judicial review
-
“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
-
Keeping Out or Stepping In?
When should the courts intervene in internal disputes of voluntary associations? Continue reading
-
For What It’s Worth
University of Toronto professor Richard Stacey recently released an article in the University of Toronto Law Journal (paywalled, which is truly unfortunate), arguing that (among other things) the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Vavilov “affirm[s]” the Supreme Court’s controversial decision in Doré (340; see also 351). To be specific, Stacey says (340-341): Read together, Continue reading
-
Overcoming Justice Abella’s Admin Law Legacy
On the occasion of her retirement, what can we learn from Justice Abella’s administrative law generation? Continue reading
-
An Oddity in Strom
In October, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal released its much-anticipated decision in Strom. Strom raised a number of important issues: “ “at the intersection between professional regulation, Ms. Strom’s private life, and the s.2(b) Charter guarantee of freedom of expression in the age of social media.” Strom was a registered nurse. Her grandfather tragically Continue reading
-
On John Willis and the Pesky Politics of Administrative Law
John Willis was and is considered one of Canada’s most important administrative law academics. As a student of administrative law and the law of judicial review, one cannot skip Willis’ classic works, like his books “The Parliamentary Powers of English Government Departments” and “Canadian Boards at Work”—and his caustic papers, including his attack on the Continue reading
-
Vavilov in the Prisons
By now, Vavilov—the case in which the Supreme Court re-jigged Canada’s standard of review framework—has received sustained attention, including from yours truly. Over at Administrative Law Matters, Professor Daly has a running post outlining how Vavilov has been applied in some particular interesting cases. And on SSRN, Jamie Chai Yun Liew has an excellent article Continue reading
-
The Continued Relevance of “Jurisdiction”
This post is co-written with Leonid Sirota One of the innovations of Vavilov was its dispatch of so-called “jurisdictional questions” from the standard of review analysis. A long-time feature of Canadian administrative law, jurisdictional questions were said to arise “where the tribunal must explicitly determine whether its statutory grant of power gives it authority to Continue reading
-
Doré Revisited: A Response to Professor Daly
Over on Administrative Law Matters, Professor Paul Daly argues that Doré actually “emerges strengthened” from Vavilov. Professor Daly’s post responds to my own paper (The Conceptual Gap Between Doré and Vavilov) and post, where I argue the opposite. In this post, I would like to respond critically to Professor Daly’s interesting and provocative arguments. I Continue reading
-
The Life and Times of Patent Unreasonableness
Post-Vavilov, can a legislature freely specify the standard of review? The answer seems obvious. Legislation overrides the common law, so as the Vavilov majority states, “…where the legislature has indicated the applicable standard of review, courts are bound to respect that designation, within the limits imposed by the rule of law” (Vavilov, at para 35). Continue reading
Double Aspect 