|
|
96. Par contre, si l'on réduit le noyau de pouvoirs non transférables en laissant ainsi entendre que seuls sont sacro‑saints les pouvoirs inhérents que les cours visées à l'art. 96 ont de contrôler leur procédure, on risque alors que de vastes domaines de la compétence en matière contractuelle, délictuelle et criminelle soient transférés impunément à des cours de justice parallèles, ce qui détruirait le compromis des Pères de la Confédération et l'effet voulu de l'art.
|
|
|
67 This functional approach to determining whether a transfer of s. 96 power is valid or not possesses merits which a categorical approach lacks. The fundamental problem which arises when one attempts to identify protected areas of s. 96 jurisdiction by the type of power conferred is that any test threatens to be at once under and over inclusive. For example, if one suggests that important areas of common law, like criminal law, contract law or the inherent powers of the courts cannot be transferred from s. 96 courts, one is faced with the difficulty that aspects of criminal and contract law and inherent powers of the courts figure prominently in the administrative machinery of this country, without apparent harm to s. 96 courts. On the other hand, if one reduces the core of non transferable powers, suggesting that only the inherent powers of s. 96 courts to control their process are sacrosanct, one faces the problem that vast areas of contract, tort and criminal jurisdiction could be transferred to shadow courts with impunity, thus destroying the compromise of the Fathers of Confederation and the intended effect of s. 96. By contrast, the Residential Tenancies test, by focusing on the function of the power in the administrative context rather than the nature of the power conferred, provides sufficient flexibility to equip administrative tribunals with the powers they need to do their work, while preserving the constitutional position of the s. 96 courts.
|
