2024 SCC 36 – Auer v. Auer

To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback.

Judicial review — Standard of review — Subordinate legislation

(00:00:39) Summary

(00:11:17) Reasons for Judgment: Côté J. (Wagner C.J. and Karakatsanis, Rowe, Martin, Kasirer, Jamal, O’Bonsawin and Moreau JJ. concurring)

(00:11:21) I. Overview – 1

(00:15:14) II. Facts – 7

(00:16:28) III. Judicial History – 10

(00:16:30) A. Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, 2021 ABQB 370, 32 Alta. L.R. (7th) 250 – 10

(00:18:57) B. Court of Appeal of Alberta, 2022 ABCA 375, 52 Alta. L.R. (7th) 8 – 14

(00:20:33) IV. Issues – 18

(00:20:50) V. Standard of Review – 19

(00:20:52) A. Vavilov Is the Starting Point for Determining the Appropriate Standard of Review – 19

(00:22:19) B. The Vavilov Framework Applies When Reviewing the Vires of Subordinate Legislation – 21

(00:24:51) C. Reasonableness Is the Presumptive Standard for Reviewing the Vires of Subordinate Legislation – 24

(00:24:54) D. What Is the Role of Katz Group? – 29

(00:24:57) (1) Many of the Principles From Katz Group Continue To Apply – 29

(00:31:56) (2) The “Irrelevant”, “Extraneous” or “Completely Unrelated” Threshold Is No Longer Relevant – 41

(00:38:01) E. How To Conduct a Reasonableness Review of the Vires of Subordinate Legislation Under the Vavilov Framework – 50

(00:39:04) (1) Reasonableness Review Is Possible in the Absence of Formal Reasons – 52

(00:41:27) (2) Reasonableness Review Is Not an Examination of Policy Merits – 55

(00:43:42) (3) The Relevant Constraints – 59

(00:44:21) (a) Governing Statutory Scheme – 61

(00:44:45) (b) Other Statutory or Common Law – 63

(00:45:09) (c) Principles of Statutory Interpretation – 64

(00:45:11) VI. Analysis – 67

(00:45:13) A. Overview of the Child Support Guidelines – 67

(00:47:03) B. Mr. Auer’s Challenge – 72

(00:47:09) C. The Child Support Guidelines Are Within the GIC’s Scope of Authority – 75

(00:47:15) (1) The GIC’s Statutory Grant of Authority Is Extremely Broad – 75

(00:50:44) (2) The GIC Was Authorized Not To Take Into Account the Recipient Parent’s Income in Calculating the Table Amounts – 80

(00:53:37) (3) The GIC Was Authorized To Assume That Parents Spend the Same Linear Percentage of Their Income on Their Children – 90

(00:55:20) (4) The GIC Was Authorized Not To Take Into Account Government Child Benefits Paid to the Recipient Parent in Calculating Child Support Awards – 95

(00:57:00) (5) The GIC Was Authorized Not To Take Into Account the Payer Parent’s Direct Spending When That Parent Exercises Less Than 40 Percent of Annual Parenting Time – 98

(01:01:46) (6) The GIC Was Authorized To Establish a Separate Category of Special or Extraordinary Expenses – 105

(01:03:51) VII. Conclusion – 114