Canada: Supreme Court Extends The TeleZone Principle: Strickland v. Canada (Attorney General)

Last Updated: July 16 2015
Article by Jeff Beedell, Guy Régimbald and John Wilson

Most Read Contributor in Canada, October 2018

In Strickland v. Canada (Attorney General),  2015 SCC 37 ("Strickland"), the Supreme Court of Canada considered an appeal from a Federal Court of Appeal decision that found that provincial superior courts possess, in some instances, the jurisdiction to rule on the validity of federal regulations. In addition to raising this jurisdictional question, the appeal raised the more specific administrative law question of whether the Federal Court (at first instance) erred by declining to hear the appellants' judicial review application.

The Court's Strickland  decision is notable for three reasons.

First, the Court explicitly recognized that provincial superior courts have jurisdiction to address the validity of the federal regulations where doing so is a necessary step in resolving a case otherwise properly before them.

Second, the Court sharpened its earlier jurisprudence surrounding the discretionary nature of judicial review by emphasizing the importance of a forum's suitability for review. In this case, even if the Federal Court were to declare the federal regulations to be invalid, such a declaration would not bind the provincial superior courts which could continue to apply them until successfully challenged in those courts.

Third, the disagreement between Justice Cromwell (in obiter) and Justices Abella and Wagner (in their separate but concurring reasons) appears to leave for another day the question of whether the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction to judicially review actions of federal boards, commissions and tribunals and grant remedies on administrative law grounds.  

This commentary will review the reasons of the Court and close with some implications of the Strickland  decision.

Facts and Decisions Below

The impetus for Strickland  was the alleged unlawfulness of a set of guidelines for child support ("Guidelines") created by the Governor in Council, pursuant to the powers conferred by section 26.1 of the Divorce Act,  RSC 1985 c 3 (2nd Supp). The Divorce Act  provides that the Governor in Council is to draft such guidelines "based on the principle that spouses have a joint financial obligation to maintain the children of the marriage in accordance with their relative abilities to contribute to the performance of that obligation" (s 26.1(2)).

The six appellants in Strickland  were of the view that the Guidelines  created by the Governor in Council did not reflect the ability-indexing principle set out in the Divorce Act,  and were thus unlawful or ultra vires.  They therefore sought a declaration from the Federal Court to this effect.

At first instance, Justice Gleason of the Federal Court dismissed the appellants' application for judicial review, principally on jurisdictional grounds. In her view, the provincial superior courts should have jurisdiction over a claim that the Guidelines  are ultra vires,  if that claim is made in proceedings in which those courts are asked to apply the Guidelines. To this jurisdictional point, she added that provincial superior courts possess far greater expertise than the Federal Court in matters related to divorce and child support, and thus that it would be inappropriate for the Federal Court to consider the application on its merits (Strickland  para 7). 

The Federal Court of Appeal (2014 FCA 33, "Strickland  FCA") agreed with Justice Gleason's reasons, and added that invalidating the Guidelines  would have uncertain consequences in the broader provincial family law context and that adjudication in an actual divorce proceeding in the superior courts would ensure a more complete adversarial debate (Strickland,  FCA paras 14-16). As such, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appellants' application for judicial review of the Guidelines  appeal.

The appellants appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Issues at the Supreme Court of Canada

The appeal raised two related questions:

  1. Do the provincial superior courts have jurisdiction to address the validity of the Guidelines?
  2. Even if they do, did the federal courts err in refusing to hear the judicial review application on its merits?

The Jurisdictional Question  

Positions of the Parties

The Attorney General (here, the respondent) argued that provincial superior courts do possess the jurisdiction to consider the legality of the federally-ordered Guidelines.  It relied on Gleason J.'s ostensibly pragmatic holding that provincial courts should have jurisdiction over such a matter if the challenge is made in proceedings in which the provincial courts are asked to apply them.

In contrast, the appellants argued that litigants seeking solely a public law remedy against a federal entity may proceed only  in the federal courts. In support of this position, they pointed to section 18 of the Federal Courts Act  (RSC 1985 c. F-7).

In the appellants' view, the "exclusive original jurisdiction" to grant declaratory relief against federal bodies under section 18(1)(a) necessarily includes the jurisdiction to pronounce on the lawfulness of regulations like the Guidelines.  As such, the appellants argued that provincial superior courts are precluded from determining their legality (Strickland  para 11).

Reasons of the Supreme Court – Affirming and Applying the TeleZone Principle

Cromwell J. agreed with the Attorney General (and the federal courts below) on the jurisdictional question. In his view, "[a] provincial superior court can hear and determine a challenge to the legality of the Guidelines  where that determination is a necessary step in disposing of support proceedings properly before it" (para 15).

This conclusion was chiefly supported by a line of cases beginning with Canada (Attorney General) v TeleZone Inc.,  2010 SCC 62 ("TeleZone") which interpreted section 18 of the Federal Courts Act. Indeed, Justice Cromwell extends the reasoning of the Court in TeleZone which he acknowledges did not resolve the precise issue in Strickland to articulate what he calls the "TeleZone principle."

In TeleZone,  the Supreme Court held the Ontario Superior Court of Justice had the authority to review the legality of a Federal Minister's actions during a tendering process for the purposes of the plaintiff's claim for damages in relation to those actions. In so doing, the Court rejected the interpretation urged upon it by the Attorney General that section 18 of the Federal Court Act  required litigants to obtain a successful application for judicial review at the Federal Court before  bringing a damages claim in provincial court. The Court in TeleZone  rejected the Attorney General's position for several reasons.

First, to accept the Attorney General's argument would sanction a "bottleneck" of delays that was "manifestly not the intention of Parliament" (TeleZone  para 3).  Second, the Court in TeleZone  held that section 18 had to be read in the broader context of the Act,  which includes section 17's explicit conferral on the provincial superior courts of concurrent jurisdiction "in all cases in which relief is claimed against the Crown." In light of this broader concurrent authority, the Court in TeleZone  held that section 18 must be understood as a "reservation or subtraction from the more comprehensive grant of concurrent jurisdiction in s 17" (para 5). This contextual interpretation of section 18 as a "subtraction" from section 17 provides the foundation for the TeleZone  principle that provincial superior courts must be able to pronounce on the lawfulness of federal laws or orders where it is necessary for determinations properly within their purview.

Cromwell J. in Strickland  states this conclusion from TeleZone  pithily: "Thus, the provincial superior courts may exercise their concurrent jurisdiction where the attack on a law or an order is essential to the cause of action and adjudication of that allegation is a necessary step in disposing of the claim" (Strickland  para 24, citing TeleZone  67). This statement appears to be the clearest formulation of the TeleZone  principle upon which the Court in Strickland  subsequently relies.

Cromwell J. is quick to add – as was Binnie J. in TeleZone –  that this principle only applies when determining the validity of the underlying federal order is a genuinely necessary step in an otherwise valid proceeding. That is, it must not be "simply made to appear as such as the result of artful pleading." (Strickland  para 24, citing TeleZone  para 75).

The Court in Strickland  goes on to canvass the companion and subsequent cases to TeleZone,  which, although not perfectly analogous, support, in its view, the TeleZone  principle (paras 25-29).

Cromwell J.'s ultimate conclusion on the first issue, after applying the TeleZone  principle, is:

[I]n the context of family law proceedings otherwise properly before them, the provincial superior courts can decide that the Guidelines  are ultra vires  and decline to apply them if doing so is a necessary step in resolving the matters before them (para 33).

The Administrative Law Question:

Having answered the first (jurisdictional) question, Cromwell J. turned to consider whether the Federal Court erred by refusing to entertain the appellants' application for judicial review. As the SCC noted, the Federal Court did so chiefly on the recognized ground that an adequate alternative to review exists: the greater expertise of provincial courts in family law matters made the latter a more suitable forum to review the Guidelines  (Strickland  para 35).

The appellants disagreed with the conclusions of the Federal Courts. In their view, the possibility of challenging the Guidelines  in child support proceedings was neither an adequate nor an alternative forum, as it does not provide all remedies available to them on judicial review. Further, they argued, a Federal Court determination of the Guidelines' lawfulness would be a more efficient means of review than various divorce proceedings in provincial superior courts.

The Reasons of the Supreme Court – The Federal Court Did Not Err

Before answering the question in earnest, Cromwell J. provided a brief summary of the law around judicial review. He affirmed that the discretionary nature of judicial review is well established in both common law and the relevant provisions of the Federal Courts Act,  and that this discretion is entitled to deference on appeal  (Strickland,  paras 37-39). He also noted the proposition from TeleZone  that the Federal Court's determination of whether to exercise its review discretion should consider not just the availability and adequacy of alternative remedies, but also the suitability and appropriateness of review in the circumstances (Strickland  para 43).

After reviewing the relevant law, Cromwell J. went on to reject the appellants' argument, finding that their "core" claim that they are entitled to a ruling on the legality of the Guidelines  is based on three flawed propositions (Strickland  para 47). These flaws are as follows:

First, the appellants' claim that they are "entitled" to a ruling on the legality of the Guidelines  is "fundamentally at odds" with the discretionary nature of judicial review. This discretionary nature reflects the fact that judicial review – unlike private law – is not directed at exclusively vindicating the rights of individuals.

Second, Cromwell J. held that the determination of an adequate alternative is a broad inquiry that is not simply a matter of the possible advantages conferred on individual litigants. Such an inquiry should also consider the larger legislative context. As he notes, Parliament entrusted the entire area of family law to provincial superior courts. In his view, it would be "curious, to say the least, if the legality of a central aspect of that regime [the Guidelines] were to be finally decided by the federal courts, which, as a result of federal legislation, have virtually no jurisdiction with respect to family law matters" (Strickland  para 51].

Third, Cromwell J. disagrees with the appellants' argument that a federal court determination of the Guidelines'  legality would be more efficient than a number of superior court proceedings. He states that any federal court ruling would not be binding on provincial superior courts, and thus, before having any practical effect, the issue would have to be re-litigated in the provincial superior courts, or, litigated to the Supreme Court. Further, even if such a binding ruling were possible, the provincial superior courts would still need to decide the impact of the illegality of the Guidelines  on particular support orders in individual cases, making "a proliferation of litigation" inevitable (para 53).

For these reasons, the Court concludes that the Federal Court did not make any reviewable error in exercising its discretion not to entertain the appellants' judicial review application (Strickland  para 61).

The Concurring Reasons of Justices Abella and Wagner

Justices Abella and Wagner agreed with Justice Cromwell's conclusions on the issues addressed above. However, they wrote separate reasons to express the view that the Strickland  decision should not be seen as categorically endorsing the assumption (upon which Strickland  was argued) that the Federal Court has exclusive original jurisdiction to grant judicial review remedies directed against regulations promulgated by the Governor in Council and that the provincial superior courts cannot declare federal regulations invalid on administrative law grounds.

In their view, it is not clear that this assumption of exclusive  jurisdiction is warranted. The SCC has never held that the Federal Court enjoys this jurisdiction exclusively, and case law surrounding the jurisdiction of provincial superior courts has affirmed that these courts "ha[ve] jurisdiction to entertain virtually any claim unless that jurisdiction is specifically, unequivocally, and constitutionally removed by Parliament" (Sorbara v. Canada(Attorney General)(2009), 98 OR (3d) 673 (CA) at para 7). Provincial superior courts already have jurisdiction to review federal boards, commissions, and tribunals on constitutional grounds.

As such, Justices Abella and Wagner reason that because there is "no evidence" that Parliament intended to prevent provincial superior courts from determining the vires  of the regulations they apply, "caution and full argument" is needed before this Court declares or is seen to declare that section 18 of the Federal Courts Act  confers exclusive jurisdiction over all  federal regulations (Strickland  para 77).

It should be noted that Cromwell J., in obiter,  briefly addresses his colleagues' concerns, if only to note that he does not share them. In his view, both the text of section 18 and the case law provide support for the proposition that the Federal Court does  enjoy exclusive jurisdiction over the  judicial review of federal administrative tribunals including the Governor in Council when exercising "jurisdiction or powers conferred by or under an Act of Parliament". However, for the majority, he notes that these questions are "for another day" (para 64).


For now, the role of the federal courts to judicially review the decisions of federal boards, commissions and tribunals remains their exclusive jurisdiction. If a party seeks to have a court set aside the decision of a federal agency, it must go to the federal courts for this remedy. Likewise, if the party seeks a declaration for all purposes that a federal regulation is ultra vires on administrative law grounds (as the appellants sought in this case), this remains the exclusive purview of the federal courts under s. 18 of the Act. However, federal courts have discretion to decline to hear such applications for judicial review on the basis that it is not the most appropriate forum to consider the merits.

As a result of the Strickland decision, one assumes that counsel will be very reluctant to pursue judicial review in the federal courts to seek a purely administrative law remedy – here a declaration of invalidity of the Guidelines – and instead forego this remedy and proceed with an action in the provincial superior courts wherein the validity of the impugned federal regulation or order can be considered as a step in the litigation and in conjunction with other legal remedies. The provincial superior courts now clearly have concurrent jurisdiction to consider the lawfulness of federal regulations on both a division of powers and an administrative law basis.  While unable to grant purely administrative law remedies, they can for purposes of the case before them, determine if the regulations are valid and, if not, what legal remedies are available to the plaintiff as a consequence. 

In other words, the federal court can now be bypassed  in such circumstances, and the question of validity be considered within the factual matrix of the action in a provincial superior court. For the successful plaintiff, this may be a more attractive route – to have the validity question answered for purposes of their case only without having to first seek judicial review in the federal courts. As to whether judicial economy and the efficient administration of the law are better served, as Cromwell J. expects, by multiple proceedings in provincial superior courts each considering the same question of validity, we will have to wait and see.

This being said, in the greater context, judicial review before the federal courts may continue to be favoured, for two reasons. First, the judicial review procedure is much more accessible than actions before provincial superior courts. Second, where damages are not sought, the federal court remains the more appropriate recourse, unless the federal legislative scheme, such as the Divorce Act  in this case, clearly contemplates proceedings before a provincial superior court, granting it equal if not more expertise on the matter. 

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

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.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
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
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions