|
Courts - Supreme Court of Canada. Canada (Prime Minister) v. Hameed
In Canada (Prime Minister) v. Hameed (Fed CA, 2025) the Federal Court of Appeal notes the statutory status of the Supreme Court of Canada:[25] However trite, it must be recalled that the Federal Courts are statutory courts, whose enactment by statute — like the Supreme Court of Canada — was envisaged under section 101 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which allows "“for the Establishment of any additional Courts for the better Administration of the Laws of Canada.”" It follows that the Federal Courts’ inherent jurisdiction is not as broad as that of the provincial superior courts. . Leahy v. Canada (Justice)
In Leahy v. Canada (Justice) (Fed CA, 2023) the Federal Court of Appeal considers when the Supreme Court of Canada will reconsider an application for leave to appeal [under R73 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada]:[1] This is an appeal of an order of the Federal Court (2021 FC 302, per Furlanetto J.). In that decision, Furlanetto J. granted the respondent’s motion to strike the appellant’s judicial review application of a decision of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (the Registrar). Under subsection 73(4) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, S.O.R./2002-156 (the Rules), the Registrar had refused the appellant’s motion for reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss his motion for leave to appeal from a decision of this Court.
....
[7] Settled jurisprudence—specifically, the Supreme Court’s decision in Stubicar v. Canada, 2014 SCC 38, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 104, the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Scheuneman v. Canada (Attorney General), 2003 FCA 194, 303 N.R. 359 [Scheuneman] and the Federal Court’s decision in Sydel v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 FC 1116, 441 F.T.R. 310 [Sydel]—confirm that the Supreme Court cannot be compelled to consider a motion for reconsideration.
|
