World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Reference Re Canada Assistance Plan (BC)

Article Id: WHEBN0004643421
Reproduction Date:

Title: Reference Re Canada Assistance Plan (BC)  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Supreme Court of Canada reference question cases, Supreme Court of Canada cases
Collection:
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Publication
Date:
 

Reference Re Canada Assistance Plan (BC)

Reference Re Canada Assistance Plan (BC)
Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: December 11, 12, 1990
Judgment: August 15, 1991
Citations [1991] 2 S.C.R. 525
Docket No. 22017
Court Membership
Chief Justice: Antonio Lamer
Puisne Justices: Bertha Wilson, Gérard La Forest, Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, John Sopinka, Charles Gonthier, Peter Cory, Beverley McLachlin, William Stevenson
Reasons given
Unanimous reasons by Sopinka J.

Reference Re Canada Assistance Plan (BC), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 525 is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court held that courts have a residual discretion to refuse to answer reference questions where there is insufficient legal content or where the court would be unable to provide a complete and accurate answer.

Contents

  • Background 1
  • Reasons of the court 2
  • Procedural Fairness 3
  • See also 4
  • External links 5

Background

Under the Canada Assistance Plan the Parliament of Canada was contributing 50 per cent of the costs for social assistance and welfare in the province of British Columbia. In 1991, the federal government put a cap of 5 per cent on the growth of the payments. The province protested and attempted to challenge the change in court. The federal government argued that the issue was purely political and could not be considered by the Court.

Reasons of the court

The Court held that the issue was justiciable as there was a legal component to it. On the facts the Court found that the federal policy was constitutionally valid. The Court held that the power to enact, repeal, or amend Acts is well within the Parliamentary sphere. The Court also looked at the Interpretation Act which explicitly states these powers. Ultimately, the Court relied on the Interpretation Act in its decision, although it stated that the Parliament would not have been precluded from exercising its powers in the absence thereof.

Procedural Fairness

It was argued by the Province that the Federal Government created a legitimate expectation by the language in the statute. The province alleged that an amendment required Provincial consent before a change was made to the statute. Justice Sopinka held that requiring the consent of the Province before allowing Parliament to amend the statute would produce a substantive outcome. The doctrine of legitimate expectations can only operate to provide procedural remedies.

See also

External links


This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 


Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.