For Canadian economy, U.S. court ruling on tariffs brings hope, but also uncertainty
The initial ruling, by the U.S. Court of International Trade on Wednesday evening, struck down the Trump administration's 'Liberation Day' tariffs against more than 50 countries, along with tariffs Mr. Trump imposed on Canada, Mexico and China that were tied to fentanyl and border security.
The court found Mr. Trump overstepped his authority by bypassing Congress to impose the tariffs on national emergency grounds.
However, less than 24 hours later the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted the Trump administration's request to pause the lower court's ruling while it considers a challenge from the White House.
The frenetic period for U.S. tariff policies underscores the challenging and uncertain situation the Canadian economy finds itself in – but also suggests that further relief from punishing duties is possible.
'There is a glimmer of hope for Canadian exporters but the timeline for relief, if there even is relief, is still unknown,' said Julia Webster, a partner and trade lawyer at Baker McKenzie in Toronto.
The trade court ruling still left other tariffs in place, such as duties on all steel and aluminum imports, including from Canada.
Despite that, the decision offered reasons for optimism for Canada's economy, according to economists.
'If this ruling sticks and depending upon the course of actions from here, then the risk of recession in the U.S. and Canada has been sharply reduced,' wrote Derek Holt, an economist at Bank of Nova Scotia, in a research note on Thursday morning.
If the ruling holds, the average effective U.S. tariff rate on Canadian imports would drop by 1.2 percentage points to 2.6 per cent, while the tariff rate on goods from Mexico would decline by 2.3 percentage points to 2 per cent, according to research by Scotiabank's economics team.
However, the decision could trigger 'a game of Tariff Whack-a-Mole' in which Mr. Trump shifts the tactics he uses to impose tariffs, only for other court rulings to shut those down, Mr. Holt said.
In addition to the national emergency grounds, Mr. Trump still has at least five other mechanisms he can use to impose tariffs without the approval of Congress, including sector-specific tariffs such as those imposed on steel and aluminum under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act.
If anything, the trade court ruling could heighten uncertainty 'by forcing Trump to consider other and more legally-secure ways to impose new tariffs over the next few days and weeks,' according to a report by economists Thierry Wizman and Gareth Berry at Macquarie.
The decision also would mean 'freer' trade agreements that may have emerged from negotiations with trading partners in the coming weeks would be 'put under a cloud of doubt,' they wrote.
Against the backdrop of conflicting court decisions, business leaders said what's needed most is a new trade deal between Canada and the U.S.
'The end of this trade war with the U.S. will not come through the courts,' said Candace Laing, president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, in a statement. 'It will come when we have negotiated a durable, new agreement on trade that is trusted and respected by all involved.'
For now, companies would be wise to continue any duty-mitigation measures they've put into practice because 'the tariffs are in place until they're not,' Ms. Webster said.
If the ruling stands, importers who have paid tariffs to date could eventually submit refund requests to the U.S. government, she said. However with so much still up in the air, that paperwork may not be worth the time and effort.
Nor would the ruling answer more fundamental questions facing companies.
'This doesn't change what businesses have been struggling with the most, which is whether this is a wholesale reordering of the trading order that we've known to exist for decades,' Ms. Webster said. 'The waters have not settled.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBC
15 minutes ago
- CBC
Ford says Carney stayed over at his Muskoka cottage Monday night
Ontario Premier Doug Ford, speaking to reporters at the end of Day 2 of the first ministers' meeting in Huntsville, Ont., says he and the prime minister were up past midnight 'chatting by the fireplace, solving the world's problems.'
CTV News
16 minutes ago
- CTV News
B.C. landlord must pay evicted tenants $65K, court rules
A B.C. landlord who sold a rental property failed to convince a judge the buyers – who never moved into the home – should be on the hook for compensating wrongfully evicted tenants, according to a recent decision. Justice Anita Chan ruled on the dispute Friday, upholding a decision of B.C.'s Residential Tenancy Branch awarding $65,000 in compensation to the former renters. In 2022, Mohan Sull, the landlord, was renting the North Vancouver home to Thomas and Rozette Trevitt for $5,650 a month, the court heard. Sull entered into an agreement to sell the property and served the tenants with a two-month notice of eviction because 'the buyers intended to occupy the property,' according to the decision. But the buyers never moved in. 'The buyers undertook extensive renovations. The city in March 2023 issued a stop-work order. The buyers did not obtain the proper permits until May 2024. I understand the property is still fully gutted with no one residing there currently,' the judge wrote. The ousted renters successfully challenged their eviction on the grounds that the 'stated purpose of the notice to end tenancy was not accomplished,' the decision said. Buyers were not 'purchasers;' sale was conditional Sull was seeking a judicial review of the arbitrator's decision on a number of grounds, including that it was the buyers – not him – who should have to pay. 'The buyers had possession of the property and did not occupy it. The landlord argues he has no control over the property and he ought not to be held liable,' Chan wrote, summarizing the crux of Sull's submission on that point. The judge's decision explained that the arbitrator had already considered and dismissed this argument, finding that the buyers did not 'meet the definition of purchasers' in the Residential Tenancy Act. The legislation defines a purchaser as someone who has agreed to purchase 'at least half of the full reversionary interest in the property' and the arbitrator found that criteria was not met in this case, according to the judgment. That was because the deal was a five-year 'option to purchase' agreement. The buyers put down $100,000 and agreed to pay a monthly interest fee of $5,800 for the next five years or until they decided to complete the purchase of the property. 'If there was an agreement to terminate the contract, the down payment and any additional payments were to be returned to the buyers,' the decision explained. Even if the buyers were 'purchasers,' the arbitrator found the landlord was not legally entitled to evict the tenants. A landlord who has sold a property can end a tenancy but only if 'all the conditions on which the sale depends have been satisfied,' the decision explained. Because of the nature of the agreement, the sale of the property was 'at its core' a conditional sale unless and until the option to purchase was exercised. 'The arbitrator emphasized that the wrongful act was not that the buyers had not occupied the property, but rather that the tenants ought not to have had their tenancy terminated in the first place,' the decision said. The judge agreed on this point. 'The landlord was not entitled to provide the two-month notice to end tenancy, as there was no unconditional sale of the property,' Chan wrote. Unenforceable clause Sull also argued to the arbitrator and again to the judge that the eviction was legal and justified because of a clause written into the lease that read 'tenant and owner both agree to give two full calendar months written notice, when they plan to end the lease.' The problem with that argument, the judge noted, was that it was an 'impermissible opting out of the mandatory provisions of the (Residential Tenancy Act) because 'a landlord cannot end a tenancy by providing two months' written notice for any reason.' The legislation lays out specific circumstances in which a landlord can end a tenancy and leases which 'attempt to avoid or contract out' of those legal obligations are 'of no effect,' according to the decision. 'The arbitrator found that (the) clause was an attempt by the parties to increase the circumstances by which the landlord can end the tenancy,' the decision said. The judge agreed with this assessment and found the arbitrator's decision, as a whole, was reasonable in the circumstances. Wrongfully evicted tenants in circumstances like these are generally entitled to compensation equivalent to 12 months of rent. In this case, that worked out to $67,800 but the judge noted an award of $65,000 as the maximum allowable for a dispute settled by the Residential Tenancy Branch.
CTV News
16 minutes ago
- CTV News
Sudbury mine story was ‘about a man using the men's showers,' says gender studies professor
Lau O'Gorman, who is non-binary, has co-authored a comprehensive guide on the use of inclusive pronouns and language. They also used to teach in the Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies program at Thorneloe University. A professor of women and gender studies in Greater Sudbury is taking CTV News Northern Ontario to task for a recent story about gender identification and shower policies at Vale Ltd. The story quoted a letter writer who works at Vale in Sudbury who said he was uncomfortable sharing the showers with someone with 'female body parts, both top and bottom,' adding that it was 'compromising our marriages.' But in an interview, Laur O'Gorman said we incorrectly identified the person as 'a woman who identifies as a man,' when really, it was about a trans man. Inflammatory language 'So if you're using the language the letter writer used, and you're saying a woman who identifies as a man is using men's changing rooms, well, that sounds like (it's) really a woman in the men's room,' they said in a Zoom interview. 'But if you use the accepted language and you say, 'trans man showers in men's changing room,' it's a man using a men's room, right? And it takes away a lot of the piece that seems inflammatory.' Under the law, O'Gorman said employers as big as Vale are required to allow workers to use facilities that match their gender identity. In this case, the person's gender identity is male and so uses the men's shower. 'If you use the accepted language and you say, 'trans man showers in men's changing room,' it's a man using a men's room, right? And it takes away a lot of the piece that seems inflammatory.' — Laur O'Gorman 'As a trans man, you are a man and not a woman who identifies as a man,' O'Gorman said. 'A trans man may choose to use the all-gender facilities or may feel safer using the men's room -- or more affirmed using the men's room.' It comes down to safety, they said, and which room this person feels most comfortable using. O'Gorman, who is non-binary, has co-authored a comprehensive guide on the use of inclusive pronouns and language. They also used to teach in the Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies program at Thorneloe University. The guide defines a trans man as 'men who were assigned female at birth (AFAB). They often have a masculine name and appearance.' O'Gorman said it's challenging for trans men to live in a body that people may see as another gender. 'You see yourself as a man,' they said. 'Other people may or may not.' O'Gorman said some trans men look very masculine and don't feel comfortable using non-gender facilities. And employers such as Vale are required to accommodate them. 'I've seen like a lot of trans men that have full beards and are like these big, buff, tall guys,' they said. Following the law 'The employer is just doing what the law says. The union is supporting the employer and doing what the law says. The trans person is using … the showers where they feel most comfortable.' Another part of the worker's letter said he not only felt uncomfortable, but that the trans man was threatening his marriage. O'Gorman said it's difficult to understand how showering with a trans man could threaten someone's marriage. 'The solution is close your eyes – (then) there's no problem,' they said. 'The whole situation can be fixed by just not looking at them, just the way you don't really look at any of the other men's bodies. Don't look, right? Like, it's a very simple thing in my opinion.' — Laur O'Gorman 'I would suggest talking to a therapist about it because, like, there's no physical threat. The person is not doing anything. They're minding their own business and taking a shower. 'The whole situation can be fixed by just not looking at them, just the way you don't really look at any of the other men's bodies. Don't look, right? Like, it's a very simple thing in my opinion.' O'Gorman said the issue is part of a larger narrative that portrays trans people as somehow a threat, when in reality, they are extremely vulnerable. Current political discourse is also demonizing immigrants, homeless people and even vaccine use, O'Gorman said, just as fear was spread during desegregation movements in the United States decades ago. Politicians play on the fear of the unknown for their own political purposes, not reality, they said. 'The political rhetoric is really dangerous, especially all of the discussion around bathrooms and what bathroom people should use,' O'Gorman said. While fear is being spread about bathroom use, O'Gorman said the reality is trans people are the ones at risk of being attacked in bathrooms, not the other way around. 'There is no case in North America … of violence in bathrooms involving trans people,' they said. 'There has never been a case of a trans person hurting somebody else in a washroom, in a shower, in these spaces. It has never happened.'
