Canadian Frontline Nurses v. Canada (Attorney General)
- Citation
- 2024 FC 31
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Federal Court
- Decision
- 23 January 2024
- Posture
- Judicial Review (emergencies Act Public Order Emergency Proclamation) / Motion to Strike for Standing; Application Dismissed (final)
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Federal Court
- Decision
- 23 January 2024
- Posture
- Judicial Review (emergencies Act Public Order Emergency Proclamation) / Motion to Strike for Standing; Application Dismissed (final)
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Court concluded the applicants lacked standing to bring the underlying judicial review of the Public Order Emergency Proclamation; accordingly the application was dismissed and the Court declined to address the merits.
Court disposition
Application dismissed for lack of standing.
Orders
- The application is dismissed.
- No costs are awarded.
02
Material facts
Parties
Canadian Frontline Nurses
Applicant Counsel: David G. Cowling; Alexander Boissonneau-LehnerKristen Nagle
Applicant Counsel: David G. Cowling; Alexander Boissonneau-LehnerThe Attorney General of Canada
Respondent Counsel: Christopher Rupar; John Provart; David Aaron; Kathleen KohlmanAmounts and remedies
- Hearing Days: 3
03
Procedural history
Posture
Judicial Review (emergencies Act Public Order Emergency Proclamation) / Motion to Strike for Standing; Application Dismissed (final)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicants had standing to seek judicial review of the Public Order Emergency Proclamation under the Emergencies Act
- 02
Whether the application was moot and therefore non-justiciable
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Applicants sought judicial review of the Public Order Emergency Proclamation made under s.17(1) of the Emergencies Act and asserted they had standing to challenge the proclamation and obtain relief.
- Respondent
- Respondent moved to strike the application on the basis that the applicants lacked standing and that the underlying application was moot, and therefore the Court should dismiss without addressing the merits.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Common law standing principles and Federal Court jurisprudence
Standing requires a sufficient interest and a justiciable controversy before the court will hear substantive judicial review
- 02
Judicial review doctrine (mootness doctrine)
Moot or academic questions are not ordinarily determined by the courts and may ground a strike or dismissal
- 03
Emergencies Act, RSC 1985, c 22 (4th Supp), s.17(1)
Judicial review of Orders in Council made under the Emergencies Act must proceed under s.17(1) of the Emergencies Act
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Court concluded the applicants lacked standing to bring the underlying judicial review of the Public Order Emergency Proclamation; accordingly the application was dismissed and the Court declined to address the merits.
Obiter and limits
- The Court noted the Respondent did not request costs.
- The Court expressly did not decide on the legality or merits of the Public Order Emergency Proclamation because standing was lacking.
Court disposition
Application dismissed for lack of standing.
- The application is dismissed.
- No costs are awarded.
Source and reliance status
Federal Court · 23 January 2024
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Federal Court
Judgment· 23 January 2024
Canadian Frontline Nurses v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2024-01-23 Neutral citation 2024 FC 31 File numbers T-306-22 Decision Content Date: 20240123 Docket: T-306-22 Citation: 2024 FC 31 Ottawa, Ontario, January 23, 2024 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Mosley BETWEEN: CANADIAN FRONTLINE NURSES and KRISTEN NAGLE Applicants and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent
JUDGMENT UPON an application for judicial review filed on February 18, 2022 in respect of the Order in Council PC Number: 2022-106 proclamation of a public order emergency issued February 14, 2022 (the “Public Order Emergency Proclamation”) pursuant to subsection 17(1) of the Emergencies Act, RSC 1985, c 22 (4th Supp) (the “Emergencies Act”); AND UPON the motion of the Respondent, the Attorney General of Canada, filed on April 11, 2022 to strike the Application on the basis that the applicants lacked standing and the underlying application is moot; AND UPON reading the materials filed and hearing the oral representations of counsel for the parties on April 3, 2023; AND UPON determining that the Applicants lack standing to bring the underlying application for reasons provided separately; AND UPON considering that the Respondent has not requested costs. THIS COURT ORDERS that: The application is dismissed. No costs are awarded. "Richard G. Mosley" Judge
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-306-22 STYLE OF CAUSE: CANADIAN FRONTLINE NURSES and KRISTEN NAGLE V THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA PLACE OF HEARING: ottawa, ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: April 3-5, 2023 judgment: MOSLEY J. DATED: january 23, 2024 APPEARANCES: David G. Cowling Alexander Boissonneau-Lehner For The ApplicantS Christopher Rupar John Provart David Aaron Kathleen Kohlman For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Johnstone & Cowling LLP Toronto, Ontario For The ApplicantS Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.