Bill C-30 · 37th Parliament · Jean Chrétien
Courts Administration Service Act
An Act to establish a body that provides administrative services to the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court, the Court Martial Appeal Court and the Tax Court of Canada, to amend the Federal Court Act, the Tax Court of Canada Act and the Judges Act, and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedSept. 18, 2001
- Debated in principleOct. 3, 2001
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberFeb. 22, 2002
- Passed the second chamberMarch 26, 2002
- Became lawMarch 27, 2002
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Jean ChrétienPrime Minister
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
64% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (49,538 words introduced, 30,098 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill passed with the insertion of the royal assent date and minor wording adjustments for consistency in court references. Core provisions establishing the Courts Administration Service and related judicial amendments were retained with limited substantive alteration.
- Added royal assent date after the long title.
After: “[Assented to 27th March, 2002]”
- Adjusted phrasing on Quebec bar membership for line break.
Before: “or have been members of the bar of that Province.”
After: “or have been members of the bar of that Prov- ince.”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: EasyDisputing a charge: Easy
The text relies heavily on subjective phrases such as 'in the opinion of', 'considers appropriate' and 'necessary' that leave outcomes open to argument. Defined terms exist but do not offset the broad discretion granted throughout the operative provisions.
Open to argument
“who are, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, necessary”
Subjective standard tied to an official's view rather than an objective test.“make any interim orders that it considers appropriate”
Open-ended discretion without defined limits or criteria.“if it considers it just to do so, having regard to changes in market interest rates, the conduct of the proceedings or any other relevant consideration”
Broad catch-all phrase invites prolonged debate over relevance.“that may, having regard to the circumstances, be found necessary”
Vague necessity test dependent on unspecified circumstances.
Clear-cut
“A judge shall not sit on the hearing of an appeal from a judgment he or she has pro”
Clear, objective prohibition with no discretion.“unless notice has been served on the Attorney General of Canada and the attorney general of each province in accordance with subsection (2).”
Specific procedural requirement that can be checked against facts.
Discretion. Extensive discretion is left to the Governor in Council, Chief Justices, individual judges and the Minister to decide necessity, appropriateness, fitness and arrangements.
Challenging the law itself. Repeated subjective standards and undefined discretion engage vagueness and overbreadth doctrines under section 7 of the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. Most obligations turn on discretionary judgments, so accused persons can readily dispute whether the required standard was met.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.