Although B010 v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 SCC 58 was billed in the initial summary as an administrative law case, there is precious little discussion of the general principles of standard of review in McLachlin C.J.’s decision for a unanimous Supreme Court of Canada. At issue was the interpretation of legislation designed to discourage […] Read more

Now that all the fuss about his past life as a blogger has died down, it is safe to venture a few comments about Justice Russell Brown’s appointment to the Supreme Court. He replaces Rothstein J., who retires today, leaving a very large gap in the Court’s administrative law and economic regulation expertise. Brown J. […] Read more

In my view, the Supreme Court of Canada’s commitment to deference is in tension with its institutional role as the country’s highest court. According deference to administrative decision-makers means favoring legal pluralism, permitting those decision-makers to put their own spin on rules of substantive and procedural law. But a court of final resort may feel […] Read more

So much has already been written about the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision in King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. ______ (2015) that tax credits are available on healthcare exchanges established by the federal government to implement the Affordable Care Act that I hardly feel the need to weigh in at all: SCOTUS blog […] Read more

Where an administrative decision-maker has violated a fundamental right, how should courts review the decision? Should they apply the standards of constitutional law (a proportionality test, for example)? Or should they apply the standard grounds of administrative law (such as reasonableness)? The Supreme Court of Canada has written more than most on this question and […] Read more

Tervita Corp. v. Canada (Commissioner of Competition), 2015 SCC 3 is a long, complex and important decision on competition law. It also contains a spirited disagreement between Rothstein and Abella JJ. on the appropriate standard of review of determinations of law made by the Competition Tribunal. Oddly enough, I think both of them are right: […] Read more

I am rusty on civil procedure — because I do not pay enough attention to Karim Renno’s torrent of excellent posts! — but I think I am entitled to a response to his reply to my defence of deference on questions of procedural fairness. Whether he wants a sur-reply is up to him; by then […] Read more

Should courts defer to administrative decision-makers on procedural matters? As things stand (for the most part), judicial intervention is warranted whenever a decision-maker fails to live up to judicially developed conceptions of fairness. But this judicial supremacy sits uneasily with the modern, context-sensitive duty of fairness. Historically, automatic intervention whenever a decision-maker deviated from the […] Read more

My post on Febles v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 SCC 68 has attracted many comments. Some readers are sympathetic to the Supreme Court of Canada. And, indeed, one may wonder what the practical effect is of standard-of-review discussions that sometimes border on the metaphysical. Should the Supreme Court of Canada not focus on resolving […] Read more

It seems to be, post-Forest Ethics Advocacy Association v. National Energy Board, 2014 FCA 245. First, the facts. The Board conditionally approved a major pipeline project to be completed by Enbridge. There are various challenges to the decision pending before the courts. This challenge concerned a number of matters that could fairly be described as […] Read more