In Canadian law, a reference question or reference case (formally called abstract review) [1] is a submission by the federal or a provincial government to the courts asking for an advisory opinion on a major legal issue. Typically the question concerns the constitutionality of legislation.
The Constitution Act, 1867 , gives the federal Parliament the power to create a "General Court of Appeal for Canada", but does not define the jurisdiction of the Court. [2] When Parliament created the Supreme Court of Canada in 1875, it gave the federal Cabinet the power to refer questions to the Supreme Court for the Court's opinion. [3] That provision has been carried forward and is now found in the current Supreme Court Act . [4]
Under that provision, the federal Cabinet may submit a question to the Supreme Court of Canada by means of an order-in-council. Once the questions have been submitted to the Court, the Court has complete control over the process to be followed. The reference is treated in the same way as an appeal. The Attorney General of Canada is entitled to appear before the Court and to make submissions. The Attorneys General of the provinces and territories are entitled to notice of a reference and may appear on it. Interested parties are able to apply for intervener status to make submissions during the hearing. When necessary, the Court may appoint an amicus curiae to submit a factum to support a particular view.
Once the parties have been determined, the Court sets out a timetable for the filing of written submissions, and for the date of the hearing. Parties to the reference file detailed written submissions on the legal issues raised by the reference, supplemented by factual records if necessary. After all written submissions have been filed, the Court holds an oral hearing on the reference questions. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court typically reserves its decision. At a later date, the Court releases its opinion on the reference, in the form of a detailed written judgment. Individual judges of the Court are entitled to dissent from the majority opinion, in the same way as with judgments in appeals.
The opinion given by the Supreme Court is in the form of a judicial decision but is not legally binding; nevertheless, no government has ever ignored the opinion.
Prior to 1949, there was an appeal from the Supreme Court to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom, sitting in London. The Judicial Committee served as the highest court for the British Empire and Commonwealth. Many federal reference questions were appealed to the Judicial Committee, which had the final say and could overrule the decision of the Supreme Court.
The provincial governments, under their respective Constitutional Questions Acts, are able to submit questions to the provincial Superior Court or Court of Appeal. The process is very similar to the federal government reference questions. Once the provincial Court of Appeal has given its decision on the reference question, the government or other parties to the reference have the right under the Supreme Court Act to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Prior to 1949, appeals lay directly from the provincial courts of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. This right of direct appeal allowed litigants to by-pass the Supreme Court, so many provincial reference cases were never heard by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was then required to follow the decision of the Judicial Committee.
There have been challenges to the power of the federal government to confer the reference jurisdiction on the Supreme Court, but these challenges have been rejected, most recently in the Reference re Secession of Quebec in 1998. [5]
Pursuant to the ruling of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Attorney-General of Ontario v. Attorney-General of Canada (References Reference) [1912] A.C. 571, the role of the courts in references is not judicial as such, but one of advising the executive branch of government.
There have been over 75 federal references to the Supreme Court since 1892. Prior to the abolition of appeals to the Judicial Committee, many of the earlier federal references went on appeal from the Supreme Court to the Judicial Committee. Since the abolition of appeals, the Supreme Court decision is the final say on a federal reference.
The provincial governments have the power to refer legal issues to their courts as well. Prior to the abolition of appeals to the Judicial Committee, those reference questions could be appealed directly to the Judicial Committee, by-passing the Supreme Court. Since the abolition of appeals to the Judicial Committee, there is a right of appeal from the provincial courts to the Supreme Court on a provincial reference.
The government of the United Kingdom has the power to refer questions to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. This power served as one of the inspirations for the reference power under the Supreme Court Act. There has been one reference directly under this power to the Judicial Committee which related to Canada, concerning the Labrador boundary dispute between Canada and Newfoundland, which at that time was an independent dominion, not part of Canada. Other Commonwealth countries, such as India, South Africa, and Papua New Guinea also have implemented a reference jurisdiction in their constitutions. In the case of Papua New Guinea, their constitutional convention immediately prior to independence took counsel from Canadian legal academics on the use of the reference jurisdiction.
Other jurisdictions, notably Australia and the United States, eschew reference jurisdiction for their courts. In the United States, the case or controversy clause of Article III of the United States Constitution limits federal courts to hear only actual cases; advisory opinions are not permitted at the federal level (although some state constitutions do provide for such opinions). Likewise, the Australian Constitution has a similar requirement in Chapter III of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court in the judicial system of Canada. It comprises nine justices, whose decisions are the ultimate application of Canadian law, and grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts. The Supreme Court is bijural, hearing cases from two major legal traditions and bilingual, hearing cases in both official languages of Canada.
Canadian federalism involves the current nature and historical development of the federal system in Canada.
The Implied Bill of Rights is a judicial theory in Canadian jurisprudence that recognizes that certain basic principles are underlying the Constitution of Canada.
Pith and substance is a legal doctrine in Canadian constitutional interpretation used to determine under which head of power a given piece of legislation falls. The doctrine is primarily used when a law is challenged on the basis that one level of government has encroached upon the exclusive jurisdiction of another level of government.
The court system of Canada forms the judicial branch of government, formally known as "The Queen on the Bench", which interprets the law and is made up of many courts differing in levels of legal superiority and separated by jurisdiction. Some of the courts are federal in nature, while others are provincial or territorial.
An advisory opinion is an opinion issued by a court or a commission like an election commission that does not have the effect of adjudicating a specific legal case, but merely advises on the constitutionality or interpretation of a law. Some countries have procedures by which the executive or legislative branches may certify important questions to the judiciary and obtain an advisory opinion. In other countries or specific jurisdictions, courts may be prohibited from issuing advisory opinions.
Canadian constitutional law is the area of Canadian law relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Canada by the courts. All laws of Canada, both provincial and federal, must conform to the Constitution and any laws inconsistent with the Constitution have no force or effect.
Section 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867, also known as the property and civil rights power, grants the provincial legislatures of Canada the authority to legislate on:
13. Property and Civil Rights in the Province.
The Canada Temperance Act, also known as the Scott Act, was an Act of the Parliament of Canada passed in 1878, which provided for a national framework for municipalities to opt in by plebiscite to a scheme of prohibition. It was repealed in 1984.
The Supreme Court of Canada was founded in 1875 and has served as the final court of appeal in Canada since 1949. Its history may be divided into three general eras. From its inception in 1875 until 1949, the Court served as an intermediate appellate court subject to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Britain. Following 1949, the Court gained importance and legitimacy as the court of last resort in Canada, establishing a greater role for the Canadian judiciary. In 1982, the introduction of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms significantly changed the role of the Court in Canadian society, by providing the Court with greater powers of oversight over Parliament and through formal recognition of civil rights including aboriginal rights and equality rights.
Caloil Inc v Canada (AG) is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the Trade and Commerce power under section 91(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867. The Court upheld a federal law prohibiting the transport or sale of imported oil in a certain region of Ontario.
Crevier v Quebec (AG), [1981] 2 S.C.R. 220 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision in administrative law. The court had to decide whether a Quebec-created Professionals Tribunal was unconstitutional due to being a "s. 96 court" according to the Constitution Act, 1867, whose members can only be federally appointed. It found that any legislation which has a privative clause purporting to exclude review of jurisdictional matters is outside the jurisdiction of a provincial legislature.
R v Coote is a Canadian constitutional law decision dealing with the powers of the provinces under the British North America Act, 1867. The point in issue was whether Quebec had the constitutional authority to create a mandatory inquiry power for provincial fire commissioners.
L'Union St. Jacques de Montreal v Bélisle is a Canadian constitutional law decision by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The issue was whether a provincial statute which altered the contractual liabilities of a benevolent organization, reducing its financial obligations to two widows, was within the constitutional authority of the province of Quebec under the British North America Act, 1867.
Quebec (AG) v Canada (AG), also known as the Radio Reference, is a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that determined that broadcasting fell within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada under the British North America Act, 1867.
Section 92(14) of the Constitution Act, 1867, also known as the administration of justice power, grants the provincial legislatures of Canada the authority to legislate on:
14. The Administration of Justice in the Province, including the Constitution, Maintenance, and Organization of Provincial Courts, both of Civil and of Criminal Jurisdiction, and including Procedure in Civil Matters in those Courts.
Attorney General for Quebec v. Queen Insurance Company is a Canadian constitutional law decision dealing with the taxation and licensing powers of the provinces under the federal-provincial division of powers.
Section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867 is a provision of the Constitution of Canada relating to the appointment of judges of the provincial superior, district and county courts. It provides that the judges of those courts are appointed by the Governor General of Canada. By constitutional convention, the Governor General exercises that power on the advice of the federal Cabinet
Valin v Langlois is a Canadian constitutional law decision from the Supreme Court of Canada, concerning the jurisdiction of the federal Parliament over federal elections, as well as the constitutional jurisdiction of the provincial superior courts. The Court held that the Parliament of Canada has sole jurisdiction to enact laws regulating federal elections, including provisions for controverted elections. The Court also held that the provincial superior courts have general jurisdiction over questions of federal and provincial law, and that Parliament could give provincial courts jurisdiction to apply federal laws.
Section 101 of the Constitution Act, 1867 is a provision of the Constitution of Canada giving the federal Parliament the power to create the Supreme Court of Canada and the federal courts. Although Parliament created the Supreme Court by an ordinary federal statute in 1875, the Court is partially entrenched by the amending formula set out in the Constitution Act, 1982. The composition of the Court can only be changed by a unanimous constitutional amendment, passed by the two houses of Parliament, and all of the provincial legislative assemblies.
