Canada: When Is A Rule A Rule? American And Canadian Approaches

Last Updated: December 19 2014
Article by Adam Chisholm

Authored by: Adam D.H. Chisholm, Jessica Rose, Student-at-Law and Jonathan W. Hugg1

A recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit provides an opportunity to contrast how American and Canadian courts respond to the failure of a tribunal to comply with its own procedural rules. Align Technology Inc. v. International Trade Commission2 vacated and remanded a decision of the International Trade Commission ("Commission") because it was contrary to the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. This article examines the basis for that decision and compares it to recent jurisprudence of Canada's highest court.

The Align Consent Order

In 2006, Align filed a complaint with the Commission alleging that OrthoClear was infringing its patents and using its trade secrets. OrthoClear and Align came to a global settlement whereby OrthoClear assigned its complete intellectual property portfolio over to Align. The two companies agreed to enter a Consent Order and jointly file to end the Commissioner's investigation into the issue.3

The Consent Order prohibited OrthoClear from importing particular dental appliances into the United States.4 It also prevented OrthoClear from aiding and abetting the sale and importation of infringing products into the United States.5

The ALJ's Order Dismissing The Intervenors' Motion

Align suspected that OrthoClear was violating the Consent Order and filed a new complaint with the Commission for a proceeding to enforce the Consent Order.6 The Commission began an investigation in the enforcement proceeding.

At the outset, the Commission sought a ruling that the conduct alleged - importation of digital data sets - was within the scope of the Consent Order. The Commission sought this ruling as an "initial determination".7

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) considered the scope of the Consent Order and sought briefing on the issue. Meanwhile, Intervenors, third-parties who were alleged to have violated the Consent Order by aiding and abetting, filed a motion with the ALJ to terminate the Commission's investigation alleging the conduct was outside of the consent order.8

The ALJ determined that the alleged conduct did fall within the Consent Order. However, the ALJ did not issue an "initial determination" as sought by the Commission. Instead, the ALJ issued an Order dismissing the Intervenors' motion to terminate the proceedings and scheduled the matter for trial.

The Commission revised the ALJ's Order and terminated the enforcement proceeding.

The Court of Appeals Overturns the Commission's Review

Align appealed the Commission's termination of the enforcement proceeding. At issue before the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit was whether the Commission properly reviewed the ALJ's Order. The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure explicitly distinguished between rulings made as "initial determinations" and "orders". The Commission was only permitted to review initial determinations.

The Court of Appeals noted that it must overturn any finding or conclusion that was "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with the law."9 Accordingly, the Court of Appeals held that the Commission could not review the ALJ's Order. This was because the Order was not an "initial determination" which could have been reviewed by the Commission.

The Commission argued that it had discretion to construe the ALJ's Order as an initial determination. However, the Court of Appeals disagreed. The Commission's rules explicitly stated that a denial of a motion to terminate, like the ALJ's Order, had to be issued as a non-reviewable "order".10

The Court of Appeals observed that the Commission could have achieved its purpose by explicitly "waiving, suspending or amending" its Rules of Practice and Procedure. The Commission had the ability to waive its rules if it found "good and sufficient" reason for doing so.11 However, the Commission had not articulated any reason for reviewing the ALJ's Order. The Court of Appeals determined that there was no evidence that the Commission intended to invoke the waiver rule. The Commission's argument that it had been permitted to review the Order as an initial determination constituted "an improper post hoc rationalization of its behaviour".12 Instead of waiving its rules, the Commission simply circumvented them.13

Alberta Teachers Association – Canada's Rules on Rules

A decision related to Alberta's teachers and access to information seems initially discrete from Align. However, Alberta Teachers Association v Alberta (Information & Privacy Commissioner)14 provides an authoritative Canadian comparison .

In Alberta Teachers, Alberta's Information and Privacy Commissioner performed an inquiry into whether the Alberta Teachers' Association disclosed private information in contravention of the provincial Personal Information Protection Act.15

The applicable section of the Act required that the adjudicator's inquiry be completed within 90 days from the day of a written request, unless certain notification was provided.16 The adjudicator purported to extend the time for the inquiry after the 90 day period was spent. The request for the inquiry was made in September 2006 and on February 7, 2007, the complainants were notified that their request was being processed. On August 1, 2007, the Commissioner wrote to the parties informing them that the 90-day period would be extended.17 While the Alberta Teachers Association was notified of the extension, it was not provided with any reason for the extension or why it was issued after the 90 days expired was provided.

The adjudicator ultimately determined that the Alberta Teachers Association had disclosed the complainants' personal information.18 After the adjudicator's decision was released, the Association sought judicial review of the adjudicator's order. The Association alleged that the adjudicator lost jurisdiction for failing to comply with the 90 day timeline.19

The Chambers Judge and Court of Appeal held that the adjudicator's order should be quashed. The Supreme Court of Canada overturned the Court of Appeal decision and reinstated the adjudicator's decision.

The Commissioner (or her delegate the adjudicator) had not complied with the statutory timeline for completing the inquiry. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court held that there was "a reasonable basis ... for the adjudicator's implied decision" to extend time for the inquiry after the time for doing so had expired.20 Extending the time for conduct of the inquiry after the 90 days had passed did not terminate the process.21

The Supreme Court's willingness to accept the adjudicator's implied decision relates to the standard of review applied. The Supreme Court held that an administrative decision maker's interpretation of its own statutes or those closely connected with its function should be presumed to be a question of statutory interpretation subject to deference on judicial review.22 In Canada, defence to a tribunal's decision-making does not disappear just because a decision is an implied decision.23 This presumption of deference is a rebuttable presumption.24

It is notable that in Canada, there may exist a limited category of issues which are of central importance to the legal system as a whole and not within a tribunal's expertise, which could theoretically be shown less deference by the reviewing court.25 It is clear that the decision in Alberta Teachers did not invoke such issues. It is also unlikely that the decision in Align, had the case been decided in Canada, would have been held to be of central importance to the legal system or not been deferred to.

Align and Alberta Teachers: A Comparison

In both Align and Alberta Teachers, the expectations of the litigants was likely that that the tribunals would comply with their own procedural rules. In the United States, these expectations were met. In Canada, they were not.

A few distinctions are apparent between the decisions in Align and Alberta Teachers:

  • First, Canadian courts are generally more willing to show more deference to tribunal decision-making. In Align, the procedural error warranted the vacation of the tribunal's decision, which was remanded for further consideration. The Court of Appeals held that the tribunal did not have discretion to alter its rules: it is "a familiar rule of administrative law that an agency must abide by its own regulations."26 In Alberta Teachers, the first determination made by the Supreme Court was regarding the level of deference that the courts owed to the tribunal. The Supreme Court held that it was appropriate to show deference to the adjudicator.

  • Second, American courts are more willing to require compliance with express procedures for altering tribunal procedures. In Align, the Court of Appeals condemned the tribunal for failing to expressly waive its rules pursuant to the rules themselves. In Alberta Teachers, the Supreme Court permitted an implied decision, not found in the statute itself, to waive statutory requirements.

  • Third, American courts are less willing to accept post hoc explanations for tribunal decision-making. In Align, the Court of Appeals expressed concerns about post hoc justifications of tribunal decision-making that could result from a lack of reasons for waiving procedural requirements.27 In contrast, the Supreme Court appears to support post hoc justifications for tribunal conduct: "If there exists a reasonable basis on which the decision maker could have decided as it did, the court must not interfere."28

Align and Alberta Teachers may be distinguishable on the basis that the parties objected about procedural non-compliance at different stages of proceedings, implicating issues of waiver. In Align, the Commission's decision to review the ALJ's Order was immediately attacked by Align. However, in Alberta Teachers, the Alberta Teachers' Association delayed its challenge to the adjudicator granting herself an extension of time, and instead waited until after an unfavourable decision was issued in the inquiry. The Supreme Court condemned this approach, saying:

"The point is that parties cannot gut the deference owed to a tribunal by failing to raise the issue before the tribunal and thereby mislead the tribunal on the necessity of providing reasons."29

However, it is unlikely that this distinction alone is what resulted in the overturning of the Commission's decision but restoration of the decision of the Privacy Commissioner adjudicator. Rather, it appears that Canadian courts are fundamentally more deferential to tribunals on issues of process in Canada. That is, if a tribunal in the United States acts contrary to its own rules, judicial intervention and criticism is more likely. The basis for this distinction may be the subject of further commentary by the authors but explanations may include reference to politics and the functions of each country's administrative state.

1 Adam D.H. Chisholm practices in McMillan LLP's Toronto office. He is a member of the firm's Commercial Litigation and Administrative Advocacy groups. Jessica Rose is an articling student with McMillan LLP. Jonathan W. Hugg practices in Clark Hill's Philadelphia office. He is a member of the firm's Commercial and Corporate Litigation practice group, with a focus on business and appellate litigation.

2 575 Fed. Appx. 899, 111 USPQ 2d (BNA) 1855 (Fed Cir 2014) [Align].

3 Align Technology Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 111 USPQ 2d (BNA) 1855 (Fed Cir 2014) at 4-5.

4 Align Technology Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 111 USPQ 2d (BNA) 1855 (Fed Cir 2014) at 5.

5 Align Technology Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 111 USPQ 2d (BNA) 1855 (Fed Cir 2014) at 5.

6 Align Technology Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 111 USPQ 2d (BNA) 1855 (Fed Cir 2014) at 5.

7 Align Technology Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 111 USPQ 2d (BNA) 1855 (Fed Cir 2014) at 6.

8 Align Technology Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 111 USPQ 2d (BNA) 1855 (Fed Cir 2014) at 7.

9 Align Technology Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 111 USPQ 2d (BNA) 1855 (Fed Cir 2014) at 8.

10 Align Technology Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 111 USPQ 2d (BNA) 1855 (Fed Cir 2014) at 8.

11 Align Technology Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 111 USPQ 2d (BNA) 1855 (Fed Cir 2014) at 10.

12 Align Technology Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 111 USPQ 2d (BNA) 1855 (Fed Cir 2014) at 11.

13 Align Technology Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 111 USPQ 2d (BNA) 1855 (Fed Cir 2014) at 12.

14 Alberta Teachers Association v Alberta (Information & Privacy Commissioner), 2011 SCC 61, [2011] 3 SCR 654 [Alberta Teachers].

15 Alberta Teachers Association v Alberta (Information & Privacy Commissioner), 2011 SCC 61 at para 2, [2011] 3 SCR 654.

16 Alberta Teachers Association v Alberta (Information & Privacy Commissioner), 2011 SCC 61 at para 2, [2011] 3 SCR 654.

17 Alberta Teachers Association v Alberta (Information & Privacy Commissioner), 2011 SCC 61 at para 8, [2011] 3 SCR 654.

18 Alberta Teachers Association v Alberta (Information & Privacy Commissioner), 2011 SCC 61 at para 8, [2011] 3 SCR 654.

19 Alberta Teachers Association v Alberta (Information & Privacy Commissioner), 2011 SCC 61 at para 9, [2011] 3 SCR 654.

20 Alberta Teachers Association v Alberta (Information & Privacy Commissioner), 2011 SCC 61 at para 56, [2011] 3 SCR 654.

21 Alberta Teachers Association v Alberta (Information & Privacy Commissioner), 2011 SCC 61 at para 72, [2011] 3 SCR 654.

22 Alberta Teachers Association v Alberta (Information & Privacy Commissioner), 2011 SCC 61 at para 34, [2011] 3 SCR 654.

23 Agraira v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 SCC 36 at para 63, [2013] 2 SCR 559.

24 McLean v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), 2013 SCC 67 at para 72, [2013] 3 SCR 895.

25 Canadian Artists' Representation v. National Gallery of Canada, 2014 SCC 42 at para 42. Other categories of decisions exist that may warrant more strict review by Canada's courts on a correctness standard, although comprehensive discussion of these categories is beyond the scope of this article.

26 Align Technology Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 111 USPQ 2d (BNA) 1855 (Fed Cir 2014) at 8.

27 Align Technology Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 111 USPQ 2d (BNA) 1855 (Fed Cir 2014) at 11.

28 Alberta Teachers Association v Alberta (Information & Privacy Commissioner), 2011 SCC 61 at para 53, [2011] 3 SCR. Although the Supreme Court does speak about the importance of reasons that are provided by a tribunal; in para. 54, it holds: "[w]hen there is no duty to give reasons ... or when only limited reasons are required, it is entirely appropriate for courts to consider the reasons that could be offered for the decision when conducting a reasonableness review".

29 Thus, the Supreme Court wants a party to raise its objection at the time it first arises before the tribunal. The question of whether immediately seeking judicial review of the adjudicator's decision is appropriate is another issue.

The foregoing provides only an overview and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are cautioned against making any decisions based on this material alone. Rather, specific legal advice should be obtained.

© McMillan LLP 2014

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Adam Chisholm
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.