Summary of Issue: Charter

Decision 27800 Full Text of Decision 27800

I interpret s. 57 of the Federal Court Act as requiring notice before a section of the Act or a regulation is declared invalid, inapplicable or inoperable. It does not require notice before argument is heard, nor does it require notice if none of those results will follow. One can understand why s. 57 was added to the Federal Court Act. The government does not wish to lose constitutional cases by default, for example as a result of a lack of an opportunity to prepare a proper evidentiary base for a case. But, one wonders if there is not a better solution than s. 57.

Decision 22557 Full Text of Decision 22557

Where the constitutional validity of a federal statute is to be raised, s. 57 of the Federal Court Act requires that notice must be served within prescribed time limits to the Attorney General of Canada. I offered claimant an adjournment to this end. That offer was declined.

Decision 17026A Full Text of Decision 17026A

I cannot refrain from commenting on the ludicrousness of s.57 (which requires that notice be given to the Attorneys General when a constitutional issue is to be argued). Following these comments, other comments follow with the opinion that 2 features ofs.57 are worth nothing.

Decision 21305 Full Text of Decision 21305

Under the amendments brought to the Federal Court in 2-92, particularly new Section 57, federal or provincial legislation or their regulations cannot be declared invalid unless persons concerned advised pursuant to para. 57(2). Case adjourned.

Decision 1493978 Full Text of Decision 1493978

The establishment of conditions of entitlement was an integral part of a legislative scheme enacted for a valid federal purpose under s.91(2)(A) of the British North America Act and treating claimants differently based on those conditions does not invalidate such legislation.