(This post is co-written with Paul Daly)
It may be hard to believe that March 7, 2018 marks the 10th anniversary of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9,  1 SCR 190, where the Court reformulated Canadian administrative law.
Dunsmuir is — by some distance — the most cited decision of any Canadian court and, for Canadians and Canadaphiles, synonymous with Canadian administrative law.
For most listeners, “Dunsmuir” will represent something more profound. It might evoke a sense of hope, for in 2008, onlookers hoped that the Court had finally settled some great questions about deference, the administrative state and the Canadian Constitution. But it might also evoke a sense of despair, for in the years since 2008, it has become clear that many questions remained unsettled, about the scope of deference the nature of judicial review, and the role of judges in administrative law cases.
For these reasons, March 7, 2018 is a date worth observing.
Paul Daly and I propose to mark the anniversary in a novel way. In the weeks leading up to March 7, Paul and I will publish on Administrative Law Matters and Double Aspect a series of short blog posts written by leading members of the Canadian legal community. The list of confirmed contributors and indicative topics appears below (though is, of course, subject to change).
On March 7, we will publish a post by Justice David Stratas of the Federal Court of Appeal summarizing the contributions and the current state of play in relation to Dunsmuir, and, in addition, contributions by Louis LeBel and Michel Bastarache, the authors of the majority reasons in Dunsmuir, reflecting on the case and contemporary reactions to it.
These contributions will subsequently be published in the Canadian Journal of Administrative Law & Practice, the overall goal being to enrich discussion of Canadian administrative law and to blend new and old forms of legal writing. Contributors will be encouraged to edit their contributions in light of comments received from blog readers and other discussants on social media ― so don’t be shy!
The Background to Dunsmuir/Le contexte de Dunsmuir
Sheila Wildeman (Dalhousie)
Martine Valois (Montréal)
Lorne Sossin (Osgoode Hall)
Clarence Bennett (Stewart McKelvey LLP)
The Philosophy of Dunsmuir/La philosophie de Dunsmuir
Matthew Lewans (Alberta)
Mark Walters (McGill)
Mary Liston (UBC)
Correctness Review/La norme de la décision correcte
Lauren Wihak (McDougall Gauley LLP)
Suzanne Comtois (Sherbrooke)
Shaun Fluker (Calgary)
Gerald Heckman (Robson Hall)
Reasonableness Review/La norme de la decision raisonnable
David Mullan (Queen’s)
Eddie Clarke (Wellington)
Peter Gall (Gall Legge Grant Zwack LLP)
Alice Woolley (Calgary)
Dunsmuir and Fairness/Dunsmuir et l’équité procédurale
Kate Glover (Western)
Laverne Jacobs (Windsor)
Nicholas Lambert (Moncton)
Dunsmuir and the Constitution/Dunsmuir et la constitution
Audrey Macklin (Toronto)
Evan Fox-Decent & Alexander Pless (McGill & Justice Canada)
Indigenous Peoples and Dunsmuir/Les peoples autochtones et Dunsmuir
Naoimi Metallic (Dalhousie)
Janna Promislow (Thompson Rivers)
Teaching Dunsmuir/Enseigner Dunsmuir
Craig Forcese (Ottawa)
Judicial Perspectives/Regards de la magistrature
John Evans (Goldblatt Partners LLP)
Joseph Robertson (UNB) “How Would Dunsmuir be Decided Today?”
Comparative Perspectives/Regards comparatifs
Dean Knight (Wellington)
Jeff Pojanowski (Notre Dame)
Janina Boughey (UNSW)
The Effects of Dunsmuir/Les effets de Dunsmuir
Diana Ginn & Will Lahey (Dalhousie)
Paul Daly (Cambridge)
Robert Danay (Justice Canada)
Moving on from Dunsmuir/Faut-il passer à autre chose?
Leonid Sirota (AUT)
Martin Olszynski (Calgary)
Louis LeBel (Laval)
Michel Bastarache (Caza Saikaley LLP)
David Stratas (Federal Court of Appeal