-
Case Title & Citation
Canada (Attorney General) v. McArthur, [1993] 2 F.C. 63 (FCA). -
Decision Summary (Neutral Overview)
This case concerned an application for mandamus, asking the Federal Court to compel government action. The Federal Court of Appeal clarified when a court should issue mandamus to force a public authority to perform a legal duty.
The Court held that mandamus requires:
-
A clear public duty to act.
-
The duty owed to the applicant.
-
A prior demand for performance and a refusal or unreasonable delay.
-
No other adequate remedy.
-
Practical utility in granting the order.
On the facts, McArthur did not meet all criteria, so mandamus was not granted, but the decision became a leading statement of the test.
-
Historical & Legal Context
Mandamus is an ancient prerogative remedy used to compel public officials to carry out non-discretionary duties. Canadian courts in the late 20th century refined its modern criteria in administrative and immigration contexts. -
Key Legal Principles Identified in the Case
-
Mandamus is available where: duty + request + refusal + no other remedy + real utility.
-
Courts can intervene to force public bodies to act where they are unlawfully failing to perform a clear duty.
-
Implications for Haldimand, Loyalist, and Mohawk Questions
-
McArthur supplies the procedural backbone for your Application for Writ of Mandamus.
-
It supports the argument that:
-
Canada and Ontario have clear duties rooted in Haldimand, Dorchester, Simcoe, and the 1791 confirmation;
-
Mohawk Loyalist posterity has demanded performance (recognition, registry, jurisdictional clarity);
-
Governments have refused or stalled;
-
No ordinary remedy exists; and
-
A court order would have real utility.
-
-
Points of Interest to Mohawk of Grand River Posterity
-
McArthur shows that courts are not helpless when governments “ghost” their obligations.
-
It sets out a checklist that Mohawk petitioners can specifically tailor: identify the duty, document the demand and refusal, and argue the absence of alternative remedies.
-
Unresolved Questions / Future Research Directions
-
How will courts treat constitutional duties (Haldimand, Dorchester, Simcoe) alongside statutory duties in a mandamus application?
-
Can mandamus be used not just to compel a single act (e.g., issuing a document) but to require a process (e.g., creating hereditary registries, halting unauthorized taxation)?
-
Sources
-
Canada (AG) v. McArthur, [1993] 2 F.C. 63 (FCA).
-
Secondary commentary on mandamus in Canadian administrative law.
Leave a Reply