|
Judicial Review - Public v Private - Exceptions. Metropolitan Preparatory Academy Inc v. Ontario
In Metropolitan Preparatory Academy Inc v. Ontario (Div Court, 2022) the Divisional Court held that government financial/policy allocation decisions were non-justiciable, here in an Ontario judicial review context:[18] “[R]esponsibility for the management of public funds rests with the government and not the court…” (Bowman v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2019 ONSC 1064, para. 40). Expenditures of public funds are discretionary public policy decisions made by government pursuant to the Crown’s common law spending powers: Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada v. British Columbia (Attorney General) (1997), 1997 CanLII 4597 (BC CA), 149 DLR (4th) 613, paras. 27-29 (BC CA).
....
[28] Finally, we note that the applicants and their employees were eligible to seek funding under several programs targeted at businesses and as support for working people to relieve some financial consequences of public health measures taken in response to COVID-19. There is no unfairness in Ontario taking different approaches to addressing issues arising in the private sector and issues arising in publicly funded institutions. . Metropolitan Preparatory Academy Inc v. Ontario
In Metropolitan Preparatory Academy Inc v. Ontario (Div Court, 2022) the Divisional Court held that cabinet financial allocation decisions were non-justiciable, here in a judicial review context:[19] Policy considerations at Cabinet are not reviewable in this court absent jurisdictional error, a constitutional challenge, bad faith or irrationality: Dixon v. Canada (Governor in Council), 1997 CanLII 6145 (CAF), [1997] 3 FC 169, para. 17 (CA); Thorne’s Hardware Ltd. v. R., 1983 CanLII 20 (SCC), [1983] 1 SCR 106, para. 9; Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters v. Ontario (2002) 2002 CanLII 41606 (ON CA), 211 DLR (4th) 741 (Ont. CA); Brazeau v. Canada (Attorney General), 2020 ONCA 184, para. 61; Mackin v. New Brunswick (Minister of Finance); Rice v. New Brunswick, 2002 SCC 61, paras. 25-26.
|
