Elson v. Canada (Attorney General)

Elson v. Canada (Attorney General)

The PIIFCAF policy was a relevant and constitutionally permissible consideration under Parliament’s broad s.91(12) fisheries power and the Fisheries Act; the applicant failed to demonstrate that the Minister or Appeal Board fettered discretion or had a closed mind in a way that produced a different outcome, and the applicant did not provide evidentiary support of extenuating financial hardship so remitting the matter would serve no practical purpose; accordingly the judicial review application was dismissed.

Citation
2017 FC 459
Parties
Applicant: Kirby Elson; Respondent: Canada (Attorney General)
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review / Final Judgment (federal Court Dismissed Application)
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Fettering of Discretion, Standard of Review, Division of Powers (pith and Substance), Licencing Policy, Procedural Fairness, Reasonable Apprehension of Bias
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Fisheries Law Administrative Procedure Judicial Review Fettering of Discretion Standard of Review Division of Powers (pith and Substance) +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kirby Elson

Applicant

Canada (Attorney General)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Judicial Review / Final Judgment (federal Court Dismissed Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Which decision is subject to review
  2. 2 Whether the Minister relied on relevant considerations (constitutionality of PIIFCAF)
  3. 3 Whether the Minister fettered or reasonably exercised his discretion

Ratio Decidendi

The PIIFCAF policy was a relevant and constitutionally permissible consideration under Parliament’s broad s.91(12) fisheries power and the Fisheries Act; the applicant failed to demonstrate that the Minister or Appeal Board fettered discretion or had a closed mind in a way that produced a different outcome, and the applicant did not provide evidentiary support of extenuating financial hardship so remitting the matter would serve no practical purpose; accordingly the judicial review application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Application for judicial review dismissed
  • No order as to costs