As a matter of general principle, when a statute vests a power or function in an identified person, such as “the Commissioner” or “the Board”, the identified person or entity – and no one else – should exercise the power or function (see, e.g. Canada (Attorney-General) v. Brent [1956] SCR 318; Roncarelli v. Duplessis [1959] […] Read more

This is an extract from my recent paper on bias (available here): In this section, I will draw a contrast between an Australian decision and one from Canada, again to support my proposition that the law relating to bias is best understood in terms of temporal and spatial proximity. At the centre of the tale […] Read more

This is an extract from my recent paper on bias (available here):   I will consider three Canadian decisions in this section. They each relate to the prior relationship between a decision-maker and a party to a matter. The issue in Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy Board[1] was the perceived lack of […] Read more

In my factum for the Telus case (noted here), I discussed two ways in which courts can engage in dynamic statutory interpretation. I represented the Canadian Telecommunications Association. I thought it might be helpful to reproduce the relevant portions of the factum here. Commonwealth courts manage the difficult task of applying statutory provisions to changing […] Read more

I had the privilege to be involved in Telus Communications Inc. v. Federation of Canadian Municipalities, 2025 SCC 15 as counsel for one of the intervenors (the Canadian Telecommunications Association) in this fascinating statutory interpretation case. The difficulty was as follows: the Telecommunications Act provides that in the event of a disagreement between telecommunications carriers and […] Read more

There are some interesting nuggets in the recent Privy Council decision in National Bank of Anguilla (Private Banking and Trust) Ltd (in Administration) v. Chief Minister of Anguilla, [2025] UKPC 14 one on the meaning of the arguable case standard for judicial review and one on the duty of candour. The case arose from a […] Read more

This is an extract from my recent paper on the law of bias (available here): There is a problem with the common law of bias as applied to administrative decision-makers. Comprised of a set of heavily context-sensitive principles, it is difficult to predict the application of the law of bias in advance. The Privy Council […] Read more

This morning, the Leaders’ Debates Commission (a body created by an Order in Council to organize leadership debates in advance of federal elections) rescinded its invitation to the Green Party to participate in two debates, this evening and tomorrow. The decision is available here. The reason is that the Green Party initially provided a list […] Read more

I have posted a new paper on SSRN, entitled “On Time and Space: Proximity in the Law of Bias“. I’ll be posting select extracts over the next while. Here is the abstract: In this piece I address the common law of bias in administrative law and offer a proposal designed to enhance analytical clarity: Lawyers […] Read more

In its decision in Auer v. Auer, 2024 SCC 36, the Supreme Court of Canada set out a framework for judicial review of regulations. Put very simply, the reasonableness standard developed in Vavilov applies just as much to regulations (and other forms of administrative action that are general in nature) as it does to individualized decisions. […] Read more