|
JR - Standing - Discretion. Canada (Attorney General) v. Canadian Civil Liberties Association
In Canada (Attorney General) v. Canadian Civil Liberties Association (Fed CA, 2026) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed a federal AG JR, this brought against "the Federal Court’s finding that the declaration of a public order emergency was unreasonable and that some provisions of the Regulations and of the Economic Order violated the Charter", here where the emergency order was made under the federal Emergencies Act.
Here the court considers the court's discretion to deny JR standing, here on equitable-behaviourial grounds:[115] Likewise, the Federal Court made no error in dismissing Ms. Nagle and CFN’s application for lack of clean hands. It is well established that courts may decline judicial review remedies to a party that engages in misconduct, such as failing to show good faith, transparency and candour: see Homex Realty v. Wyoming, 1980 CanLII 55 (SCC), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 1011, 116 D.L.R. (3rd) 1 at pp. 1033-1038; Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Thanabalasingham, 2006 FCA 14 at paras. 9-11. As summarized at paragraph 71 of these reasons, the Federal Court found and described at least four instances of such misconduct, including posting photos of the court proceedings on Instagram, broadcasting the hearing, avoiding answering questions during cross-examination, and inappropriate and offensive statements by their lead counsel.
[116] As for counsel’s behaviour, we recognize that it is a lawyer’s duty to act fully and fearlessly in advancing their clients’ cause. But there is a line not to be crossed, and looking at the transcript we are unable to find a palpable and overriding error in the Federal Court’s discretionary finding that Ms. Nagle and CFN’s lead counsel had crossed that line in making what it described as "“inappropriate and offensive political statements”", "“clearly intended to play to the audience observing the hearing remotely”" (Nagle at para. 184).
|
