While the opinion given by the Supreme Court of Canada is not considered to be of
the same precedential value as the decisions involving regular litigants, governments do not usually ignore the Court's opinion.
Despite its mootness, the Province advances the argument that the Court of Appeal should consider the issues on appeal so as to address the
precedential value of the Chambers Judge's order and since other taxpayers will likely pursue the
same interim remedy.
The Court of Review is an appellate court, and like other Article III appellate courts, it has the power to bind both lower courts (in this case, the FISC) and later Court of Review panels.22 The Court of Review probably has the
same discretion as federal courts of appeals to designate opinions as
precedential and non-
precedential; at least, no statutory provision declares otherwise.23 The two public Court of Review opinions are published in redacted form in the Federal Reporter.24 As with the published case of the FISC sitting en banc, these published Court of Review cases are certainly
precedential.25 We do not know the volume, if any, of secret non-
precedential Court of Review opinions, or whether there are non-public Court of Review opinions that are nonetheless treated as
precedential.