Administrative Law
-
Fair is Fair
The requirements of due process are often minimal, but still important. Continue reading
-
A “Bright” Signal for Canada? Farewell to Chevron Deference
In Loper Bright, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the long-standing judicial review doctrine of Chevron deference. The decision has been met with all manner of criticism and celebration. There is no doubt that Loper Bright sends an important and valuable signal: it is the judicial role to decide questions of law, wherever Continue reading
-
Sotto Voce
The Supreme Court has an inexplicable habit, especially in administrative law. Much has been written about the Court’s uneasy—to put it mildly—relationship with precedent. Especially after Bedford/Carter, which expanded the grounds on which previous precedents can be discarded, stare decisis is less of a hard-and-fast rule and more of an option in hard cases. But Continue reading
-
The Metastasis of Charter Vibes…Again
**A version of this appeared in my newsletter, the Sunday Evening Administrative Review** For the two years or so that I have been doing this newsletter, the story has been a good one. Vavilov settled the law of judicial review to such a considerable extent that I found myself optimistic about the state of things. However, this Continue reading
-
Simplicity in the Law of Judicial Review of Regulations: Auer and TransAlta
This post is derived from this week’s edition of my newsletter, the Sunday Evening Administrative Review. ______________________________________________ Auer v Auer, 2022 ABCA 375 (November 22, 2022); TransAlta Generation Partnership v Alberta (Minister of Municipal Affairs), 2022 ABCA 381 (November 23, 2022) Context and Holding: In these decisions, the ABCA deals with the question of how Continue reading
-
The Post-Vavilov Supreme Court and Administrative Law
Reason for optimism? After the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Abrametz and ESA (both of which are summarized and analyzed in my newsletter here and here, respectively), there is much to say. But I just want to quickly identify one emerging trend: the centrifugal force of the principles in Vavilov in areas of administrative law Continue reading
-
Immigration and Refugee Decision-Making: The Vavilov Effect?
It has been a while since I’ve blogged. The last few months have been—in a word—chaotic. I’m hoping to blog more regularly going forward now that some of these things have settled One of the areas where administrative law really comes to life is in immigration decision-making, particularly front-line decision-making like visa decisions or humanitarian Continue reading
-
Boilerplate in Decision-Making
Administrative boilerplate is probably legion in government, but of course, this is an empirical question. Nonetheless, I have read enough cases to know that individuals at the foot of administrative power—many times in front-line decision-making— are at least sometimes faced with deciphering reasons that purport to have “considered all the factors.” Confronted, as well, with Continue reading
-
What Does City of Toronto Mean For Administrative Law?
The Supreme Court released its much-anticipated decision today in Toronto (City) v Ontario (Attorney General), 2021 SCC 34. While others will address the nuances of the case, the majority generally puts unwritten constitutional principles into a tiny, little box. It says that because “[u]nwritten principles are…part of the law of our Constitution…” [50], unwritten principles Continue reading
-
“Administrative Sabotage” and the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal
Recently, Professor David Noll (Rutgers Law) posted a fascinating article called “Administrative Sabotage” on SSRN, forthcoming in the Michigan Law Review. You can view the article here, and Professor Noll wrote a fascinating thread outlining its main arguments. The abstract: Government can sabotage itself. From the president’s choice of agency heads to agency budgets, regulations, Continue reading
Double Aspect 