Supreme Court Act

Standard and procedure for granting leave (p. 23)

The standard [for granting leave], as explained earlier, is that of public importance. Three judges review each application. If they are convinced that the written material contains a question of public importance, they will grant leave. If the panel is split, the practice has been that the application is presented at a monthly Court conference and discussed with the other six judges. If four of the nine judges agree to hear it, the panel of three judges assigned the leave application will grant leave. The court retains discretion to order an oral argument on a leave application. [F.n. 51: ...Supreme Court Act, sec. 43(1)(c).] This rare occurrence is likely when the Court is in doubt from the written material whether to grant leave or when the judges think it is necessary to clarify the issues it wants to hear on appeal and weed out those it does not want to hear. In a recent tax case, for example, during an oral leave motion the judges told counsel that it wanted to ensure the parties would address two specific issues among the many advanced by the applicant in order to prevent an unfocussed appeal. [F.n. 52: [The Honourable Henry S. Brown, Supreme Court of Canada Practice 2015...(Carswell 2014)], at p. 103. The case was Daishowa-Marubeni International Ltd v Canada. The oral motion was heard on 9 June 2012. ...judgment issued...as 2013 SCC 29, [2013] 2 S.C.R. 336.]