Chair Flip

Blog

  • TIL: Henry VIII clauses

    A Henry VIII clause is a provision in an Act of Parliament (primary legislation) that authorizes the Governor in Council (or some other executive authority) to amend or modify the text of that Act by regulation, rather than through the ordinary legislative process.1 The name comes from the English King Henry VIII who had the power to make laws by proclamation under the Proclamation by the Crown Act 1539.

    It is now routine for legislatures to delegate certain law-making powers to the executive, typically through regulations issued under an enabling statute. In some cases, this delegated power extends to amending schedules appended to an Act of Parliament (for example, the different schedules or lists of substances regulated by Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, SC 1996, c 19, s 60).

    But in some cases, the primary legislation’s language in itself could be changed with a delegated authority instead of by passing a new Act of Parliament. This delegation of power is controversial and could be, as some would argue, unconstitutional.

    A Henry VIII clause is in the now functionally inoperative Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, enacted by SC 2018, c 12, s 186. Paragraph 168(3)(a) allows the Governor in Council to enact regulations “adapting or modifying any provision of this Part […]” and s 168(4) provides that the regulations made under this authority prevail over the language of that Part in the Act itself in case of conflict. In References re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, 2021 SCC 11, Côté J expressed some reservation regarding this kind of delegation of power.2

    While the power in GGPPA seems to be more substantive, this kind of clauses are often used for housekeeping purposes and minor amendments.

    In a recent Alberta example, the Information and Privacy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, SA 2025, c 11, amended both the Access to Information Act and the Protection of Privacy Act to authorize the Lieutenant Governor in Council, “by regulation, [to] amend any Act […]” where such an amendment is considered “necessary” as a consequence of those statutes.3 During the legislative process, the NDP (opposition) sought to remove or limit the scope of this power, but the relevant amendments were voted down by the government. The government defended the clauses as usual practices since the old Freedom of Information and Privacy Act was referenced in so many legislations and regulations that it would be easier to give the government the power to do these minor housekeeping amendments without going through the legislative process. Mr. Glubish, the responsible minister, also indicated a willingness to repeal these provisions in the Fall session if that would please the opposition.4

    In the United Kingdom, where Henry VIII clauses raise fewer constitutional concerns, some ministerial powers appear even more extensive. Section 51 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 authorizes a government minister to “amend, repeal, or revoke any existing statutory provision” if they “consider [it] appropriate in consequence of any provision of this Act.” To be fair, the statute also requires that any amendment or repeal of primary legislation be approved by both Houses of Parliament. However, this procedure does not involve the full ordinary legislative process or require royal assent. Amendments to secondary legislation under this provision may be annulled by either House.

    Also interesting to read: Standing Committee on Justice and Community Safety (Subordinate Legislation Committee), Henry VIII Clauses: Fact Sheet, by Stephen Argument (Legal Adviser) (Canberra: Legislative Assembly for the ACT, November 2011), including excerpts (from page 4) from Lord Judge’s5 speech in 2010 expressing concerns on the resurgence of modern Henry VIII clauses.

    Leaving Henry VIII clauses aside, it appears that regulation-making authority in the United Kingdom is subject to considerably greater parliamentary scrutiny than in Canada. Statutory instruments (SIs), the most common form of secondary legislation, are generally subject to either the affirmative procedure or the negative procedure. Under the affirmative procedure, an SI must be expressly approved by Parliament (either both Houses or, in some cases, only the Commons) before coming into force, subject to limited emergency provisions. Under the negative procedure, an SI automatically becomes law unless annulled within a prescribed period, with either House having the power to do so. According to the UK Parliament’s website, “a successful motion to stop the SI is rare. The House of Commons last did this in 1979 and the House of Lords in 2000.”

    Federally in Canada, statutory instruments can be revoked by resolution of both houses of the Parliament following some specified procedure (the resolution can only come from the scrutinization committee).6

    On another related and more recent front, Carney’s signature Building Canada Act (enacted by SC 2025, c 2, s 4) gives the federal government power to exempt designated major projects of national interest from the application of certain laws and regulations. In the originally proposed text, s 21 of the Act would have permitted the government to exempt a designated project from any federal law or regulation. In the enacted version, a list of “protected” statutes was added, along with a sunset clause that also prevents the government from altering the list of laws subject to exemption while Parliament is not sitting. Here, although the text of the core legislation remain formally unchanged, this broad authority to suspend the operation of other laws also raises concerns on the limit of delegated “rule”-making authority.7 The Act also exempts the designation of projects from the application of the Statutory Instruments Act that provides the procedure of parliamentary scrutiny.

    Questions for me later…: (1) Does any province give the legislature any control over secondary legislation? (2) Has any federal regulation been revoked by Parliament in Canada?

    1. UK Parliament, “Henry VIII clauses”, UK Parliament glossary, https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/henry-viii-clauses/ ↩︎
    2. Mark L. Aaron, “The Constitutionality of Henry VIII Clauses in Canada: Administrative Law Matters No. 1 — in the References re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (2021 SCC 11)” (22 April 2021), Administrative Law Matters, https://www.administrativelawmatters.com/blog/2021/04/22/the-constitutionality-of-henry-viii-clauses-in-canada-administrative-law-matter-no-1-in-the-references-re-greenhouse-gas-pollution-pricing-act-2021-scc-11 ↩︎
    3. Aileen Burke, “Henry VIII Clauses – What They Are and Why They Matter” (9 April 2025), Alberta Counsel News, https://www.albertacounselnews.com/thenews/kfypjpj9lc0eg724k1jx4ti3qxl4iu
      ↩︎
    4. “Bill 46, Information and Privacy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025“, Committee of the Whole, Alberta Hansard, 31-1, No 110 (12 May 2025) at 3371 (Hon Nate Glubish) ↩︎
    5. Yes, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales from 2008 to 2013 was Lord Judge, Judge being the surname of Igor Judge, Lord Judge, Baron Judge. ↩︎
    6. Statutory Instruments Act, RSC 1985, c S-22, s 19.1 ↩︎
    7. Dale Smith, “Is Presidential Envy Behind the Renewed Push of Henry VIII Clauses?” CBA National Magazine (21 August 2025), https://www.nationalmagazine.ca/en-ca/articles/law/in-depth/2025/is-presidential-envy-behind-the-renewed-push-of-henry-viii-clauses ↩︎

  • Tremblay c. Daigle, [1989] 2 R.C.S. 530

    Tremblay c. Daigle, [1989] 2 R.C.S. 530

    Appelante : Chantal Daigle (D)
    Intimé : Jean-Guy Tremblay (T)

    Dans la Cour suprême du Canada

    Faits : D était en couple avec T, et ils ont rompu. D était enceinte et a décidé d’interrompre sa grossesse. T, le père du fœtus, a demandé une injonction pour empêcher l’avortement.

    (Avant l’audience devant la CSC, D s’est fait avorter à Boston.)

    Procédures précédentes : Le juge de première instance a reconnu le droit à la vie du fœtus en vertu de l’art. 1 (le droit à la vie) et 2 (le droit au secours) de la Charte québécoise et a accordé l’injonction ([1989] R.J.Q. 1980). La Cour d’appel a confirmé la décision ([1989] R.J.Q. 1735, 59 D.L.R. (4th) 609). Le pourvoi est interjeté avec autorisation devant la CSC.

    Question en litige : L’injonction interdisant l’avortement prévu par une femme à la demande du père du fœtus est-elle valide ? = Existe-t-il des droits substantifs qui peuvent fonder ce type d’injonction ?

    Motifs :

    La Cour ne tranche pas les questions philosophiques, mais elle répond à une question juridique sur la définition d’une personne ou d’un être humain en droit. Les arguments scientifiques ne sont pas non plus déterminants. C’est le législateur qui décide de ses choix sociaux, politiques et moraux.

    Or, le législateur n’a pas défini ce qu’est un “être humain” dans la Charte québécoise. Il n’est pas justifié de recourir à une définition de dictionnaire pour un terme aussi controversé. Sans définition explicite du statut du fœtus, on ne peut pas inférer une intention du législateur de lui conférer des droits.

    Le régime du Code civil importe peu. Le CC donne des droits spécifiques et limités à un enfant pas encore né ; il s’agit d’un mécanisme particulier (fiction du droit civil). Le fœtus doit être né vivant et viable pour bénéficier de ces droits ; il ne jouit d’aucune personnalité juridique.

    La situation est la même dans la common law : pour avoir des droits, le fœtus doit naître vivant.

    La Charte canadienne ne s’applique pas dans une action civile entre deux parties privées. La Cour s’abstient de traiter des questions constitutionnelles inutiles.

    Le droit du père en puissance dans la matière d’avortement n’a jamais été reconnu au Québec ou ailleurs au Canada et il n’y a pas de fondement dans le Code civil ou autres lois québécoises.

    Dispositif : Il n’existe aucun fondement légal permettant le père en puissance d’empêcher une femme de se faire avorter. L’injonction est annulée et le pourvoi est accueilli.

    Commentaires

    Depuis 1988 (R. c. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 R.C.S. 30), l’avortement n’est plus une infraction criminelle au Canada.

    Cette affaire pourrait être l’une des plus rapides entendues et jugées par la Cour suprême.

    D a appris qu’elle était enceinte en mars 1989. T a demandé une injonction provisoire le 7 juillet, qui a été confirmée le 17 juillet par une injonction interlocutoire. Le 19 juillet, l’autorisation d’appel devant la Cour d’appel a été accordée, et l’affaire a été entendue dès le 20 juillet. Le 26 juillet, la Cour d’appel a rendu son arrêt en maintenant l’injonction. Le même jour, D a demandé l’autorisation d’en appeler à la Cour suprême, qui l’a accordée le 1er août. Avant l’audience, D s’est fait avorter aux États-Unis. L’affaire a finalement été entendue par la Cour suprême le 8 août, malgré le fait accompli. La Cour a rendu sa décision le jour même au terme de l’audience (motifs déposés le 16 novembre 1989).

    Notes

    injonction provisoire = interim injunction (time-sensitive, in force until an interlocutory injunction can be heard)

    injonction interlocutoire = interlocutory injunction (court order to protect plaintiff’s interests before trial and final determination of the matter)

    père en puissance = prospective father (en puissance = potential, in possibility)

  • Dot · as (well, not) the multiplication sign

    Did you know that a dot, when placed vertically in the middle, is called an interpunct?

    As usual, there are several Unicode code points for interpunct (or interpunct-like characters), including:

    • U+00B7 · MIDDLE DOT
    • U+22C5 ⋅ DOT OPERATOR
    • U+1427 ᐧ CANADIAN SYLLABICS FINAL MIDDLE DOT (used in some Indigenous languages in Canada)
    • U+A78F ꞏ LATIN LETTER SINOLOGICAL DOT (what on earth does that mean?)

    But anyway, going back to what prompted my query: if I should use a cross ($\times$) or a dot ($\cdot$) for multiplication in a equation written over multiple lines (and a line break occurs in the middle of a multiplication). The two signs are obviously not interchangeable in many contexts (e.g., vector multiplication), but in my case it did not matter.

    During my search, I learnt that (apparently) some British conventions avoid using the · for multiplication (thanks, Reddit).1 The reason—again, apparently—is that the interpunct was used as the decimal sign in the UK well into the 20th century (and even today!), that is, people write 167·12 instead of 167.12 to mean one hundred sixty-seven and twelve hundredths.

    An extract from the Lancet showing the use of interpuncts as decimal separators.
    Extract from an article in The Lancet https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0140-6736(25)01148-1

    Indeed, while Nature has changed its practice in/around 1971,2 The Lancet still continues the interpunct tradition to this day. Comments on Reddit and Academia Stack Exchange3 also suggest that many British pupils were (are?) taught to always place the decimal point vertically in the middle.

    I also came across two articles4 in Nature about the choice of decimal separators in the UK (in the context of currency decimalization). The interpunct had been a traditional British practice, but the British Standards Institution (BSI) advocated for using commas (as in much of continental Europe). The Decimal Currency Board (DCB) favoured the traditional system. One reason was that the BSI also favoured using spaces as thousands separators, which banks thought would be vulnerable to fraud attempts. BSI gave up in 1968, even though some industries had started to use the space/comma system.

    The government seemed to have intended to preserve the raised dot/interpunct as the decimal separator, but recognized the usage of full stop/dot on the baseline as a valid alternative in typed documents.5

    I also learnt that people write hyphen for the decimal point on cheques in the UK.

    The point on the line gradually became universally adopted in the UK, apart from a few holdouts (e.g., the aforementioned The Lancet), probably due to the lack of interpunct on typewriters and computer keyboards.

    As for myself, I prefer the Swiss banking convention: 1’234’567.89.

    1. https://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/od0i6w/british_maths_doesnt_use_the_multiplication_sign/ (archived) ↩︎
    2. Compare the decimal numbers in the tables in Nature 228, 1269 (1970) and Nature 229, 17 (1971) ↩︎
    3. https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/117982/central-dot-as-decimal-point-in-top-journal
      ↩︎
    4. Victory on Points. Nature 218, 111 (1968). DOI: 10.1038/218111c0;
      Full Stop on Decimals. Nature 217, 995 (1968). DOI: 10.1038/217995b0 ↩︎
    5. Decimal Currency: Booklet on Written and Printed Forms. Building: Metrication News 121 (March 22, 1968). ↩︎