Background
Five appeals challenged a decision of the British Columbia Labour Relations Board. In reasons reported as 2026 BCCA 310, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, holding that the Board’s decision was not patently unreasonable and that the judicial-review judge had correctly applied the highly deferential standard mandated by s. 58 of British Columbia’s Administrative Tribunals Act.
Six days later, the Supreme Court of Canada released Democracy Watch v. Canada (Attorney General), 2026 SCC 28, holding that a partial privative clause could not constitutionally prevent courts from reviewing administrative decisions for legality. Relying on that ruling, 1315949 B.C. Ltd., supported by the other appellants, asked the Court of Appeal to reopen the appeal and consider whether s. 58’s patently unreasonable standard unconstitutionally restricts the courts’ supervisory jurisdiction.
The Court’s Holding
The Court dismissed the application to reopen. Although an appeal for which judgment has not been entered may be reopened to prevent injustice, that power is reserved for extraordinary circumstances, including a clear and compelling legal case carrying the prospect of very serious injustice. Those circumstances were not present here.
Democracy Watch expressly left unresolved the minimum constitutionally guaranteed standard of judicial review. It established that administrative action cannot be shielded entirely from legality review, but also recognized that legislated standards of review may be valid if they respect the rule of law. While its reasoning might permit a future challenge to s. 58, it did not decide that provision was unconstitutional.
The Court also found that reopening would unfairly require the union, after years of proceedings, to answer an entirely new constitutional issue that the appellants had not raised earlier. Given the provision’s broad application to provincial tribunals, its long history, and prior appellate authority upholding it, the constitutional question should first be addressed on a proper record in the trial court, with an opportunity for interested parties to seek intervention.
Key Takeaways
- A subsequent Supreme Court ruling does not justify reopening an appeal unless the demanding test for extraordinary circumstances and serious injustice is met.
- Democracy Watch did not establish a constitutionally required minimum standard of judicial review or invalidate legislated standards such as patent unreasonableness.
- A broad constitutional challenge affecting numerous administrative tribunals should ordinarily begin in the trial court on a suitable record and with proper constitutional notice.
Why It Matters
The decision leaves intact both the dismissal of the underlying Labour Relations Board appeals and, for now, the use of the patently unreasonable standard under s. 58 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. The Court did not foreclose a future constitutional challenge; it held that this closed, long-running litigation was not the proper vehicle for deciding one.
The ruling also underscores the exceptional nature of reopening an appeal and the importance of raising constitutional arguments at the earliest appropriate stage, particularly when the requested ruling could affect a wide range of tribunals and litigants.