CALE member Andrew Martin has a new article up on SSRN (published in UBC Law Review).
Here is the abstract:
In Schmidt v Canada (Attorney General), the Federal Court of Appeal interpreted a series of provisions requiring the Minister of Justice to inform the House of Commons if government bills or proposed regulations are “inconsistent with” the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the Canadian Bill of Rights. The Federal Court of Appeal, like the Federal Court below, held that these provisions are triggered only where there is no credible argument for consistency. In doing so, both Courts relied, in part, on a separation of powers argument. They stated that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General is not a legal advisor to Parliament. However, this statement was a legal error: federal legislation provides that the Attorney General is, as a matter of law, a legal advisor to Parliament.