Questions continue to abound about the standard of review of administrative action in Canada. For something apparently simplified in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick and subsequent cases, it provokes a great many questions. The key question now, in light of the “triumph” of reasonableness, is the scope and meaning of reasonableness review. To what does the […] Read more

Readers may be interested in “The Scope and Meaning of Reasonableness Review“, a new article of mine on judicial review of administrative action which will appear shortly in the Alberta Law Review. (Apologies to RSS and email subscribers who have already received the notification: I hope to fix the ‘double post’ issue shortly.) It is […] Read more

Canadian judicial review of administrative action is structured around two poles: substantive review and procedural review. On matters of substance, the administrative decision maker is generally accorded deference by the reviewing court. On matters of procedural fairness, the court accords no deference, and determines the “correct” process. The author argues that this distinction is indefensible […] Read more

I made a presentation last week to the members of the new Refugee Appeal Division and their legal advisers. The RAD hears appeals from the Refugee Protection Division: most of the relevant statutory provisions are contained in Part IV of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. One of the questions the members of the RAD […] Read more

The Supreme Court of Canada released a fascinating administrative law decision this morning: McLean v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), 2013 SCC 67. The majority reasons were written by Moldaver J.; Karakatsanis J. wrote a set of concurring reasons.The facts are straightforward. M entered into a settlement agreement with the Ontario Securities Commission in 2008, in […] Read more

Justice Stratas voiced some interesting thoughts on the meaning of reasonableness and context in Canada (Attorney General) v. Abraham, 2012 FCA 266: [44]           For example, where the decision-maker is considering a discretionary matter that is based primarily on factual and policy matters having very little legal content, the range of possible, acceptable […] 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

Last week the Supreme Court of Canada released its reasons in a “fivefecta” of copyright cases. Interesting questions were raised. Are additional royalties payable when a video game is downloaded rather than bought over the counter? Is streaming a communication to the public which requires payment to the copyright holder? When a consumer listens to […] Read more

Over the next couple of weeks, I am going to blog occasionally about my new book, A Theory of Deference in Administrative Law:Basis, Application and Scope. For my first post, I thought I would start with something that does not really appear in the book at all: a brief overview of the approach I urge. […] Read more