I am naturally all in favour of caps being doffed to academics. But should the preferences of my ego be translated into judicial review doctrine? Two recent decisions from either side of the Atlantic demonstrate the favoured judicial approaches to review of academic decisions and some of the potential pitfalls. In Kwao v. University of Keele, […] Read more

The majority of the Federal Court of Appeal in Hernandez Febles v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FCA 324 refused to defer to the immigration authorities’ interpretation of Article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention (as implemented by s. 36 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act).The question at issue was whether the applicant had properly […] Read more

My essay on the Supreme Court of Canada’s copyright pentalogy will be published around Easter in a volume edited by Michael Geist, the working title of which is The Copyright Pentalogy: How the Supreme Court of Canada Shook the Foundations of Canadian Copyright Law (see page 18 here). You can download my paper here. Here […] Read more

Just a very brief note on a couple of recent first-instance decisions that caught my eye. It has been suggested (para. 22) that the Supreme Court of Canada has recently indicated a strong preference for deferential judicial review when decision-makers are interpreting their constitutive or “home” statutes. Nevertheless, the categories of jurisdictional error and general […] Read more

A partial answer from the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal: yes.In McIntyre v. Nova Scotia (Community Services), 2012 NSCA 106, the applicant’s spouse had received a lump sum pension benefit, which meant that she had received an “overpayment” of benefits. There was no doubt that there had been an “overpayment” within the meaning of the […] Read more

In passing in its otherwise unremarkable decision in Pastore v. Aviva Canada Inc., 2012 ONCA 642, the Ontario Court of Appeal had something interesting to say about reasonableness. Feldman J.A. (with whom Rosenberg J.A. and Swinton J. agreed) commented as follows: [59]      Again, applying the Dunsmuir test for reasonableness, the delegate engaged in a […] Read more

I have previously blogged about the place of precedent in modern Canadian administrative law. The basic idea is not difficult to grasp. In Canada there is no presumption that there is a “right” answer to any question of law or discretion that arises before administrative bodies. Accordingly, administrative bodies are not bound by their previous […] Read more

Blogging has been light recently: teaching, writing and administrative commitments, allied to some technical problems, have been holding me up.One interesting recent case, which I consider a useful launching pad for a consideration of justiciability, is Guergis v. Novak, 2012 ONSC 4579. Ms. Guergis is a former minister in the federal cabinet: you can read […] Read more

I’ve commented previously on administrators’ interpretations of their own regulations. In a recent Federal Court case, Moya v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 971, the question of how reviewing courts should treat such interpretations arose again.The applicants were members of a Colombian family, variously born in Colombia, the United States and Canada (having been […] Read more

Karole Cuddihy passes along an interesting Irish High Court decision. In the following passage, from EMI Records (Ireland) Ltd. v. The Data Protection Commissioner, [2012] IEHC 264, the ever-reliable Charleton J. describes the place of deference in Irish law. I think it also functions as a serviceable description of prevailing English law: 5.0 Only in […] Read more