|
Reviews (Appeal-JR) - Fresh Law - Exceptions. Ontario (Attorney General) v. Restoule
In Ontario (Attorney General) v. Restoule (SCC, 2024) the Supreme Court of Canada cited fresh law exceptions:[204] This Court has recently affirmed that parties will be permitted to raise new arguments on appeal only in exceptional circumstances, having regard to, among other things, “the state of the record, fairness to all parties, the importance of having the issue resolved by th[e] [c]ourt, its suitability for decision and the broader interests of the administration of justice” (R. v. J.F., 2022 SCC 17, at para. 41, citing Guindon v. Canada, 2015 SCC 41, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 3, at para. 20). . Klos v. Canada (Attorney General)
In Klos v. Canada (Attorney General) (Fed CA, 2023) the Federal Court of Appeal considered a recent exception to the 'fresh law' [my term] doctrine:[8] The applicant also submits that the delay of the Board in this case constitutes an abuse of process. The applicant did not place this issue before the Board for consideration in his written submissions and, thus, it is a new issue in this Court that should not be heard: Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. Alberta Teachers’ Association, 2011 SCC 61, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 654. We do not consider that the Supreme Court’s recent willingness (in Mason v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 SCC 21) to decide a case on the basis of a new issue, one of international law, for the first time on the third level of appeal should be taken to undercut the longstanding, unquestioned authority of Alberta Teachers’ Association. In any event, the threshold for success on such a point is very high and is not met here: Law Society of Saskatchewan v. Abrametz, 2022 SCC 29, 470 D.L.R. (4th) 328. . Mason v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
In Mason v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) (SCC, 2023) the Supreme Court of Canada sets out an effective exception to the fresh law prohibition applicable to tribunals, this for requirements of it's home statute:(c) Failure to Address Constraints Imposed by International Law
[104] Finally, the IAD failed to address the legal constraints imposed by international law on its interpretation of s. 34(1)(e). As I will explain, the IAD’s interpretation allows foreign nationals to be returned to countries where they may face persecution, contrary to Canada’s non-refoulement obligation in Article 33 of the Refugee Convention. By contrast, interpreting s. 34(1)(e) as requiring a nexus with national security or the security of Canada means that a removal order would not breach Article 33. Although this argument was not presented to the IAD, the IAD was required by its home statute to interpret and apply the IRPA in a manner that complies with Canada’s international human rights obligations, including Canada’s non-refoulement obligation under Article 33 of the Refugee Convention.
|
