Vavilov
-
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
-
New Paper on Doré and Vavilov
Frequent readers of this blog will know that I have written here on the subject of the propriety of Doré post-Vavilov. As many of you know, I do not believe that Doré can stand in light of Vavilov. I have now outlined more extensively why that is is, in a paper that will appear in… 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
-
The Nero Post: Two Niche Issues in Judicial Review Post-Vavilov
Lest I be accused of fiddling while Rome burns, I wish to note that I approach a pandemic as a time in which we must, subject to social distancing and isolation, proceed as normal as much as possible. Indeed, it is this sense of normalcy that should characterize what we do as much as possible.… 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
-
Tout nouveau, tout beau?
Ce que dit, et ce que ne dit pas, l’arrêt Vavilov, pour nos lecteurs francophones Continue reading
-
After Vavilov, Doré is Under Stress
Part I of a two-part series on Doré Continue reading
-
Vavilov’s Reasonableness Standard: A Legal Hard-Look Review
In my first post on Vavilov, I celebrated the Court for finally bringing some sense to the Canadian law of judicial review. Particularly, I focused on three issues relevant to determining the standard of review: the banishment of jurisdictional questions, the introduction of statutory rights of appeal as a category of correctness review, and the… Continue reading
Double Aspect 