|
Stare Decisis - Reconsidering Precedent (2). IWK Health Centre v. Canada
In IWK Health Centre v. Canada (Fed CA, 2026) the Federal Court of Appeal considered the test for reconsidering stare decisis precedent:[4] In the present appeals, the appellants’ arguments are directed not to distinguishing ExxonMobil and Westcoast on the facts, but rather to asserting that these two decisions are manifestly wrong and therefore should not be followed.
[5] The appellants properly recognize, as was said in Westcoast at paragraph 5, that "“[w]e must follow earlier decisions of this Court unless they can be distinguished or are “manifestly wrong” within the meaning of ""Miller v. Canada (Attorney General), ""2002 FCA 370"", ""220 D.L.R. (4th) 149""”" [Miller]. The appellants also properly recognize, as indicated in Miller at paragraph 10, that "“manifestly wrong”" means that the Court in the prior decision(s) overlooked a relevant statutory provision or a case that ought to have been followed.
[6] The appellants argue several respects in which they say that the decisions in ExxonMobil and Westcoast are manifestly wrong. Having carefully considered all of these arguments, we are not convinced that any of them have merit. We conclude that we remain bound to follow ExxonMobil and Westcoast.
[7] The appellants’ arguments that either or both ExxonMobil and Westcoast produce results that are absurd and that they are inconsistent with one another do not meet the requirements of Miller that the Court overlooked a relevant statutory provision or a case that ought to have been followed. Rather, they urge us to disagree with the statutory interpretation reached by this Court in previous decisions. . Sierra Club Canada Foundation v. Canada (Environment and Climate Change)
In Sierra Club Canada Foundation v. Canada (Environment and Climate Change) (Fed CA, 2026) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal, this brought against the earlier dismissal of a JR respecting a project "to tap oil and gas reserves far under the ocean floor and transport them to market".
Here the court considers the test for reconsidering stare decisis:[21] As is well known, under a doctrine called vertical stare decisis, the Federal Court is bound by our earlier decisions. And under a doctrine called horizontal stare decisis, this Court is bound by its own earlier decisions. Only a submission — not made here — that one of our decisions is "“manifestly wrong”" can relax the doctrine and allow a departure from earlier decisions. See generally R. v. Sullivan, 2022 SCC 19, [2022] 1 S.C.R. 460 and Miller v. Canada (Attorney General), 2002 FCA 370. . Chad v. Canada
In Chad v. Canada (Fed CA, 2026) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an income tax appeal, here brought against a Tax Court confirmation of the Minister’s reassessment - and this wrt the finding "that the appellant undertook that activity in pursuit of loss, not profit", and thus could not claim a loss deduction.
Here the court considers the test for reconsidering stare decisis:[14] First, to conclude Paletta Estate is manifestly wrong this Court must be satisfied that Paletta Estate overlooked a relevant statutory provision or a case that ought to have been followed: Tan v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 186 at para. 31, citing Miller v. Canada (Attorney General), 2002 FCA 370 at para. 10. The appellant has not identified any such provision or case. To the contrary, Paletta Estate expressly considered both Stewart and Walls and explained that they too are premised on pursuit of profit as an essential feature of a source of income: Stewart at paras. 5, 50, 51, 53, 58, 62, 68.
[15] The appellant’s disagreement with this Court’s interpretation of Stewart and Walls falls far short of meeting the "“manifestly wrong”" threshold. Paletta Estate is not a departure from Stewart and Walls.
|
