|
Stratas JA - Accountability. Jewish National Fund of Canada Inc. v. Canada (National Revenue)
In Jewish National Fund of Canada Inc. v. Canada (National Revenue) (Fed CA, 2026) the Federal Court of Appeal considered a motion to summarily grant an appeal - the appeal being brought against "the Minister’s decision to revoke its status as a registered charity", in part because it was "fatally tainted by bias".
Here Stratas JA considers the accountability of "all who exercise public power":B. An opening concern in this case
[11] For a while now, the parties in this administrative appeal have been busy with interlocutory issues and many search and production issues on the issue of bias. This administrative appeal is starting to resemble a full-scale action for abuse of public office with numerous discoveries. It is crawling slowly at great expense to all concerned, including the Court.
C. A countervailing concern
[12] But sometimes search and production orders, with all their potential for delay and expense, must be made. Denying parties search and production orders can keep maladministration hidden and unexposed, immunizing administrative decision-makers from meaningful review and accountability: Tsleil-Waututh Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2017 FCA 128; Canadian National Railway Company v. Canada (Transportation Agency), 2023 FCA 245 at paras. 7-10 (decrying situations where an administrative decision-maker can "“become a law unto itself, accountable to no one except itself”").
[13] Meaningful review and accountability matter:“L’etat, c’est moi” and “trust us, we got it right” have no place in our democracy. In our system of governance, all holders of public power, even the most powerful of them — the Governor-General, the Prime Minister, Ministers, the Cabinet, Chief Justices and puisne judges, Deputy Ministers, and so on—must obey the law: Reference re Secession of Quebec, 1998 CanLII 793 (SCC), [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217, 161 D.L.R. (4th) 385; United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974); Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803); Magna Carta (1215), art. 39. From this, just as night follows day, two corollaries must follow. First, there must be an umpire who can meaningfully assess whether the law has been obeyed and grant appropriate relief. Second, both the umpire and the assessment must be fully independent from the body being reviewed. See the discussion in Tsleil-Waututh Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2017 FCA 128 at paras. 77-79, Slansky v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 FCA 199, [2015] 1 F.C.R. 81 at paras. 313-315 (dissenting but not disputed by the majority), and the numerous authorities cited therein.
Tyranny, despotism and abuse can come in many forms, sizes, and motivations: major and minor, large and small, sometimes clothed in good intentions, sometimes not. Over centuries of experience, we have learned that all are nevertheless the same: all are pernicious. Thus, we insist that all who exercise public power — no matter how lofty, no matter how important — must be subject to meaningful and fully independent review and accountability. (Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Tennant, 2018 FCA 132 at paras. 23-24. See also Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Canadian Council for Refugees, 2021 FCA 72 at paras. 102-105 and Slansky v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 FCA 199, [2015] 1 F.C.R. 81 at paras. 313-315.)
|
