To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback.

Courts — Jurisdiction — Taxation — Excise tax

(00:00:35) Summary

(00:00:36) Facts and Procedural History

(00:01:53) Disposition

(00:01:56) Per Martin, Kasirer, Jamal and O’Bonsawin JJ.

(00:06:45) Per Karakatsanis, Côté and Rowe JJ.

(00:10:46) Reasons for Judgment: Kasirer J. (Martin, Jamal and O’Bonsawin JJ. concurring)

(00:10:54) I. Overview – 1

(00:17:00) II. Background – 13

(00:19:17) III. Judicial History – 18

(00:21:49) IV. Issues – 23

(00:22:44) V. Analysis – 26

(00:23:27) A. Does the Tax Court Have Exclusive Jurisdiction Over the Matter in Light of the Essential Nature of Iris’ Application for Judicial Review? – 28

(00:39:33) B. The Declaratory Relief Sought by Iris – 55

(00:41:14) VI. Disposition – 59

(00:41:20) Concurring Reasons: Côté J. (Karakatsanis and Rowe JJ. concurring)

(00:41:27) I. Introduction – 60

(00:45:45) II. Background – 67

(00:49:16) III. Judicial History – 74

(00:51:49) IV. Issues – 80

(00:52:19) V. Analysis – 82

(00:54:16) A. The Claim, In Its Essential Nature or True Character, Is a Collateral Attack on the Correctness of the Assessments – 86

(01:08:09) B. The Declaratory Relief Sought by Iris Is of No Practical Effect – 109

(01:09:50) VI. Conclusion – 113

To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback.

Courts — Jurisdiction — Taxation — Excise tax

To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback.

Courts — Jurisdiction — Taxation — Income tax

(00:00:25) Summary

(00:00:26) Facts and Procedural History

(00:03:19) Held (Karakatsanis, Côté and Rowe JJ. dissenting)

(00:03:25) Per Martin, Kasirer, Jamal and O’Bonsawin JJ.

(00:16:11) Per Karakatsanis, Côté and Rowe JJ. (dissenting)

(00:24:11) Reasons for Judgment: Kasirer J. (Martin, Jamal and O’Bonsawin JJ. concurring)

(00:24:18) I. Overview – 1

(00:41:42) II. Background – 17

(00:45:05) III. Judicial History – 23

(00:45:08) A. Tax Court of Canada, 2020 TCC 139, [2021] 2 C.T.C. 2063 (Monaghan J.) – 23

(00:48:58) B. Federal Court of Appeal, 2022 FCA 70, [2022] 5 C.T.C. 1 (Webb J.A., Rennie and Locke JJ.A. concurring) – 29

(00:51:06) IV. Issues – 34

(00:54:39) V. Analysis – 40

(00:55:09) A. A Decision Under Section 247(10) Is Distinct From an Assessment – 41

(00:56:02) (1) The Settled Meaning of an Assessment Under the Income Tax Act – 43

(01:19:03) (2) The Tax Court’s Jurisdiction Cannot Be Enlarged “By Necessary Implication” – 65

(01:22:14) (3) The Historical Jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court of Canada Does Not Support Dow’s Position – 71

(01:26:01) B. Accepting Dow’s Call to Depart From the Settled Meaning of “Assessment” Would Create Significant Legal Uncertainty – 78

(01:26:26) (1) Accepting Dow’s Theory Would Create Uncertainty in the Law Governing Standard of Review – 79

(01:39:33) (2) Dow’s Approach Would Cause Uncertainty Regarding the Federal Court’s Jurisdiction – 92

(01:47:14) C. Challenges to the Minister’s Discretionary Decisions Must Be Heard in the Federal Court – 102

(01:47:58) (1) Only the Federal Court Can Provide the Remedy Sought – 103

(01:53:39) (2) The Tax Court Is Not an Exclusive Forum for Tax Litigation – 109

(01:59:47) (3) Dow’s Approach Will Not Enhance Access to Justice – 116

(02:03:05) VI. Conclusion – 121

(02:04:00) Dissenting Reasons: Côté J. (Karakatsanis and Rowe JJ. concurring)

(02:04:07) I. Introduction – 123

(02:12:19) II. Background – 134

(02:16:46) III. Judicial History – 142

(02:21:09) IV. Issue – 149

(02:21:47) V. Analysis – 150

(02:22:44) A. The Respective Jurisdictions of the Federal Court and The Tax Court – 151

(02:32:01) B. The Scope of the Right of Appeal Under Section 169 Extends to Decisions Under Section 247(10) Resulting in an Assessment – 163

(02:55:33) C. The Tax Court’s Remedial Powers Under Section 171 of the ITA Allow It to Deal With Discretionary Decisions Going to the Correctness of an Assessment – 193

(03:09:22) D. Standard of Review in the Tax Court – 211

(03:19:07) VI. Conclusion – 223

To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback.

Courts — Jurisdiction — Taxation — Income tax

To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback.

Judicial Review: Discretion to Decline to Hear a J R; Functional Driving Assessments; Fitness and Ability to Drive.

Supreme Advocacy's Court of Appeal Decision of the Week Blog is available on their ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. 

To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback.

A blockbuster Charter values week

Mark Mancini's Sunday Evening Administrative Review is available on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Substack⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

(00:00:34) York Region District School Board v Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2024 SCCC 22 (June 21, 2024)

(00:13:58) Singh Brar v Canada, 2024 FCA 114 (June 19, 2024)

(00:17:17) District Director, Metro Vancouver v Environmental Appeal Board, 2024 BCSC 1064 (June 19, 2024)

To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback.

Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Application — Search and seizure

Administrative law — Judicial review — Standard of review —Constitutional questions

(00:00:37) Summary

(00:00:38) Facts and Procedural History

(00:02:29) Disposition

(00:02:32) Per Wagner C.J. and Côté, Rowe, Kasirer and Jamal JJ.

(00:08:28) Per Karakatsanis and Martin JJ.

(00:11:27) Reasons for Judgment: Rowe J. (Wagner C.J. and Côté, Kasirer and Jamal JJ. concurring)

(00:11:35) I. Overview – 1

(00:14:13) II. Factual Context – 6

(00:17:48) III. Judicial History – 17

(00:17:51) A. Arbitrator’s Decision (2018), 294 L.A.C. (4th) 341 (G. Misra) – 17

(00:20:53) (1) First Alleged Breach – 23

(00:21:46) (2) Second Alleged Breach – 25

(00:24:05) (3) Third Alleged Breach – 30

(00:24:42) B. Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court), 2020 ONSC 3685, 316 L.A.C. (4th) 1 (Kiteley and O’Bonsawin JJ., Sachs J. Dissenting) – 32

(00:25:42) (1) The Majority Opinion (O’Bonsawin J., Kiteley J. Concurring) – 34

(00:29:09) (2) The Dissenting Opinion (Sachs J.) – 40

(00:32:08) C. Court of Appeal for Ontario, 2022 ONCA 476, 340 L.A.C. (4th) 365 (Doherty, Benotto and Huscroft JJ.A.) – 49

(00:34:07) IV. Issues – 53

(00:34:25) V. Submissions – 54

(00:34:28) A. York Region District School Board – 54

(00:36:30) B. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario – 58

(00:38:29) VI. Analysis – 62

(00:38:32) A. Standard of Review – 62

(00:43:20) B. The Charter Applies to Ontario Public School Boards Under the First Branch of Eldridge – 72

(00:49:41) C. The Arbitrator Erred by Applying the Wrong Analytical Framework – 85

(00:56:07) D. Public School Teachers Have a Section 8 Charter Right Against Unreasonable Search and Seizure in the Workplace – 97

(00:58:22) (1) Determining the Reasonable Expectation of Privacy – 101

(01:00:01) (2) Determining the Reasonableness of a Search – 104

(01:02:06) VII. Conclusion – 107

(01:02:17) Joint Concurring Reasons: Karakatsanis and Martin JJ.

(01:02:23) I. Introduction – 108

(01:03:47) II. Standard of Review and Proper Analytical Framework – 110

(01:05:39) A. The Arbitrator Recognized That Section 8 of the Charter Constrained Her Decision – 113

(01:08:40) B. No Basis To Depart From the Presumption of Reasonableness Review – 119

(01:15:48) III. Reasonableness Review of the Arbitrator’s Decision – 129

(01:16:16) A. The Arbitrator’s Reasons – 130

(01:19:35) B. The Arbitrator’s Decision Was Unreasonable – 136

(01:22:52) IV. Conclusion – 142

To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback.

Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Application — Search and seizure

Administrative law — Judicial review — Standard of review —Constitutional questions

To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback.

Motions for Leave to Intervene at the Court of Appeal: More Onerous Test

Supreme Advocacy's Court of Appeal Decision of the Week Blog is available on their ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. 

To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback.

Civil Procedure — Parties — Intervention