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

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.

Events from this Firm
23 Jan 2018, Seminar, London, UK

Join Gowling WLG's pensions team as they explain some of the biggest challenges facing trustees and employers in the coming year and provide practical ways of dealing with them.

25 Jan 2018, Seminar, Birmingham, UK

2018 is set to be another big year in employment, with employers set to face new challenges and responsibilities. At our event, looking ahead to next year, we will be discussing four key issues you might face in 2018, providing useful tips and answering your questions.

2 Feb 2018, Seminar, London, UK

2018 is set to be another big year in employment, with employers set to face new challenges and responsibilities. At our event, looking ahead to next year, we will be discussing four key issues you might face in 2018, providing useful tips and answering your questions.

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
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 you may opt out by clicking here

    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.

    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.


    From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

    *** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .


    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.

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