R. v. CONWAY - British Columbia Review Board

[76] In the case of Okwuobi, the issue was the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal
of Québec to hear rights claims for minority language education under the Charter of the French
Language, R.S.Q., c. C-41, and the Canadian Charter. Based on Martin and Paul, the Court
concluded:
As will become clear, the fact that the ATQ is vested with the ability to decide
questions of law is crucial, and is determinative of its jurisdiction to apply the Canadian
Charter in this appeal. The quasi-judicial structure of the ATQ, discussed briefly
above, may be indicative of a legislative intention that constitutional questions be
considered and decided by the ATQ, but the structure of the ATQ is not determinative.
This is evidenced by the recent decisions of this Court in Nova Scotia (Workers’
Compensation Board) v. Martin, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 504, 2003 SCC 54, and Paul v. British
Columbia (Forest Appeals Commission), [2003] 2 S.C.R. 585, 2003 SCC 55. [para. 28]
In Okwuobi, the Administrative Tribunal of Québec was found to have the jurisdiction to decide
questions of law. The presumption in favour of constitutional jurisdiction was therefore triggered
and was not rebutted.
[77] These cases confirm that administrative tribunals with the authority to decide
questions of law and whose Charter jurisdiction has not been clearly withdrawn have the
corresponding authority — and duty — to consider and apply the Constitution, including the
Charter, when answering those legal questions. As McLachlin J. observed in Cooper:
[E]very tribunal charged with the duty of deciding issues of law has the concomitant
power to do so. The fact that the question of law concerns the effect of the Charter does
not change the matter. The Charter is not some holy grail which only judicial initiates
of the superior courts may touch. The Charter belongs to the people. All law and