. Canadian Nuclear Laboratories Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General)
In Canadian Nuclear Laboratories Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General) (Fed CA, 2026) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from a JR, where the JR quashed "a decision by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada (Minister) to issue a permit under the Species at Risk Act" where the "permit authorized CNL to carry out activities associated with the construction of a near-surface disposal facility for low-level radioactive waste at the Chalk River site".
Here the court considers the propriety of an affidavit (supplementing to a JR record) submitted by an administrative body to support it's own decision:
[43] We cannot rely on the Wren affidavit to supplement the Minister’s reasons. Affidavits submitted by administrative bodies raise concerns of "“bootstrapping”" or making submissions to reviewing courts that are essentially new reasons supporting the administrative decision: Westjet v. Lareau, 2024 FCA 77 at para. 17 [Westjet]; Stemijon Investments Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 FCA 299 at paras. 41-42. Allowing supplementary reasons in this way would undermine the duty to adequately justify administrative decisions: Westjet at para. 17, citing Vavilov at para. 83; see also Ontario (Energy Board) v. Ontario Power Generation Inc., 2015 SCC 44 at paras. 64-65 and Sellathurai v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2008 FCA 255 at paras. 46-47.
The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.
