Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 15 SEPTEMBER 2026

Supreme Court Strikes Down Privative Clause: What Democracy Watch v Canada Means For Administrative Decision-makers

Miller Thomson
Miller Thomson
Contributor

Miller Thomson

Miller Thomson LLP ("Miller Thomson") is a national business law firm with approximately 500...

View firm profile
Explore more from Miller Thomson

The Supreme Court of Canada has unanimously struck down a privative clause in the Conflict of Interest Act that attempted to bar judicial review of the Ethics Commissioner's decisions. The ruling establishes that the Constitution guarantees a minimum of legality review over all administrative decisions, with implications extending to labour relations, workers' compensation, and immigration legislation containing similar clauses.

CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

The Supreme Court of Canada (the “Court”) has unanimously struck down a privative clause in the Conflict of Interest Act that attempted to bar judicial review of the Ethics Commissioner’s decisions on questions of fact and law. In Democracy Watch v Canada (Attorney General), 2026 SCC 28, the Court held that the Constitution guarantees a minimum of legality review over all administrative decisions, and that this guarantee cannot be legislated away.

The implications of this decision extend well beyond the Ethics Commissioner. Any statute containing a privative clause, a common feature of labour relations, workers’ compensation, and immigration legislation, may now be vulnerable to challenge.

Administrative decision-makers, policy drafters, and the lawyers who advise them should take note.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

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.

See more popular content from