Provincial Court Judges' Assn of New Brunswick v New Brunswick (Minister of Justice); Ontario Judges Assn v Ontario (Management Board); Bodner v Alberta; Conférence des juges du Québec v Quebec (AG); Minc v Quebec (AG) [2005] 2 S.C.R.

[4] The Court of Appeal, conversely, thought that the requirement that government reasons be rational should be a very difficult test to pass and only "extraordinary circumstances" could justify not following recommendations.

In it, the Court quickly dismissed the notion that commission recommendations are mandatory on the grounds that this contradicted the 1997 Reference.

[6] The Supreme Court also found that rational justification for not following recommendations could be defined as the government giving full reasons that address the Commissions' points.

In 2005, the Court announced that "We are now adding a third stage which requires the reviewing judge to view the matter globally and consider whether the overall purpose of the commission process has been met.

[12] Applying these new standards to the four cases, the Supreme Court found only the Quebec government's reasons were irrational.