Reference re Canada Assistance Plan (B.C.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 525 is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada

Supreme Court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada and is the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts, and its decisions...

. The Court held that courts have a residual discretion to refuse to answer reference question

Reference question

In Canadian law, a Reference Question is a submission by the federal or a provincial government to the courts asking for an advisory opinion on a major legal issue. Typically the question concerns the constitutionality of legislation....

s where there is insufficient legal content or where the court would be unable to provide a complete and accurate answer.

Background

Under the Canada Assistance Plan the Parliament of Canada

Parliament of Canada

The Parliament of Canada is the federal legislative branch of Canada, seated at Parliament Hill in the national capital, Ottawa. Formally, the body consists of the Canadian monarch—represented by her governor general—the Senate, and the House of Commons, each element having its own officers and...

 was contributing 50 per cent of the costs for social assistance and welfare in the province of British Columbia. In 1991, the federal government put a cap of 5 per cent on the growth of the payments. The province protested and attempted to challenge the change in court. The federal government argued that the issue was purely political and could not be considered by the Court.

Reasons of the court

The Court held that the issue was justiciable as there was a legal component to it. On the facts the Court found that the federal policy was constitutionally valid. The Court held that the power to enact, repeal, or amend Acts is well within the Parliamentary sphere. The Court also looked at the Interpretation Act which explicitly states these powers. Ultimately, the Court relied on the Interpretation Act in its decision, although it stated that the Parliament would not have been precluded from exercising its powers in the absence thereof.

Procedural Fairness

It was argued by the Province that the Federal Government created a legitimate expectation by the language in the statute. The province alleged that an amendment required Provincial consent before a change was made to the statute. Justice Sopinka held that requiring the consent of the Province before allowing Parliament to amend the statute would produce a substantive outcome. The doctrine of legitimate expectations can only operate to provide procedural remedies.