Style of Cause

COURT FILE NO. __________

 

FEDERAL COURT

 

BETWEEN:

 

KATHLEEN PAGEOT
Applicant

 

– AND –

 

RESPONDENTS:

 

THE GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL

– AND –

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

 

---

APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

OF THE PURPORTED STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF THE GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL

TO REFER QUESTIONS TO THE JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
AND FOR CERTIORARI, DECLARATORY AND OTHER RELIEF

(pursuant to ss. 18 and 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act)

---

 

Footnote

• Justice Estey, writing for a unanimous Court in Attorney General of Canada v. Inuit Tapirisat of Canada et al., 1980 CanLII 21 (SCC), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 735, held that where the Governor in Council exercises powers conferred upon it by Act of Parliament, it acts pursuant to a statutory mandate whose exercise is subject to judicial review within the limits prescribed by the Federal Court Act. The judgment repeatedly emphasizes that the Governor in Council must act “within the boundary of the parliamentary grant” and “in accordance with the terms of the parliamentary mandate.”
   
  The present Application accepts that proposition, but raises an anterior constitutional question. Since 1875, Parliament has, from time to time, enacted and amended statutory provisions purporting to authorize the Governor in Council to refer questions to the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada for advisory opinions. The Applicant alleges that Parliament lacked constitutional authority to confer that statutory power upon the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, a court established pursuant to section 101 of the Constitution of 1867. If that allegation is correct, the purported statutory authority exercised by the Governor in Council, the Orders in Council issued thereunder, the advisory proceedings thereby convened, and the resulting advisory opinions are each alleged to be without constitutional foundation.