Mark Mancini
-
Horrocks: What Happens to Agraira?
One of the more nerdy judicial review questions is the standard of review applicable from an appellate court to a lower court in judicial review cases. That is, how do appellate courts deal with lower court decisions that, either through a right of appeal or by application for judicial review, review administrative decisions? The current Continue reading
-
On the Rule of Law, Blockades, and Indigenous Self-Government
Recently, Canadians have been captivated by a set of protests occurring both in British Columbia and Ontario in relation to the Coastal GasLink pipeline. The pipeline is a $6B dollar, 670 km project which runs across Northern British Columbia. In British Columbia, the hereditary chiefs of the Wet’suwet’en lead blockades across the pipeline path, even Continue reading
-
What Does Vavilov Stand For?
This post is co-written with Leonid Sirota. As we previously noted in a joint post on Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, that decision leaves open the question whether reasonableness review, as explained in the majority reasons, tends toward deference or vigilance, and so whether it will be more rigorous Continue reading
-
Richardson: Rigorous Vavilov Review
In one of the Federal Court of Appeal’s post-Vavilov cases, CNR v Richardson, the Court (per Nadon JA) demonstrates that Vavilov review, on substantive questions of law, will not be inattentive or subordinate to administrative discretion. Indeed, while some suggest that Vavilovian review is “inherently deferential,” I see the matter quite differently: Richardson shows how Continue reading
-
CBC v Ferrier, 2019 ONCA 1025: Considering Consideration of the Charter
Part II of a two-part series on Doré. Continue reading
-
After Vavilov, Doré is Under Stress
Part I of a two-part series on Doré Continue reading
-
Day 12: Mark Mancini
Here are my three favourite dissents at the Supreme Court of Canada. All of my dissents are united by a focus on the Rule of Law and constitutionalism, traditionally understood. In other words, they prioritize constitutional text over abstract values; and they focus particularly on the hierarchy of laws under which the Constitution>statutes>the common law. Continue reading
-
Day Seven: Howard Kislowicz
The Disagreement is the Law Continue reading
-
Day Six: Carissima Mathen
It was a formidable challenge to select only three Supreme Court dissents. To make the choice more manageable, I decided to stick to Charter case law, and to focus on opinions that I personally found persuasive. That left out a number of notable opinions, such as William McIntyre’s uncompromising yet necessary challenges to his colleagues Continue reading
-
Day Four: Jonathan Maryniuk
I am honoured to be asked to provide three of my favourite Supreme Court of Canada dissents. I enjoyed reading dissents in my free time even before I was even accepted into law school. Picture me: I am in the lunchroom at one of my summer warehouse jobs in the middle of the night. Continue reading
Double Aspect 