents) appealed a Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) decision regarding Bell Canada's rate structure to the Governor General in Council (the executive branch of the Canadian government) under s. 64(1) of the National Transportation Act. The respondents' petitions were denied. They then challenged the Governor in Council's decisions, arguing they were not given a fair hearing according to the principles of natural justice. The Attorney General of Canada sought to strike out the respondents' statement of claim on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action. The Trial Division granted the application, but the Federal Court of Appeal set aside that order. The Attorney General appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Issues

Is the Governor in Council, when reviewing a CRTC decision under s. 64(1) of the National Transportation Act, subject to judicial review regarding procedural fairness or the rules of natural justice?

Legal Analysis

The Court analyzed s. 64(1) of the National Transportation Act and its historical context. It noted the broad discretion granted to the Governor in Council to vary or rescind CRTC orders, decisions, rules, or regulations. The Court emphasized that Parliament did not impose any procedural standards or guidelines on the Governor in Council's review function under this section. The Court distinguished this case from situations where a tribunal is acting judicially or quasi-judicially, or where individual rights are at stake. In this case, the Governor in Council was exercising a function akin to delegated legislation, making policy decisions regarding telephone rates, which is a matter of broad public concern, not an individual right. The Court recognized that while the Governor in Council is not entirely immune from judicial review, the scope of review is limited to ensuring that it acted within its jurisdiction and in accordance with the terms of its parliamentary mandate. The Court determined that the Governor in Council is entitled to consult its staff and departmental personnel and ministerial members and is not required to hold hearings or provide reasons for its decisions.

Decision

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the order of the Trial Division, striking out the respondents' statement of claim. The Court held that the Governor in Council, in exercising its power under s. 64(1) of the National Transportation Act, is not subject to the rules of natural justice or a duty of fairness in the same way as a judicial or quasi-judicial body. The Governor in Council's discretion is complete, provided it observes the jurisdictional boundaries of s. 64(1).

Transcript
Welcome back to Casepod, everyone! Today, we're diving into a fascinating case that really clarifies the boundaries of judicial review when we're talking about government decision-making: Inuit Tapirisat of Canada v. Attorney General of Canada. Now, picture this: The Inuit Tapirisat and the National Anti-poverty Organization weren't happy with some decisions made by the CRTC – that's the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission – about Bell Canada's phone rates. So, they appealed to the Governor General in Council. Think of that as appealing to the federal cabinet, the executive branch. Their appeals were denied, and that's where things get interesting. They then tried to challenge the *cabinet's* decisions in court, arguing they didn't get a fair hearing. They claimed the cabinet didn't follow the principles of natural justice. The government, of course, tried to shut this down, arguing there was no valid legal basis for the claim. It eventually ended up at the Supreme Court of Canada. The core question here is: Does the cabinet, when reviewing a CRTC decision, have to follow the same rules of procedural fairness, the same rules of natural justice, that a court or a tribunal would? The Supreme Court took a close look at the law in question, Section 64(1) of the National Transportation Act, and its history. They emphasized that Parliament gave the cabinet a *lot* of leeway to change or even completely overturn CRTC decisions. Crucially, Parliament didn't lay down any specific procedures the cabinet had to follow when doing this. The Court made a really important distinction here. They said this wasn't like a tribunal making a decision that affects individual rights. Instead, the cabinet was essentially making policy about telephone rates – something that affects everyone. It's a broad public concern, not an individual's right at stake. So, while the cabinet isn't totally immune from judicial review, the scope is limited. The court can only check if the cabinet acted within its legal boundaries, within the powers granted by Parliament. And the Court decided the cabinet *was* allowed to consult its staff, its ministers – basically, anyone it wanted. It didn't have to hold formal hearings or even give reasons for its decisions. Ultimately, the Supreme Court sided with the government. They said the cabinet, when acting under this particular law, doesn't have to follow the same rules of natural justice as a court. The cabinet's discretion is broad, as long as it stays within the limits of the law. What's the takeaway? This case highlights the difference between judicial decision-making and executive policy-making. It emphasizes that the rules of fairness and natural justice don't apply in the same way when the government is making broad policy decisions that affect the entire public. It's a crucial reminder of the separation of powers and the different roles of the judiciary and the executive. It underscores the importance of understanding the specific statutory context when assessing the scope of judicial review. It's not a blank check, and it's definitely something to keep in mind when thinking about the limits of judicial oversight of government action.