8. Pressing Issues – First 60 Days
The following is a list of significant litigation files and pressing issues that are likely to come to your attention in the next 60 days.
Litigation
Under the Department of Justice Act, the Minister of Justice is ex officio the Attorney General of Canada (AGC). The AGC has carriage of all civil litigation for or against the federal Crown and any department. The AGC represents the Crown and not individual departments or agencies of the Government. The AGC therefore seeks to protect the interests of the whole of government when providing advice and conducting litigation.
Departments generally act as instructing clients in the civil litigation context, although in having carriage of all litigation, the AGC must keep in mind their duty to ensure that public affairs are administered in accordance with the law.
The Minister of Justice can also be the instructing client, where the matter falls within the policy responsibilities of the Minister, and the Department of Justice is the client department.
Department of Justice Lead
1. His Majesty the King, et al. v. B.F., et al.
Lead Department: Justice Canada
Court Level: Supreme Court of Canada
AGC’s Role: Intervener
Issue
Criminal law matter – Interplay between offences of aiding suicide and attempted murder.
Context
An appeal on the issue of the relationship between the crimes of attempted murder/murder and aiding suicide and, specifically, where a charge of attempted murder/murder is available in circumstances where an accused provided a person with the means used to attempt to die/die by suicide knowing that was the person’s intent.
On March 21, 2025, Canada was granted leave to intervene to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC).
Next steps
May 22, 2025: Hearing of appeal
2. Ǫuébec c. Kanyinda
Lead Department: Justice Canada
Court Level: Supreme Court of Canada
AGC’s Role: Intervener
Issue
Constitutional challenge to the exclusion of refugee claimants from the reduced contribution in daycare.
Context
This case raises the question of whether the Reduced Contribution Regulations (Ǫuébec), which excludes refugee claimants from the reduced contribution in daycare, is consistent with the right to equality guaranteed by section 15 of the Charter.
Ms. Kanyinda is from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and has made a claim for refugee protection under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. She was denied access to subsidized childcare services because, under section 3 of the Reduced Contribution Regulations (Ǫuébec), access to these services is restricted to persons whose refugee status is recognized by the federal authorities.
Canada has intervened in this case to present the federal perspective on the following general questions of law: what is the standard for a claimant to establish adverse effect discrimination and is immigration status an analogous ground within the meaning of section 15 of the Charter.
Next steps
May 14-15, 2025: SCC appeal hearing
3. Brian Anderson v. The Government of Manitoba, et al. / Allan Woodhouse v. The Government of Manitoba, et al. / Clarence Woodhouse v. The Government of Manitoba, et al.
Lead Department: Justice Canada
Court Level: Manitoba Court of King’s Bench
AGC’s Role: Defendant
Issue
Civil claim regarding wrongful convictions.
Context
Actions brought by three Indigenous men seeking compensation for their wrongful conviction for murder in 1974. The federal Minister of Justice ordered new trials for all three men pursuant to section 696 of the Criminal Code on the basis that their confessions were coerced and their convictions were a miscarriage of justice. All three were subsequently acquitted at trial.
Russell Woodhouse is deceased. A posthumous miscarriage of justice application challenging his conviction is ongoing.
Next steps
June 16, 2025: Case management conference
June 20, 2025: Defendants’ mediation brief to be filed
July 22-23, 2025: Mediation
July 18, 2027: Trial (4 weeks)
4. Patrick Marleau v. The Minister of Justice
Lead Department: Justice Canada
Court Level: Federal Court
AGC’s Role: Defendant
Issue
Official languages challenge about French version of the constitutional instruments.
Context
This application under section 77 of the Official Languages Act seeks a declaration that the Department of Justice is in contravention of section 41 of the Official Languages Act by failing to take positive measures to ensure that the French version of the constitutional instruments listed in the Schedule to the Constitution Act, 1S82 is adopted. These constitutional instruments, including the Constitution Act, 18c7, are in force only in English.
The applicant also seeks an order requiring the Department of Justice to take positive steps to ensure that the French version of these constitutional instruments is adopted and to report to the Court on its efforts until the enactment is passed. Finally, the applicant seeks damages in an amount to be specified at the hearing and a declaration that this case raises a new and important principle within the meaning of subsection 81(2) (Costs) of the Official Languages Act.
Next steps
June 27, 2025: Canada’s factum due
Client Department Lead
5. Malii, et al. v. His Majesty the King in Right of British Columbia, the Attorney General of Canada and Tsetsaut Skii km Lax Ha Nation
Lead Department: Crown Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada
Court Level: British Columbia Supreme Court
AGC’s Role: Defendant
Issue
Aboriginal rights and title to 6,200 square kilometres of traditional territory in northern British Columbia.
Context
The Gitanyow Nation assert Aboriginal rights and title to approximately 6,200 square kilometres of traditional territory in northern British Columbia. The Nisga’a Nation contends that the Gitanyow Nation’s claim overlaps with lands subject to the Nisga’a Final Agreement and Nisga’a laws.
The Nisga’a Nation applied to be added as defendant. The trial judge dismissed their application, and that decision was upheld on appeal. The Nisga’a sought leave to appeal to the SCC. The Nisga’a Nation also seeks leave to intervene in the underlying action. Canada consented to this application. On April 24, 2025, the SCC granted the leave application.
Tsetsaut/Skii km Lax Ha also brought an application to be added as a defendant and to bring a third-party claim. The British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld adding Tsetsaut/Skii km Lax Ha as a defendant but set aside the order permitting the third-party claim against Canada and British Columbia. The TSKLH sought leave to appeal the decision setting aside the order permitting the third-party claim against Canada and BC to the SCC. This application was opposed by Canada on the basis that the British Columbia Court of Appeal decision was appropriate and does not raise an issue of national importance. On April 24, 2025, the SCC granted the leave application. TSKLH sought leave to adjourn the trial, and their application will be heard on May 14, 2025. Any application of the Nisga’a will also be heard at this time. The trial is currently set to start on May 28, 2025, but could be adjourned, depending on the outcome of the TSKLH’s application.
Next steps
May G, 2025: Canada’s response to adjournment request due
May 14, 2025: Hearing of TSKLH’s application to adjourn the trial. Any application of the Nisga’a will also be heard at this time
6. Mowi Canada West Inc. v. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, et al. / Crieg Seafood BC Ltd. v. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, et al./ Cermaq Canada Ltd. v. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, et al. / We Wai Kai Nation, et al. v. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, et al.
Lead Department: Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Court Level: British Columbia Supreme Court
AGC’s Role: Defendant
Issue
Civil claims in respect of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans’ decision refusing aquaculture licences in the Discovery Islands.
Context
In December 2020, the then-Minister determined no further aquaculture licences would be issued (following a final licence period of 18-months) for a number of aquaculture companies in the Discovery Islands. In May 2021, the Federal Court (FC) found that decision to have been unlawful. Rather than issuing new licences in June 2022 (upon the expiry of the 18-month licences), the current Minister decided to delay the issuance of licences (“June 2022 Decision”) until completion of a 6-month consultation process with stakeholders. On February 17, 2023, the Minister made a decision to not issue any licenses.
In four separate Notices of Civil Claim filed on March 27, 2023, the plaintiffs allege that both Ministers’ decisions were unlawful and caused them financial losses. Both Ministers are named personally. Canada applied to strike the claims, and the application was heard in October 2024.
On April 4, 2025, the Court released the judgment on the AGC’s motion to strike applications. The Court struck the claims of constructive taking as well as Cermaq’s claim of abusive administrative action. The Court declined to strike the misfeasance, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation claims. On May 5, 2025, Canada filed four Notices of Appeal, one in respect of each action.
Next steps
July 4, 2025: Canada will prepare the Appeal Record and Book of Transcripts and serve it on the respondents.
7. B.M., et al. v. His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario and the Attorney General of Canada (Stonechild related)
Lead Department: Crown Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada
Court Level: Ontario Superior Court
AGC’s Role: Defendant
Issue
Alleged failure to provide essential health and social services programs provided to Indigenous children and their families since 1992.
Context
The plaintiffs have brought a proposed class action against Ontario and Canada seeking damages for harm inflicted by the provision of the child welfare system, and the lack of other essential health and social services programs provided to Indigenous children and their families since 1992.
The plaintiffs allege both Crowns engaged in systemic negligence, breached fiduciary duties, breached the honour of the Crown, and unjustifiably violated sections 7 and 15 of the Charter.
The plaintiffs assert that Canada left children and families at the hands of Ontario despite constitutional, legal and historic obligations to Indigenous peoples. They claim Canada failed to cure discriminatory deficiencies in Ontario’s services, failed to fund non-discriminatory child and family services off-reserve, and failed to provide substantively equal access to essential services.
Next steps
May 27-30, 2025: Hearing of plaintiffs’ certification motion
8. Zhang, Ning Jing v. His Majesty the King and Justice for Children and Youth
Lead Department: Canada Revenue Agency
Court Level: Federal Court of Appeal
AGC’s Role: Respondent
Issue
Canada Child Tax Benefit.
Context
On February 15, 2024, the Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appellant’s appeal to that Court. The appellant, a Chinese citizen, was at that time a refugee claimant in Canada. She was denied the Canada Child Benefit (CCB) under the Income Tax Act, because the CCB is not available to refugee claimants in Canada. The appellant’s refugee claim has since been accepted.
The appellant claimed that the eligibility requirements for the CCB violated her rights and her children’s rights under sections 7 and 15 of the Charter. The appellant has appealed only the determination on section 15 of the Charter to the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA).
Next Steps
May 12, 2025: Hearing of appeal
9. Canadian Women’s Sex-Based Rights v. His Majesty the King
Lead Department: Correctional Services Canada
Court Level: Federal Court
AGC’s Role: Defendant
Issue
CSC’s Commissioner’s Directive 100.
Context
The plaintiff, Canadian Women’s Sex-Based Rights (CAWSBAR), a federally incorporated non-profit, works to preserve the sex-based rights and protections of women and girls in Canada. CAWSBAR seeks public interest standing to bring this claim on behalf of all Canadian Female Inmates (defined in the claim as individuals that can bear offspring or produce eggs) incarcerated in federal institutions.
The claim alleges that the forcible confinement of Female Inmates of federal prisons with trans-identifying male inmates (defined in the claim as individuals who identify as female but who produce small, typically motile gametes) has caused and will continue to cause serious harm to Female Inmates. CAWSBAR claims that Correctional Service Canada’s Commissioner’s Directive 100, which authorizes this practice, violates the rights of Female Inmates under sections 7, 12 and 15 of the Charter and is not saved by section 1. It also contends that CD-100 is in breach of the rights of Female Inmates under sections 1(a), 1(b) and 2(b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights.
Next steps
The deadline of the AGC’s statement of defence to be determined.
10. The BC Métis Federation Society, Elaine Kronhaus, Karen Prouse and Amber Romailler v. The Attorney General of Canada
Lead Department: Crown Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada
Court Level: Supreme Court of British Columbia
AGC’s Role: Defendant
Issue
Recognition of Métis organization for access to funding and services.
Context
The plaintiffs allege that Canada has failed to recognize the BC Métis Federation (BCMF) as a representative organization of Métis people in British Columbia, while recognizing and engaging with the Métis Nation of British Columbia. They further allege that Canada has declined the BCMF’s eligibility for various federal programs and funding opportunities. The claim asserts breaches of sections 2(d) and 15 of the Charter, as well as articles 2, 5, and 18 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Next steps
May 16, 2025: Canada’s response to civil claim is due
11. The Government of Saskatchewan v. His Majesty the King
Lead Department: Canada Revenue Agency
Court Level: Tax Court of Canada
AGC’s Role: Respondent
Issue
Tax appeal challenging the validity and constitutionality of assessments made pursuant to the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (GGPPA).
Context
A fuel charge under part 1 of the GGPPA applies to fuel that is delivered by a registered distributor in a listed province to a person that does not provide an exemption certificate in accordance with the GGPPA. On February 29, 2024, Saskatchewan announced that it would not remit the charge under the GGPPA on natural gas used for residential heating purposes. Saskatchewan remitted its Fuel Charge Returns, but did not remit amounts for home heating natural gas. The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) took collection actions against Saskatchewan for fuel charges under the GGPPA for periods January 2024 – July 2024.
Saskatchewan filed a notice of appeal with the Tax Court of Canada, which was transmitted on March 17, 2025. Saskatchewan challenges the validity of the assessments, the constitutionality of the GGPPA, and the exercise of authority by the CRA under the GGPPA.
Next steps
May 16, 2025: Canada’s reply is due
12. Reference re Chignecto Isthmus
Lead Department: Housing, Infrastructure, and Communities Canada
Court Level: Nova Scotia Court of Appeal
AGC’s Role: Intervener
Issue
Whether the federal government has the exclusive constitutional jurisdiction to legislate in respect of the Chignecto Isthmus infrastructure.
Context
Nova Scotia filed a reference with the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal pursuant to the Constitutional Ǫuestions Act seeking the Court’s opinion on whether Canada has exclusive legislative authority over infrastructure which protects the isthmus connecting Nova Scotia to New Brunswick from sea level rise.
The reference has been filed amidst a public negotiation among Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Canada over funding for mitigation and repairs necessary to protect the isthmus from worsening floods and storms.
On September 21, 2023, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal granted intervener status to Canada, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.
Canada raised as a preliminary issue that the Court should decline to answer the reference question. On March 19, 2025, the Court indicated that it wishes to hear the parties’ submissions on the merits of the question before ruling on the preliminary issue (that is, whether to answer the question at all).
Next steps
May 20-21, 2025: Hearing on the merits
13. Richard, et al. v. The Attorney General of Canada
Lead Department: Canada Border Services Agency
Court Level: Ontario Court of Appeal
AGC’s Role: Appellant (Defendant in class action)
Issue
Certified class action on behalf of immigration detainees; sub-class of detainees with mental health conditions.
Context
This class action is on behalf of immigration detainees held in provincial and territorial correctional facilities across Canada, including a sub-class of immigration detainees with mental health conditions. The class comprises persons detained under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in a provincial or territorial correctional facility, from May 16, 2016, to the date of certification.
The Plaintiffs allege that detaining immigration detainees in provincial or territorial correctional facilities that are meant to house accused and convicted criminals is a breach of common law duties of care; international law standards; Charter rights under sections 7 (life, liberty, security of the person), 9 (arbitrary detention), 12 (cruel and unusual treatment or punishment) and 15 (equality rights); and Canada’s fiduciary obligations to the Plaintiffs.
The Ontario Superior Court certified this class action on July 5, 2024. On August 6, 2024, Canada appealed the certification decision.
Next steps
June 10, 2025: Appeal hearing
14. Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg and Jean-Cuy Whiteduck v. The Attorney General of Canada, National Capital Commission and His Majesty the King in right of Ontario
Lead Department: Crown Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada
Court Level: Ontario Superior Court of Justice
AGC’s Role: Defendant
Issue
Title claim to areas in downtown Ottawa (Parliament Hill, LeBreton Flats).
Context
First Nation Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg, located in Quebec to the north of Ottawa, commenced an Aboriginal title claim over lands in downtown Ottawa including Parliament Hill, the SCC and LeBreton Flats.
On June 28, 2024, the plaintiffs filed an amended statement of claim which adds an additional parcel of land in downtown Ottawa to their title claim on behalf of the Algonquin Anishnaabe Nation and alleges inadequate consultation on post-claim transfers of title.
Next steps
June 12, 2025: Canada’s statement of defence due
15. Tuccaro, et al. v. The Attorney General of Canada, His Majesty the King in right of Alberta, and Northland School Division No. C1
Lead Department: Indigenous Services Canada
Court Level: Alberta Court of King’s Bench
AGC’s Role: Co-Defendant
Issue
Alleged breach of education provisions of Treaty 8.
Context
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants breached the education provisions of Treaty 8 and failed to meet the standard of care expected of education providers. The plaintiffs claim successive levels of government failed Mikisew Cree First Nation (MCFN) in providing education on-reserve and in schools within the Northland School Division No. 61. The plaintiffs also allege that a 1987 tuition agreement resulted in monies that were due to MCFN being channelled to Alberta without proper accountability. As a result, the plaintiffs claim the members of MCFN have suffered a loss of their Aboriginal identity and human dignity, as well as educational and economic opportunities. Sexual and physical abuse of minors is also pleaded.
The plaintiffs seek declarations that Treaty 8 includes a right to education funded by Canada and that Canada has failed to meet certain standards of care in providing educational resources to members of MCFN. The plaintiffs also seek orders for funding, damages, and the disgorgement of alleged profits made by the defendants.
Next steps
May 15, 2025: Canada’s statement of defence due
16. Sharon Nicholas, et al. v. The Attorney General of Canada
Lead Department: Indigenous Services Canada
Court Level: British Columbia Supreme Court
AGC’s Role: Defendant
Issue
Registration provisions of the Indian Act re: enfranchisement.
Context
The plaintiffs seek a declaration that the registration provisions of the Indian Act, enacted to address enfranchisement, breach sections 7, 15, and 28 of the Charter. The plaintiffs assert that the registration provisions continue to reinforce the legacy of enfranchisement on descendants of individuals who “voluntarily” enfranchised and on Indian women and children who were involuntarily enfranchised pursuant to an application by their husband or father.
Next Steps
May 20, 2025: Canada’s response to plaintiffs’ application for summary judgment due
June 3, 2025: Hearing of plaintiffs’ application for summary judgment
17. John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 and John Doe 3 v. The Attorney General of Canada
Lead Department: Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada
Court Level: Federal Court
AGC’s Role: Respondent
Issue
Canada-Ukraine Authorization for Emergency Travel program.
Context
The applicants in the consolidated proceeding are Canadian citizens who allegedly worked for the Department of National Defence (DND) or the International Security Assistance Force as language and cultural advisors in Afghanistan. The applicants have Afghan relatives who are ineligible to immigrate to Canada under an Afghan Language and Cultural Advisors public policy because they do not meet the eligibility requirements.
The applicants allege that the Canada-Ukraine Authorization for Emergency Travel (CUAET) public policy for Ukrainian nationals is far more generous and discriminates against non-Ukrainian nationals and their family members.
The applicants seek: a declaration that the CUAET Public Policy violates section 15 of the Charter; and an order severing references to Ukraine and Ukrainians from the CUAET Public Policy (ostensibly allowing Afghan nationals and all other foreign nationals to seek the benefit of the CUAET Public Policy).
Next steps
May 21, 2025: Hearing
18. Motion Picture Association-Canada, Crunchyroll LLC, Netflix Services Canada ULC, Paramount Entertainment Canada ULC and Pluto Inc. v. Canadian Association of Broadcasters / Apple Canada Inc. v. The Attorney General of Canada / Amazon.com.ca ULC v. The Attorney General of Canada / Spotify AB v. The Attorney General of Canada
Lead Department: Canadian Heritage
Court Level: Federal Court of Appeal
AGC’s Role: Defendant
Issue
Applications for judicial review of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s Broadcasting Regulatory Policy CRTC 2024-121.
Context
On June 4, 2024, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) issued a policy and accompanying proposed orders, which outlined that non-Canadian online streaming services with annual revenues of $25M or more will be required to report their revenues to the CRTC and contribute 5% to certain funds intended to support Canadian media programming.
On August 29, 2024, the CRTC issued a further policy and final contribution orders giving effect to the policy issued in June (August Decision and Final Orders). Amazon, Spotify, Apple, and Motion Picture Association-Canada (MPA) et al. have brought appeals and applications for judicial review in relation to the August Decision and Final Orders. Canada is the respondent in the Amazon, Spotify, and Apple proceedings, and the Canadian Association of Broadcasters is the respondent in the MPA, et al. proceedings.
On February 11 and 12, 2025, the Indigenous Screen Office (ISO) and the Directors Guild of Canada (DGC) each filed notices of appearance. On March 7, 2025, the Foundation Assisting Talent on Recordings (FACTOR) and a consortium of four other funds also filed notices of appearance.
The ISO and DGC intend to appear as respondents in the appeals, and FACTOR and the Consortium intend to appear as respondents in the appeals and the applications. These proceedings raise overlapping issues, including whether the CRTC’s policy and orders are unreasonable or inequitable and whether the CRTC exceeded its jurisdiction.
Next steps
May 23, 2025: Canada’s factum due
Week of June G, 2025: Hearing of appeal (to be confirmed)
19. Black River First Nation v. His Majesty the King
Lead Department: Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada
Court Level: Federal Court
AGC’s Role: Defendant
Issue
Treaty 5.
Context
Black River First Nation is a signatory of Treaty 5. It asserts in its claim, filed in 2007, that the land formula in Treaty 5 is disproportionate to that of other surrounding treaties in Manitoba and a breach of the Crown’s fiduciary duty. Treaties 1, 2 and 5 only received 160 acres per family of five, whereas Treaties 3, 4 and 6 all received 640 acres per family of five. Black River First Nation attempts to point out irregularities in their signing process in 1875, and lack of information about neighbouring treaty negotiations. They seek correction of the land disparity and general damages, or alternatively, to set aside their acceptance of Treaty 5.
Next steps
May 12, 2025: Canada’s written arguments due
May 26-28, 2025: Hearing of oral arguments
20. Yvette Zentner and Letitia Wells as Representative Plaintiffs v. The Attorney General of Canada
Lead Department: Indigenous Services Canada
Court Level: Federal Court
AGC’s Role: Defendant
Issue
Proposed Class Action on systemic discrimination.
Context
This is a proposed class action brought against Canada on behalf of all former employees of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada and all current and former employees of Indian Oil and Gas Canada (IOGC), Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) and Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) who experienced harassment or discrimination at the workplace on the basis of race, culture, ethnicity or gender.
The claim alleges specific and systemic discrimination, racism, harassment, and retaliation. It also alleges breaches of section 15 of the Charter, and multiple sections of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA). The claim was substantively amended to specify that the proposed class is limited to employees with Indigenous ancestry.
The claim was narrowed to only IOGC employees and contractors (it no longer includes ISC and CIRNAC current and former employees). It remains a claim in systemic negligence for harassment and discrimination, for current and former Aboriginal employees and contractors of IOGC. The claim now focuses clearly on race-based discrimination and no longer alleges gender-based discrimination. Claims for breaches of the Charter and CHRA and for breach of contract were removed.
On March 22, 2023, the Court extended the time for service and filing of the AGC’s statement of defence until after the determination of the certification motion.
Next steps
July 17, 2025: Canada’s responding certification factum due
21. TikTok Technology Canada Inc. v. The Attorney General of Canada, et al.
Lead Department: Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
Court Level: Federal Court
AGC’s Role: Respondent
Issue
Review of foreign investments that may be injurious to national security under the Investment Canada Act.
Context
On November 5, 2024, the Governor in Council (GIC) ordered that TikTok Canada wind-up its business and cease all operations in Canada based on national security risks.
TikTok Canada is subject to the Investment Canada Act, which allows for the review of foreign investments that may be injurious to Canada’s national security. The GIC’s order was based on a referral from the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED) after a review of national security risks. The Minister of ISED consulted with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness before concluding the national security risks warranted a referral to the GIC.
On November 6, 2024, the Minister of ISED issued a statement confirming the GIC’s order does not block Canadians’ access to the TikTok application or their ability to create content. The applicant alleges the Minister of ISED’s conclusion that TikTok Canada posed national security risks was unreasonable, the order was issued for improper purposes, and there was procedural unfairness.
Next steps
May 28, 2025: Canada’s factum due
22. Tanny v. Royal Victoria Hospital, McGill University Health Centre, the Attorney General of Canada, and the United States Attorney General
Lead Department: Health Canada
Court Level: Superior Court of Québec
AGC’s Role: Defendant
Issue
Allan Memorial Institute class action.
Context
On January 29, 2019, the applicant filed an application to authorize a class action against the AGC, Royal Victoria Hospital, McGill University Health Centre, and the United States Attorney General (USAG) on behalf of former patients and family members of patients who underwent experimental psychiatric treatments by Dr. Cameron at the Allan Memorial Institute in the 1950s and 1960s.
The applicant argues the treatments were disproportionate, exploitative, and detrimental to the patients and were inflicted without their knowledge and/or consent.
On May 30, 2024, following various appeals, the SCC dismissed Ms. Tanny’s application for leave to appeal the decision that dismissed the action against the USAG based on state immunity.
Next steps
May 30, 2025: Canada’s plan of argument re: authorization due
June 9-10, 2025: Hearing of application for authorization
23. Chief Shirley Lynne Keeper on behalf of Pikangikum First Nation et al. v. The Attorney General of Canada
Lead Department: Indigenous Services Canada
Court Level: Federal Court
AGC’s Role: Respondent
Issue
Deficient water and sewage infrastructure in reserve community.
Context
The plaintiffs seek declarations and damages for harm related to the consequences of deficient water and sewage infrastructure in their reserve community. The plaintiffs allege Canada has been negligent and breached duties in creating, failing to remedy, and exacerbating conditions of inadequate access to potable water and sewage disposal.
The plaintiffs seek: 1) declarations of unjustifiable violations of sections 7 and 15 of the Charter; 2) declarations of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and unjust enrichment; 3) declarations of violations of treaty rights and sections 35 and 36 of the Constitution; 4) interim and permanent injunctions, or an order of mandamus, requiring Canada to immediately construct or approve and fund the construction of appropriate water and sewage disposal systems on an emergency and ongoing basis, overseen by the court; 5) damages.
On February 25, 2025, the plaintiffs served an amended claim, containing the new allegation that Canada has failed to provide adequate fire prevention infrastructure. The pleading addresses the most recent report provided on Pikangikum’s water infrastructure and seeks a supervisory order by the court pursuant to section 24(1) of the Charter, as well as section 24(1) Charter damages, damages for the alleged breaches and punitive damages.
Next steps
May 30, 2025: Canada’s statement of defence due
24. Nuchatlaht First Nation. et al. v. His Majesty the King in right of British Columbia, the Attorney General of Canada, and Western Forest Products Inc.
Lead Department: Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada
Court Level: British Columbia Court of Appeal
AGC’s Role: Respondent
Issue
Claim for Aboriginal title; challenge to logging activities.
Context
In January 2017, the Nuchatlaht First Nation commenced a claim seeking a declaration of Aboriginal title to one-half of Nootka Island adjacent to the Nuchatlaht’s principal village located on the west coast of Vancouver Island. The Nuchatlaht did not claim any Aboriginal rights.
On May 11, 2023, the British Columbia Supreme Court trial decision found the Nuchatlaht First Nation had not proven its claim for Aboriginal title over the entire claim area but invited the Nuchatlaht to make further submissions seeking a declaration to a smaller claim area.
On July 28, 2023, the Nuchatlaht First Nation advised they wished to make submissions for a declaration of Aboriginal title to smaller areas and oral submissions were heard from March 11 to 13, 2024. On April 17, 2024, the British Columbia Supreme Court found that Aboriginal title has been made out with respect to some, but not all, of the Claim Area. The Nuchatlaht appealed this decision on September 10, 2024.
Next steps
May 30, 2025: Canada’s responding appeal factum due
25. Oneida Nation of the Thames, Sandy Lake First Nation, et al. v. The Attorney General of Canada
Lead Department: Indigenous Services Canada
Court Level: Federal Court
AGC’s Role: Defendant
Issue
Fire protection funding policies for First Nations in Ontario.
Context
The claim takes issue with the fire protection funding policies for First Nations reserves in Ontario. The claim references several fatalities resulting from fires at Oneida Nation of the Thames in 2008 and 2016, as well as at Sandy Lake First Nation in January 2022.
The plaintiffs seek declarations that Canada has violated the rights of First Nations people living on reserve due to inadequate fire protection funding policies, including their rights under sections 7 and 15 of the Charter. The plaintiffs state that the violations are not justified under section 1 of the Charter.
In addition to declaratory relief, the plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction or supervisory order for the court to retain jurisdiction over this matter until Canada has adopted funding policies for fire protection services on reserve in Ontario that are consistent with the Charter.
Next steps
June 30, 2025: Canada’s statement of defence due (to be confirmed)
26. First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada and Assembly of First Nations v. The Attorney General of Canada, et al.
Lead Department: Indigenous Services Canada
Court Level: Canadian Human Rights Tribunal / Federal Court
AGC’s Role: Respondent
Issue
Funding of First Nations and family services on reserve and in the Yukon.
Context
In 2016, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) found the First Nations Child and Family Services Program to be discriminatorily underfunded, incentivizing apprehension of children, and ordered Canada to reform the Program and to cease applying a narrow definition of Jordan’s Principle.
In 2019, the CHRT ordered Canada to compensate children who were removed from their homes, families and communities; children who were impacted by gaps, delays or denials in accessing essential services under Jordan’s Principle; and the caregiving parents or grandparents of those children.
The CHRT retained jurisdiction. The matter was bifurcated between Jordan’s Principle and long-term reform of the Program. The CHRT granted in part a motion brought by the Caring Society alleging Canada’s non-compliance with the Tribunal’s previous Jordan’s Principle decisions.
The parties reached an agreement on long term reform in October 2024. However, the Assembly of First Nations voted to reject the agreement. Canada subsequently negotiated an agreement with Ontario only (Nishnawbe Aski Nation (NAN) and Chiefs of Ontario (COO)) and filed a motion with the CHRT to approve the agreement.
The Caring Society filed a motion to compel consultations on national long-term reform and Jordan’s Principle.
Next steps
May 15, 2025: AGC’s responding factum on Caring Society’s consultation motion
27. MacKinnon and Lavranos v. The Attorney General of Canada
Lead Department: Privy Council Office
Court Level: Federal Court of Appeal
AGC’s Role: Respondent
Issue
Prorogation of Parliament.
Context
The applicants seek judicial review of the Prime Minister’s decision to advise the Governor General to prorogue Parliament.
The grounds for review include that the decision unconstitutionally prevents Parliament from supervising the executive on pressing issues, including President Trump’s proposed tariffs on Canada, and prevents a non-confidence motion. The applicants seek to set aside the decision and ask the Court to declare that Parliament has not been prorogued.
This matter was subject to an expedited Court schedule, which led to a two-day hearing before the Chief Justice of the FC on February 13 and 14, 2025.
The applicants argued that the Court has the jurisdiction to review the Prime Minister’s advice to prorogue and that prorogation frustrated the functioning of Parliament. They invoked constitutional principles as well as section 3 of the Charter, which concerns a right to vote and participate in the electoral process.
Three parties were granted leave to intervene: Canadian Constitutional Law Initiative (CCLI), Democracy Watch and British Columbia Civil Liberties Association.
On April 22, 2025, the FCA issued a Direction advising the parties that the Court is reviewing whether the Appellants’ Notice of Appeal should be removed from the Court file because the appeal may be moot. The Court requested that the parties provide written submissions as to whether the relief sought by the appellants could be of any practical use were they to succeed; and (2) if the response to the first issue is no, whether the appeal should nevertheless be heard on the ground that a resolution of the issues in the appeal is in the public interest. The Court suspended the timelines for the appeal pending its decision on the review.
Next steps
May 14, 2025: AGC response due
May 20, 2025: Appellants’ reply due
Pending Decisions
Supreme Court of Canada Decisions
28. Canadian Civil Liberties Association and Taylor v. His Majesty the King in Right of Newfoundland and Labrador et al.
Lead Department: Justice Canada
Court Level: Supreme Court of Canada
AGC’s Role: Intervener
Issue
Interprovincial mobility simpliciter.
Context
This appeal arises from a constitutional challenge to provisions of Newfoundland and Labrador’s public health act and orders made in spring 2020 restricting travel to the province by non-residents to prevent COVID-19. Ms. Taylor sought an exemption to attend her mother’s funeral but was denied. She argued that the restrictions limited her section 6 [mobility] and section 7 [liberty] Charter rights.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) was granted public interest standing.
Without precedent, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (NL) held that the right “to remain” in section 6(1) protects a right of interprovincial mobility simpliciter [a right to travel freely between provinces]. The Court found that the travel restrictions limited Ms. Taylor’s section 6(1) right, but the limit was justified under section 1. It held that section 7 was not engaged.
The Court of Appeal for NL dismissed the appeal as moot. The SCC granted leave to appeal, and the appellants filed a notice of constitutional question on the section 6 issue.
The AGC and the Attorneys General of Saskatchewan (SK), Nova Scotia (NS), New Brunswick (NB), Prince Edward Island (PEI), Yukon (YK), and Nunavut (NU), as well as the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) and Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) are interveners. The interventions of AGC and YK address section 1 and mootness issues. The interventions of NS, SK, and NU address all three issues. The intervention of PEI addresses section 6 and section 1. The BCCLA and CCF interventions address section 6 only.
Next steps
The appeal was heard on April 15 and 16, 2025. The decision is under reserve.
29. Kloubakov v. His Majesty the King / Moustaine v. His Majesty the King
Lead Department: Justice Canada
Court Level: Supreme Court of Canada
AGC’s Role: Intervener
Issue
Constitutional challenge to Criminal Code provisions prohibiting the adult sex trade.
Context
Two accused were involved as drivers in an escort business. They were found to have aided and abetted in the procuring offence (section 286.3 of the Criminal Code) and to have materially benefitted (section 286.2 of the Criminal Code) from the sexual services of the complainants. The trial judge stayed their convictions and declared the procuring and material benefit offences contrary to section 7 of the Charter (life, liberty and security of the person) rights of sex workers. The Alberta Court of Appeal reversed the lower court decision, finding that the offences did not violate section 7, and entered convictions.
Canada has intervened in the appeal to the SCC.
Next steps
The appeal was heard on November 12 and 13, 2024. The decision is under reserve.
30. Kuldeep Kaur Ahluwalia v. Amrit Pal Singh Ahluwalia
Lead Department: Justice Canada
Court Level: Supreme Court of Canada
AGC’s Role: Intervener
Issue
Whether to recognize a new common law tort of family violence.
Context
The issue in this appeal is whether the SCC should recognize a new common law tort of family violence, or whether existing torts are adequately responsive to the unique harms caused by family violence, including intimate partner violence.
In the context of a family law dispute over statutory entitlements such as property equalization, child support and spousal support, the Ontario Superior Court established a new tort of family violence based on the definition of “family violence” in section 2 of the Divorce Act and found the husband liable for the new tort.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal in part, finding that while intimate partner violence is a pervasive social problem and tort claims can be heard in family law proceedings, it was not necessary for the trial judge to create this new tort, given the existence of other torts capable of providing similar relief.
Canada intervened in the appeal to the SCC to support recognizing a new tort of family violence.
Next steps
The appeal was heard on February 11 and 12, 2025. The decision is under reserve.
31. I.M. v. His Majesty the King / S.B. v. His Majesty the King
Lead Department: Justice Canada
Court Level: Supreme Court of Canada
AGC’s Role: Intervener
Issue
Youth Criminal Justice Act provisions that permit the imposition of adult sentences on young persons.
Context
Two young offenders, in unrelated cases from Ontario, were found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to adult sentences of life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 10 years. Their sentencing appeals both concern the interpretation of the Youth Criminal Justice Act provisions that permit the imposition of adult sentences on young persons. These provisions were amended by Parliament in 2012 following the SCC’s 2008 decision in R. v. DB, which held that the previous regime was constitutionally invalid.
In the current appeals, the SCC will consider for the first time how to interpret the current provisions, in particular, what factors are relevant in assessing whether an adult sentence should be imposed and the standard of proof on the Crown in rebutting the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness.
Canada intervened before the SCC.
Next steps
The appeal was heard on October 15, 2024. The decision is under reserve.
32. Pepa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Lead Department: Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada
Court Level: Supreme Court of Canada
AGC Role: Respondent
Issue
A foreign national’s right to administratively appeal an inadmissibility finding when their permanent resident visa has expired.
Context
This case is about a foreign national’s right to administratively appeal an inadmissibility finding, including on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, when their permanent resident visa expired prior to the making of their removal order.
Ms. Pepa came to Canada as an accompanying dependent of her father, but got married before she arrived, which made her ineligible for permanent residence as a dependent. She only disclosed the marriage upon arriving in Canada and was therefore not admitted as a permanent resident but was referred for examination of her admissibility.
In September 2018, Ms. Pepa’s visa expired, and one month later the Immigration Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada found Ms. Pepa inadmissible to Canada for misrepresentation and issued an order excluding her from Canada.
Ms. Pepa appealed the Immigration Division decision to the Immigration Appeal Division, which found that since Ms. Pepa’s visa had expired before her exclusion order was made, she was not a person who “holds a permanent resident visa” and therefore she had no right of appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division under section 63(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Ms. Pepa sought judicial review of both the Immigration Division and Immigration Appeal Division decisions. The FC dismissed both applications and certified a serious question of general importance on the Immigration Appeal Division’s interpretation of section 63(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The FCA dismissed Ms. Pepa’s appeal and affirmed that the Immigration Appeal Division’s decision that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal pursuant to section 63(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act was reasonable. Ms. Pepa sought leave to appeal the FCA’s decision to the SCC. The SCC granted Ms. Pepa’s Application for Leave to Appeal from the FCA’s judgment and also granted applications for leave to intervene by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers.
Next steps
The appeal was heard on December 4, 2024. The decision is under reserve.
33. Opsis Services aéroportuaires inc. v. The Attorney General of Ǫuébec, et al (Supreme Court of Canada) / Services maritimes Ǫuébec inc. v. Attorney General of Ǫuébec, et al.
Lead Department: Transport Canada
Court Level: Supreme Court of Canada
AGC’s Role: Intervener
Issue
Constitutional applicability of provincial law to facilities under federal jurisdiction – marine facility and airport security.
Context
Opsis operates the emergency call dispatch centre at Pierre Elliott Trudeau Airport. In 2015, Opsis received a statement of offence for operating a business offering a private security activity without holding an agency licence under the Private Security Act. Opsis challenged the constitutional applicability of this provincial legislation to its airport security activities. The Court of Quebec rejected Opsis’ constitutional arguments.
This judgment was overturned by the Superior Court and then reinstated by a majority judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal (QCA) on April 19, 2023. The QCA recognizes that airport safety and security is part of the core of federal jurisdiction in aeronautics but finds that Opsis has not demonstrated that the application of the provincial act hinders its activities.
The AGC, named as an intervener in this matter, supported Opsis’ application for authorization.
On July 22, the Canadian Telecommunications Association, Aéroports de Montréal, Aéroports de Québec and the Canadian Bankers’ Association filed applications to intervene.
Next steps
The appeal was heard on December 11-12, 2024. The decision is under reserve.
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
34. Yavar Hameed v. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice
Lead Department: Justice Canada
Court Level: Federal Court of Appeal
AGC’s Role: Respondent
Issue
Constitutional challenge to judicial vacancies.
Context
On June 20, 2023, the applicant filed a judicial review application requesting a writ of mandamus compelling the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice to appoint judges to the 79 vacancies on superior courts across Canada, or in the alternative, seeking a declaration that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice are in violation of their duties under section 96 (Appointment of judges) of the Constitution Act, 18c7 and section 5.2 (Appointment of judges) of the Federal Courts Act.
On February 13, 2024, the FC granted the application in part, recognizing the existence of a duty on the Prime Minister and Minister of Justice to fill judicial vacancies within a reasonable time, and issued a declaration to this effect. The Court indicated in its declaration that it expects the number of judicial vacancies to be materially reduced in a reasonable time such that the total number of judicial vacancies returns to the mid-40s. The Court declined to order mandamus and rejected the applicant’s proposed timelines for judicial appointments.
On March 14, 2024, the Prime Minister and Minister of Justice appealed the FC’s decision, arguing that that constitutional conventions are unenforceable political rules, that courts lack jurisdiction to enforce their compliance, and that deference is owed to the Executive with respect to judicial appointments.
On March 25, 2024, the Respondent, Mr. Hameed filed a Notice of Cross-Appeal. The Canadian Constitutional Law Initiative of the University of Ottawa Public Law Centre and the Barreau du Québec were both granted intervener status.
Next steps
The appeal was heard on April 7, 2025. The decision is under reserve.
35. Dugré v. The Attorney General of Canada
Lead Department: Justice Canada
Court Level: Federal Court
AGC’s Role: Respondent
Issue
Review of the report of the Canadian Judicial Council.
Context
Canadian Judicial Council Report – Judicial Review
In 2019, Justice Dugré was the subject of several complaints to the Canadian Judicial Council. According to these complaints, he had behaved and spoken inappropriately at hearings and had a chronic problem rendering judgments within the allotted time. On December 19, 2022, after considering the report of its Inquiry Committee, the Canadian Judicial Council forwarded a report to the Minister of Justice recommending that Justice Dugré be removed from office. The Canadian Judicial Council concluded that Justice Dugré’s conduct had undermined public confidence in the judiciary to such an extent as to render him unfit for office. On January 18, 2023, Justice Dugré filed an application for judicial review of the Council’s report.
Application for leave to appeal to the SCC
In June 2023, amendments to the Judges Act came into force, providing that an application for leave to appeal to the SCC may be filed against an unfavourable report by the Canadian Judicial Council. On July 24, 2023, Justice Dugré filed an application for leave to appeal to the SCC. Although a defendant in the FC, Canada was not a party to the proceedings before the SCC. On February 29, 2024, the SCC dismissed Justice Dugré’s application for leave to appeal.
Next steps
On November 8, 2024, the FC dismissed the AGC’s motion to strike. The hearing on the merits took place from January 20-24, 2025, and March 21, 2025. The decision is under reserve.
36. The Attorney General of Canada v. Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) / The Attorney General of Canada v. CCLA / Attorney General of Canada v. Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) / Attorney General of Canada v. CCF / Attorney General of Canada v. Cornell, et al.
Lead Department: Privy Council Office
Court Level: Federal Court of Appeal
AGC’s Role: Appellant (Respondent at first instance)
Issue
Judicial review applications challenging the lawfulness and constitutionality of the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
Context
On February 14, 2022, the GIC issued a proclamation pursuant to the Emergencies Act declaring that a public order emergency existed throughout Canada, which necessitated the taking of special temporary measures.
The applicants sought judicial review of this declaration and of Canada’s regulations that were passed under the Emergencies Act on February 15, 2022, namely the Emergency Economic Measures Regulations and the Orders in Council titled “Emergency Measures Order.” They sought declarations that the OICs and regulations were invalid and ultra vires the Emergencies Act, were inconsistent with the Constitution Act, 18c7 and the Charter, and were of no force and effect. They also alleged violation of the Canadian Bill of Rights and Canada’s international law obligations.
On January 23, 2024, the FC found that the invocation of the Emergencies Act was unreasonable and ultra vires, and that the Emergency Economic Measures Regulations infringed sections 2(b) and 8 of the Charter, and that neither infringement was justified under section 1 of the Charter.
Canada appealed the FC decision, taking the position that the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act was reasonable in the context within which it was made and upon the reasonable grounds to believe standard.
By order dated May 6, 2024, the FCA consolidated the six appeals and cross-appeals and permitted Alberta to intervene on non-constitutional issues only on the two appeals related to CCLA and CCF.
Next steps
The appeal was heard on February 4-5, 2025. The decision is under reserve.
37. The Attorney General of Canada, et al. v. Responsible Plastic Use Coalition, et al.
Lead Department: Environment and Climate Change Canada
Court Level: Federal Court of Appeal
AGC’s Role: Appellant
Issue
Challenge to the decisions to add “plastic manufactured items” to the List of Toxic Substances in Schedule 1 to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
Context
The applicants sought judicial review of the decision of the GIC to issue and Order in Council adding “plastic manufactured items” to the list of “Toxic Substances” in Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. They challenged the decision as unreasonable and ultra vires the federal criminal law power. They also challenged the decision of the Minister of Environment declining to establish a Board of Review to inquire into the danger posed to the environment.
On November 16, 2023, the FC allowed the application, concluding that the Order is retroactively quashed and declared invalid and unlawful as of April 23, 2023. Canada appealed and filed a motion to stay the FC’s decision pending the appeal decision. On January 25, 2024, the FCA granted the motion to stay.
Next steps
The appeal was heard on June 25-26, 2024. The decision is under reserve.
38. Whaling v. The Attorney General of Canada / Kabutey v. The Attorney General of Canada
Lead department: Correctional Services Canada
Court: Federal Court of Appeal
AGC’s role: Appellant (Respondent at first instance)
Issue
Damages claims re: Abolition of Early Parole Act.
Context
The former plaintiff, Liang, is an offender who committed non-violent offences before the abolition of Accelerated Parole Review (APR) by the Abolition of Early Parole Act (AEPA). In prior proceedings culminating in 2014, the retrospective provision of the AEPA was found to breach section 11(i) of the Charter. The plaintiff subsequently commenced this class proceeding seeking damages pursuant to section 24(1) of the Charter for extended incarceration, based on the prior declaration of unconstitutionality. The plaintiff alleges that Canada acted improperly by proposing, pursuing, passing, and implementing the AEPA when it knew or ought to have known it was unconstitutional and would infringe the rights of class members.
The Court certified the action as a class proceeding along with the companion case Whaling v. His Majesty the King and certified three questions of law for preliminary determination.
Canada was successful on Preliminary Question of Law (PQOL) #1, as the Court agreed section 28 of the International Transfer of Offenders Act applies to certain subclass members such that the Parole Board was not required to review them for APR day parole until six months after their date of transfer. However, the Court found in favour of Ms. Whaling on PQOL #3, finding that the estate of a deceased class member in this action could claim Charter damages for violation of that deceased’s section 11(h) Charter right. The parties and Court agreed that if an estate could claim such Charter damages, then provincial estate statutes providing for an “alive as of” date would prohibit or limit recovery of these damages.
Canada filed a notice of appeal of the Court’s decision of PQOL #3. Canada pleads that the Court erred in finding an estate could have standing to commence a claim for Charter damages solely by reference to Provincial or Territorial estates legislation, because this fails to properly consider the personal nature of sections 11(h) and 24(1) of the Charter or, in the alternative, principles of immunity.
Next steps
Canada’s appeal regarding the preliminary question of law was heard on April 10, 2025. The decision is under reserve.
39. Stonechild v. HMTK
Lead Department: Crown Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada
Court Level: Federal Court of Appeal
AGC’s Role: Appellant (Defendant at first instance)
Issue
Off-reserve child welfare for First Nations.
Context
The Stonechild class action seeks relief for a class of all First Nations (Status and Non-Status Indians), Inuit, and Métis persons who were removed from their homes in Canada between January 1, 1992, and December 31, 2019, and placed in the care of individuals who were not part of the Indigenous group, community or people to which they belonged. The class action alleges that Canada unreasonably denied Indigenous peoples’ inherent right to jurisdiction over child and family services and failed to take reasonable steps to protect and preserve the Indigenous identity of off-reserve Indigenous children who were apprehended by provincial and territorial authorities, between January 1, 1992, and December 31, 2019.
Next Steps
The FC certified the Stonechild class action on June 17, 2022, and Canada appealed the decision. The appeal was heard on October 23, 2024, and the decision is under reserve.
40. McǪuade et al. v. AGC
Lead Department: Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Court Level: Federal Court of Appeal
AGC’s Role: Respondent
Issue
Proposed class action by Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) members re: failure to provide adequate mental health services.
Context
This is a proposed class action brought by RCMP members, or former members, who have been diagnosed with, or suffered from, an operational stress injury and alleges that RCMP mental health services are negligently implemented. The claim is framed in systemic negligence for workplace discrimination and a breach of section 15 Charter rights on the basis that RCMP members with mental disability are subjected to differential treatment from other members.
The claim alleges that the RCMP breached its duties to provide safe working conditions to RCMP members and failed to provide adequate mental health support services. Canada opposed the certification motion.
On August 9, 2023, the Court dismissed the motion for certification, but granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their claim. The Court found that both the systemic negligence and Charter claims were statute-barred by virtue of section 9 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act (CLPA).
The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal challenging the Court’s findings on section 9 of the CLPA.
Next steps
On October 28, 2024, the appeal was heard. The decision is under reserve.
41. BW v. The Attorney General of Canada (Correctional Services Canada)
Lead Department: Correctional Services Canada
Court Level: Federal Court of Appeal
AGC’s Role: Appellant
Issue
Certified class action – negligence and age-based discrimination of incarcerated persons.
Context
This certified class action alleges that the Correctional Services Canada (CSC) failed (and continues to fail), in contravention of its statutory duties, to provide aging inmates with the necessary services, supports, and programs.
The class is all persons who are or have been incarcerated in a federal penitentiary while 50 years of age or older from April 17, 1985, to certification.
The claim alleges systemic negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breaches of the Charter and the Quebec Charter. In particular, the representative plaintiff alleges age-based discrimination, and that CSC’s systemic failure to address it.
The Court granted the certification motion based on the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) decision in Nasogaluak and the FC decision in Araya. The Court approved the amended class definition, defined the class period as April 17, 1985, to the date of the Certification Order, appointed BW as representative plaintiff, and identified nine (9) common questions of fact or law for the Class.
The AGC filed a notice of appeal of the certification decision. The primary ground of appeal asserts that the Court erred in its analysis of the common issues, in that there is no commonality between the abuse allegations and the allegations respecting access to medical care. The hearing of appeal was held on May 7, 2025. The decision is under reserve.
Next steps
The hearing of appeal was held on May 7, 2025. The decision is under reserve.
Federal Court Decisions
42. Shamattawa First Nation and Chief Jordan Hill v. The Attorney General of Canada
Lead Department: Crown-Indigenous Relations and Norther Affairs Canada / Indigenous Services Canada
Court Level: Federal Court
AGC’s Role: Defendant
Issue
Safe drinking water class action.
Context
This certified class action is the continuation of the Safe Drinking Water litigation (Tataskweyak Cree Nation v. AGC and Curve Lake First Nation v. AGC), which claimed that Canada has created and failed to remedy conditions to address the inadequacies in the access to potable water on reserve and the resulting public health consequences.
The Safe Drinking Water class actions were settled in 2021. However, the Safe Drinking Water settlement agreement only applied to claims up to June 20, 2021, meaning that future claims respecting access to potable water were not captured by the settlement agreement.
Accordingly, the current action applies in respect of claims that arose, or continued, after June 20, 2021. As with the original Safe Drinking Water litigation, the action alleges that Canada has breached fiduciary duties and the honour of the Crown, been negligent, committed nuisance, violated sections 2(a) (freedom of religion), 7 (life, liberty, and security of the person), and 15 (equality rights) of the Charter, and breached obligations under section 36 (equalization and Regional Disparities) of the Constitution Act, 1S82, by failing to address the inadequacies of their access to potable water.
The action seeks the immediate construction, or approval and funding for the construction and operation of appropriate water systems, and claims damages and restitutionary relief.
On July 14, 2023 and August 4, 2023, the plaintiffs served Canada with their motion for summary judgment for a determination of the primary issue: whether Canada owes a duty or obligation to class members to take reasonable measures to provide them with, or ensure they are provided with, or refrain from barring, adequate access to drinking water that is safe for human use. Canada filed its written argument on September 25, 2024.
Next steps
The hearing for summary judgement motion was heard on October 7-10, 2024. The decision is under reserve.
43. Abdelrazik, Abousfian v. His Majesty the King
Lead Department: Canadian Security Intelligence Service / Global Affairs Canada
Court Level: Federal Court
AGC’s Role: Defendant
Issue
Action for damages arising from his arrest, detention and alleged torture in Sudan and the alleged failure of the Crown to facilitate his return to Canada.
Context
Mr. Abdelrazik filed an action for damages arising from his arrest, detention and alleged torture in Sudan and the alleged failure of the Crown to facilitate his return to Canada (2004-2009). This claim follows the 2009 FC finding that Canada violated Mr. Abdelrazik’s section 6 Charter right (mobility right), ordering Canada to arrange his return to Canada.
Next steps
The trial took place between in October 2024 and late January 2025. The decision is under reserve.
44. Aseniwuche Winewak Nation of Canada v. The Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance
Lead Department: Department of Finance
Court Level: Federal Court
AGC’s Role: Respondent
Issue
Indigenous equity component of the divesture of Trans Mountain Corporation.
Context
In May 2018, the Government of Canada purchased the Trans Mountain pipeline. Canada is currently exploring opportunities for economic participation by Indigenous communities in the Trans Mountain divestiture process.
On July 4, 2024, the Minister of Finance determined that the Aseniwuche Winewak Nation of Canada (AWN) was not eligible to participate in the Indigenous equity component of the Trans Mountain divestiture. The basis for the decision was that AWN was not a federally recognized rights-bearing group with rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1S82.
The owners/operators of the Trans Mountain pipeline system requested that AWN amend their judicial review application to add the Trans Mountain Entities as respondents, failing which the Trans Mountain Entities will bring a motion to be added as respondents.
Next steps
The judicial review was heard jointly with the Lac Ste. Anne Metis Community Association matter on March 19-20, 2025. The decision is under reserve.
45. Lac Ste. Anne Metis Community Association v. The Minister of Finance
Lead Department: Department of Finance
Court Level: Federal Court
AGC’s Role: Respondent
Issue
Indigenous equity component of the divesture of Trans Mountain Corporation.
Context
The applicant, Lac Ste. Anne Métis Community Association, filed an application for judicial review on November 22, 2023. The applicant seeks to set aside a decision of the Minister of Finance (or another decision maker within the government of Canada who is undisclosed to the applicant) to exclude the Lac Ste. Anne Métis Community from ongoing negotiations Canada is having with approximately 120 other impacted Indigenous communities in respect of equity participation in the Indigenous equity component of the divesture of Trans Mountain Corporation.
On February 12, 2024, the Court granted the Minister’s informal motion, by consent, for an order staying all deadlines in this proceeding for 60 days, including the respondent’s deadline to transmit the certified tribunal record and the applicant’s deadline to serve affidavits.
Next steps
This judicial review was heard jointly with the Aseniwuche Winewak Nation of Canada matter on March 19-20, 2024. The decision under reserve.
46. AGC v. CHRC
Lead Department: Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada
Court Level: Federal Court
AGC’s Role: Applicant
Issue
Investigation Report of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (NSIRA).
Context
This is an application for judicial review (JR#1) relating to an Investigation Report of the NSIRA concerning a number of human rights complaints raised by Iranian nationals alleging discriminatory delay in the processing of immigration applications.
The AGC claims that, in rendering its Investigative Report, NSIRA failed to offer Canada the opportunity to adduce additional relevant evidence and to make submissions. The Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) has brought a motion to strike the AGC’s application.
On or about October 21, 2023, the CHRC referred complaints to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal for hearing relying on the NSIRA report. The AGC has brought a motion to extend the time to file a new judicial review application in respect of these decisions (JR#2). The AGC also requested that the CHRT stay the referred complaints pending the outcome of JR#1.
Next steps
The JR#1 was heard on April 7, 2025. The decision is under reserve.
47. Karen Lightbody and Rama Narsing v. His Majesty the King
Lead Department: Department of National Defence
Court Level: Federal Court
AGC’s Role: Respondent
Issue
Proposed class action by racialized DND employees, harassed and discriminated against by non-racialized DND managers and staff on the basis of race, ethnic or national origin, colour, or religion.
Context
This is a proposed national class action on behalf of all racialized employees of the DND as well as any of their family members who may be entitled to assert a claim under family law legislation.
The action alleges that the class members were harassed and discriminated against by non-racialized DND managers and staff on the basis of race, ethnic or national origin, colour, or religion. The claim further alleges a culture of racism at DND, along with systemic failures in DND’s internal dispute processes resulting in the organization’s failure to prevent, investigate, and address the discriminatory acts in question. The plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages flowing from the alleged negligence and breaches of the Charter and the Québec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.
Next steps
The certification motion and Canada’s motion to strike were heard from April 9-12, 2024. The decision is under reserve.
48. Dugas et al. v. AGC
Lead Department: Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Court Level: Federal Court
AGC’s Role: Respondent
Issue
Proposed class action re: privacy issues arising from interception of RCMP radio communications.
Context
This proposed class action claims general aggregate damages of $500 million, as well as punitive and exemplary damages of $100 million for breach of privacy based on the common law and the Charter on behalf of “all members of the RCMP who allege that their right to privacy has been violated by the Agents [of Canada] and were alive as of March 18, 2023.” The claim alleges that the plaintiffs’ workplace radio communications with other RCMP personnel were intercepted and recorded without their knowledge or consent and shared within the RCMP, in particular with the Office of Investigative Standards and Practice.
On October 5, 2023, the Court ruled in support of the AGC’s motion to defer filing its defence until post-certification.
Canada has filed a motion to strike the claim as barred under section 9 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act for class members in receipt of or entitled to a pension for their service-related injuries and for failing to disclose sufficient facts to support the causes of action.
Next steps
The certification motion and Canada’s motion to strike were heard from April 14-16, 2025. The decision is under reserve.
49. Lummi Nation v. Attorney General of Canada et al.
Lead Department: Impact Assessment Agency of Canada
Court Level: Federal Court
AGC’s Role: Respondent
Issue
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 and duty to consult.
Context
On May 18, 2023, Lummi Nation filed an application for judicial review of the Order in Council and decision statement of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change approving the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project (RBT2).
RBT2 is a proposal to construct and operate a new three-berth marine container terminal located at Roberts Bank in Delta, British Columbia. It was approved by an Order in Council on April 19, 2023, and a decision statement issued under section 54 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 on April 20, 2023.
Lummi Nation is based in Washington State and brings the judicial review on the basis that the Crown owed and breached its duty to consult and accommodate.
Next Steps
The appeal was heard from June 24 to June 26, 2024. The decision is under reserve.
Other Decisions
50. Mathias Colomb Cree Nation v. the Saskatchewan Power Corporation, the Attorney General of Canada and the Manitoba Government
Lead Department: Indigenous Services Canada
Court Level: Manitoba Court of King’s Bench
AGC’s Role: Respondent
Issue
Damages for flooding impacts to their reserve and Treaty Land Entitlement lands.
Context
Mathias Colomb Cree Nation (MCCN) filed a claim seeking $750 million in damages for flooding impacts to their reserve and Treaty Land Entitlement (TLE) lands caused by SaskPower’s hydroelectric projects. Pending the issuance of a provincial waterpower licence, MCCN seeks to permanently enjoin the hydroelectric projects now operated by SaskPower, which have been active since the 1940s.
MCCN also seeks declarations that: a) Manitoba and Canada have failed to consult and accommodate MCCN’s aboriginal and treaty rights; and b) governments’ failure to regulate SaskPower’s activities on MCCN’s reserve and TLE lands infringe MCCN’s section 35 treaty and aboriginal rights, and result in an unauthorized taking up of reserve lands under the provisions of Treaty 6.
The MCCN action is related to litigation brought in 2004 by the Peter Ballantyne First Nation (PBCN) in Saskatchewan, and in 1992 by the Barren Lands First Nation (Barren Lands), jointly with MCCN, in Manitoba. The procedural history of the Barren Lands matter is complex and includes long periods of delay. SaskPower unsuccessfully brought parallel motions to dismiss this action and the Barren Lands action and an appeal in respect of that decision.
In the PBCN matter, SaskPower asserts (among other things) that either Canada provided consent to flood the reserve, or that the flooded lands do not form part of a reserve, or that Canada is liable to SaskPower and Saskatchewan if the provincial defendants are liable for the flooding.
Next steps
SaskPower’s appeal of the decision declining to dismiss the claim brought by Mathias Colomb Cree Nation for delay was heard on March 27, 2025. The decision is under reserve.
51. Chief Heidi Cook on behalf of Misipawistik First Nation, Chief Sheldon Kent on behalf of Black River First Nation, Chief David Monias on behalf of Pimicinamak Cree Nation, Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs v. Government of Manitoba and Attorney General of Canada
Lead Department: Indigenous Services Canada
Court Level: Manitoba Court of King’s Bench
AGC’s Role: Respondent
Issue
Proposed class action regarding underfunding of child and family services for off-reserve First Nations children in Manitoba.
Context
This is a proposed class action on behalf of the three named First Nations and any other First Nation located in Manitoba that elects to join the action.
The claim alleges Canada and Manitoba created, contributed to, and sustained an inadequate child welfare system through underfunding and mismanagement. It alleges that Canada and Manitoba breached their fiduciary duties, duties of care, and the honour of the Crown, and violated the proposed classes’ constitutional rights, including their Charter rights.
The claim seeks general damages, Charter damages, and punitive damages of more than $2 billion, and an injunction to immediately end the unnecessary apprehension of First Nations children on the basis of poverty, racial and cultural bias, and systemic racism.
Next steps
The plaintiffs’ motion for certification and summary judgment were heard on March 31 to April 3, 2025. The decision is under reserve.
52. Cowichan Tribes (I.B. #C42) et al. v. AGC et al.
Lead Department: Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, Transport Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Court Level: British Columbia Supreme Court
AGC’s Role: Respondent
Issue
First Nation land claim.
Context
Cowichan Tribes, the Stz’uminus First Nation, the Penelakut Tribe, and the Halalt First Nation, claim Aboriginal title to 1,846 acres of waterfront land located in Richmond, British Columbia and an Aboriginal right to fish for food in the south arm of the Fraser River. Almost half the claimed lands are federal lands owned or managed by the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority. The Musqueam Indian Band and the Tsawwassen First Nation have joined the litigation to oppose the plaintiffs’ claims.
Next steps
The 513-day trial of this matter concluded on November 14, 2023. The decision is under reserve.
53. Roberts v. AGC
Lead Department: Correctional Services Canada
Court Level: British Columbia Supreme Court
AGC’s Role: Respondent
Issue
Proposed class action on behalf of inmates related to CSC response to COVID-19.
Context
This is a proposed national class action originally brought by Joseph Lloyd on behalf of all inmates who were incarcerated at a federal institution during the COVID-19 pandemic. The claim alleges the CSC did not adequately prepare for and respond to the pandemic. It seeks damages in negligence and under the Charter for alleged breaches of rights under sections 7 (life, liberty, and security of the person) and 12 (cruel and unusual treatment or punishment). The AGC’s position is that CSC’s response to the pandemic has been reasonable and informed by public health guidance specific to the circumstances at each CSC institution. The AGC opposed certification on the basis that the claim is not manageable as a class action because they lack sufficient commonality.
In November 2023, the plaintiff amended the proposed class to include only those inmates who were “confined to their cell during declared COVID-19 outbreaks for 20 or more hours in a day and/or deprived of the opportunity to interact with others for a minimum of two hours in a day” and amended the proposed common issues.
Next steps
The motion for certification was heard on September 23 to October 4, 2024, and December 4, 2024. The decision is under reserve.
54. Femmes autochtones du Ǫuébec inc. et Lucie Crenier et Suzie O’Bomsawin c. Procureur général du Canada (PGC)
Lead Department: Indigenous Services Canada
Court Level: Quebec Superior Court
AGC’s Role: Respondent
Issue
Alleged Discriminatory Indian Registration Rules.
Context
This class action follows the Québec Superior Court’s decision in the Descheneaux case in 2015 and the amendments to the Indian Act adopted in 2017 (S-3) to remedy inequities.
In this case, the plaintiffs allege that the federal government violated section 15(1) of the Charter and breached its common law and fiduciary duties by maintaining discriminatory Indian registration rules until 2017. The plaintiffs allege that the AGC failed to inform members of a change in the Registrar’s interpretation of the registration rules and failed to rectify its previous decisions. They are seeking compensatory damages for the loss of benefits and rights related to Indian status. This remedy is based on the Charter, international law, civil liability, unjust enrichment and fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs also seek that the defendant account to the members for its management of their individual trust accounts, suspense accounts, if any, and its management of their shares in any per capita distribution of their band funds.
Next steps
The application for authorization was heard on June 18 and 19, 2024. The decision is under reserve.
55. Woodgate, Cathy, et al. v. RCMP
Lead Department: Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Court Level: Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Role: Respondent
Issue
Investigations of abuse allegations in Indigenous communities.
Context
In 2017, six Indigenous individuals (the Complainants) filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission alleging discrimination by the RCMP in the course of its 2012-2014 investigation into criminal complaints involving alleged assaults involving a British Columbia high school teacher from 1969-1971. They claim adverse differential treatment and denial of access to services based on race, contrary to section 5 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA). Among other remedies, the Complainants are asking the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to find that core law enforcement is a “service” under the CHRA, that all Indigenous students assaulted at the schools be compensated, that the investigation be reopened, and that the RCMP fund and collaborate with an Indigenous-led organization to create a team (directed by the Indigenous-led organization) to provide abuse investigation services in Indigenous communities in British Columbia.
Next steps
The hearing was held in July 2024. The decision is under reserve.
56. Dardari, et al. v. The Attorney General of Ǫuébec and the Attorney General of Canada
Lead Department: Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada
Court Level: Québec Court of Appeal
AGC’s Role: Defendant
Issue
Application for recognition of foreign judgment and discrimination on the basis of religion.
Context
The main appellants, who hold dual Moroccan and Canadian citizenship, took care of a child abandoned in Morocco through a process specific to the Muslim religion called Kafala.
After several unsuccessful attempts to bring the child to Canada, the spouses filed an application for recognition of the foreign judgment and a declaration of invalidity in the Superior Court. They argued that the terms "dependent children" and "adoption", as defined in sections 1(3), 2(a) and (b), and 3(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, were discriminatory and infringed their rights under sections 2(a) and 15 of the Charter because they had the effect of denying Muslims access to the family class since the family relationship established by the Kafala is not recognized and adoption is forbidden by Islam.
On September 18, 2023, the Superior Court accepted their application for recognition of a foreign judgment, while specifying that it was not binding on the immigration authorities. The Court dismissed the remainder of the constitutional challenge. The appellants appealed this judgment to the Quebec Court of Appeal which was heard on May 6, 2025.
Next steps
The hearing was held on May 6, 2025. The decision is under reserve.
Governor in Council Appointments
The Minister of Justice is responsible for recommending to the Governor in Council approximately 45 appointments to various organizations within the Justice portfolio. The following positions will require time-sensitive direction from the Minister of Justice and Attorney General once Cabinet business resumes. These positions are either already vacant or expected to become vacant over the next 12 months.
Canadian Human Rights Commission – Chief Commissioner
Issue
The position of Chief Commissioner has been vacant since November 30, 2022.
Context
The Deputy Chief Commissioner has been acting in the position since it became vacant. No replacement has been named for the Deputy Chief Commissioner while the Deputy has been acting as Chief Commissioner.
Decision
[Redacted]
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal – Members
Issue
The terms of five part-time members expired on April 8, 2025.
Context
Processes for these positions have historically attracted numerous candidates and are lengthy to complete. [Redacted]
Decision
[Redacted]
Public Prosecution Service of Canada – Deputy Director
Issue
The Public Prosecution Services of Canada has two Deputy Director positions. The term for one of these positions will expire on November 1, 2025.
Context
The other Deputy Director position was filled on April 14, 2025, [Redacted]. If there is a delay in filling the other position in November, there will be one Deputy in place.
Decision
A decision will be required to determine whether or not a new process will need to be launched. In accordance with the Director of Public Prosecutions Act, a consultation must be undertaken with a selection committee before an appointment can be made.
Specific Claims Tribunal – Chairperson and Part-time Member
Issue
The term of the current Chairperson expires on December 11, 2025, and one part-time member expired on April 12, 2025. In accordance with the Specific Claims Tribunal Act, these appointments are a joint responsibility between Justice Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC).
Context
Candidates to these positions must be sitting superior court justices. [Redacted]
Decision
[Redacted]
Courts Administration Service – Chief Administrator
Issue
The term of the current Chief Administrator expires on December 21, 2025.
Context
The current Chief Administrator was appointed as the result of a process, [Redacted]
Decision
[Redacted]. In accordance with the Courts Administrative Service Act, this position cannot be vacant and a consultation must be undertaken with a selection committee before an appointment can be made. If needed, an interim Chief Administrator can be appointed.
Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime – Ombudsperson
Issue
The current Ombudsperson’s term will expire on April 24, 2026.
Context
The current Ombudsperson was appointed [Redacted]
Decision
[Redacted]
Tabling of Documents before Parliament and Publications
Pursuant to various statutory provisions and policy requirements, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada is responsible for tabling several reports and other documents before Parliament that involve Justice Canada and its portfolio organizations. The approval of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General will also be needed for the publication of other documents.
After the dissolution of Parliament, the clerks of both Houses of Parliament no longer accept reports, or other papers required to be tabled pursuant to an act of Parliament, resolution or Standing Order of the House of Commons. Ministers must wait for the new Parliament before tabling any documents.
Statutes Repeal Act 2025 Annual Report
Issue
The annual report lists every act or provision that has not been brought into force for 10 years or more at the end of that calendar year. If a motion is not adopted seeking deferral of an item included in the report by the end of the calendar year, that item is automatically repealed, pursuant to the Statutes Repeal Act (the Act).
Context
Pursuant to section 2 of the Act, the Attorney General of Canada shall submit an annual report to Parliament. This report must be tabled before each House of Parliament on any of the first 5 days on which these Houses sit in every calendar year.
Decision
The report must be tabled in both the House of Commons and the Senate within their respective first 5 sitting days once the House of Commons and Senate are in session. The tabling date will therefore depend on when Parliament is in session. Direction will be needed to determine on which date to table the report.
Canadian Judicial Council Annual Report
Issue
Every year, the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) offers seminars to judges so that they may have ongoing education of various matters related to sexual assault law and social context, which includes systemic racism and systemic discrimination. In order to ensure transparency about judicial training, the CJC is encouraged to submit an annual report regarding the seminars to the Minister of Justice.
Context
Pursuant to section 62.1 (2) of the Judges Act (the Act), the Minister of Justice shall table the CJC annual report on the seminars referred to in paragraph 60(2)(b) of the Act. The CJC should send the report to the Minister of Justice within 60 calendar days of the end of the year and the report must be tabled within 10 sitting days after that.
Decision
The report was received from the CJC on February 28, 2025. As such, the report will need to be tabled in the first 10 sitting days once the House of Commons and Senate are in session. Direction will be needed to determine on which date to table the report.
2025 Annual Progress Report on the Implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act
Issue
The annual progress report on the Implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (the Act) tracks the progress in the implementation of the Act including actions taken to ensure the consistency of laws (section 5) and on the development and implementation of the action plan (section 6). This year will mark the fourth annual report tabled before Parliament and the second since the release of the Action Plan.
Context
Pursuant to section 7(2) of the Act, the Minister of Justice must prepare, within 90 calendar days of the end of the fiscal year, a report on the progress made on the implementation of the Act. This report must be tabled within 15 sitting days thereafter.
Decision
[Redacted] However, if the parliamentary calendar remains unchanged, the statutory deadline for tabling brings the last possible tabling date to October 7, 2025. [Redacted]
Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime 2023-2024 Annual Report
Issue
Every year, the office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime should prepare a report on its activities and work.
Context
Pursuant to section 7 of the Terms and Conditions of Employment of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, the Ombudsperson shall submit to the Minister of Justice for tabling before Parliament, an annual report on the activities of the Office of the Ombudsperson.
Decision
The tabling of this report is at the Minister’s discretion, with the Terms and Conditions of Employment noting: “[…] the Minister of Justice shall table the annual report in Parliament.” as the only requirement. [Redacted]
2025-2026 Departmental Plan
Issue
The annual tabling of Justice Canada’s 2025-26 Departmental Plan (DP) was delayed due to the dissolution of Parliament. The Departmental Plan must be signed by the Minister and submitted to Treasury Board Secretariat.
Context
Along with the corresponding annual Departmental Results Report, the annual DP is a companion document to the Department’s Main Estimates and serves as a mechanism of ministerial accountability.
The 2025-26 DP provides parliamentarians and Canadians with information as to how the Department plans to use the appropriations requested from Parliament and the expected results to be achieved by the Department, as well as the planned resources needed to achieve these results for the fiscal year.
Decision
The tabling date is to be determined as the DP will be tabled by the President of the Treasury Board on behalf of federal departments and agencies once Parliament resumes.
Forward Regulatory Plan and Regulatory Stock Review Plan
Issue
In accordance with the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat’s Policy on Regulatory Transparency and Accountability, every department must develop a Forward Regulatory Plan and publish it on their departmental website by April 1 of every year.
Context
Reviewing the stock of regulations is a requirement under the Cabinet Directive on Regulation and is intended to provide greater transparency to stakeholders and ensure that regulations continue to be appropriate and effective in achieving their policy objectives. The purpose of the review is to set out a forward-looking plan to review existing regulations under the authority of a Minister and post it to the Department’s website by April 1 every year. The Regulatory Stock Review Plan spans three fiscal years and is designed to improve the transparency and predictability of the federal regulatory system. It is an evergreen document and is also updated throughout the year, typically by October 1 of every year.
Although the Forward Regulatory Plan must be published every year by April 1, in accordance with the caretaker convention, departments and agencies were asked to publish them as soon as practicable following the swearing-in of the newly elected government but not later than September 1, 2025.
Decision
Direction will be needed to determine which regulatory initiatives to include in the Forward Regulatory Plan and which date it is to be published.
Federal Budget-setting Process
Anticipated Timeline and Future Pressures
Issue
A new government will need to determine when it will move ahead with a budget process. The next budget will be an opportunity to advance key ministerial priorities, as well as address Government-wide priorities.
Context
In a typical budget cycle, the Minister of Finance would send a call out letter to all Ministers in September, with a turnaround time of early to mid-October to receive all fiscal requests for consideration. Over the last number of years, the Budget has been tabled in March - April, followed by the tabling of the estimates.
Budget 2025 timing was impacted by the prorogation of Parliament and the Federal election, which led to no Budget being tabled before the writs were issued on March 23, 2025. As such, the Budget 2025 and Estimates processes have been delayed. The Minister of Finance is expected to provide direction on the way forward.
Decision
Direction will be needed to determine budgetary needs and priorities.
- Date modified: