ARTICLE
14 February 2025

Executive Power Has Limits: Understanding The Rule Of Law In Canada

NL
Nelligan Law

Contributor

Our team of lawyers, legal assistants, and administrative professionals are dedicated to providing the best possible services for our clients. We take pride in the opportunity to make a meaningful impact in our clients’ lives.

We know that no one wants to find themselves needing a lawyer – whether you’ve lost your job, are separating from your spouse, or were injured in an accident.

During these vulnerable moments in life, you need not only an experienced professional in your corner, but someone who listens, understands what you’re going through, and can take on some of the emotional burden. That’s what our team provides.

While our profession is the law, our mission is peace of mind.

For the past several weeks, headlines have been dominated by news of sweeping executive reform actions taking place south of the border.
Canada Government, Public Sector

For the past several weeks, headlines have been dominated by news of sweeping executive reform actions taking place south of the border. Under President Trump's first weeks of rule, a number of executive orders have been issued on subjects ranging from stripping federal DEI programs, cutting ties with various international scientific organizations, and razing the federal public service. Can an executive (like the President, or in Canada, the Prime Minister) actually do this? Knowing the limits on an executive's sphere of power is crucial to being able to hold that executive to account.

The rule in Canada is that executive action does have limits. Roncarelli v Duplessis, a 1959 decision of the Supreme Court that has been described as "Canada's most important decision on the rule of law", holds that public officials must exercise their authority in good faith and not arbitrarily. Under Roncarelli, even if an official (including a head of government) has discretion to act, this discretion still has limits. Making an executive decision simply to punish an individual or group, for example, may well be unlawful. Paralyzing a federal commission or agency, simply because the executive disagrees with the decision-makers in that body, could be found arbitrary and therefore illegal.

These limits are put in place to recognize that the executive of the day is still subject to law. They have to follow the laws that Parliament passes and that the courts interpret. When they fail to do so, their actions can be subjected to what we call "judicial review" – a process like the one in Roncarelli, where the executive's decision-making process and reasons are reviewed by the court. Sometimes judicial review can take months or even years, but in urgent situations, a court can issue an injunction to halt (or "quash") a decision.

So, if you are reading headlines about drastic executive actions and wondering "is that legal?" the answer is – quite possibly not. And if your next question is "what can anyone do about it?" the answer is – there are probably teams of lawyers already at the court's door, marshalling their arguments about the rule of law and its limits on the executive. Those parts of the story always come down the road, but they are no less important to the whole picture.

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.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More