Getting it Right First Time: Administrative Decision-Makers’ Participation in Judicial Review Proceedings

The extent to which administrative decision-makers should be allowed to participate in judicial review challenges to their decisions is a difficult question. On the one hand, limited participation deprives a reviewing court of important perspectives that an administrative decision-maker might be able to bring to the discussion. On the other hand, aggressive participation might — […] Read more

From Blogger

Publish or Be Damned

A troubling controversy is emerging about the decision of a couple of federal adjudicative tribunals, those charged with social security and refugee appeals, to refuse to publish all of their decisions. Those who regularly represent clients in these appeals are complaining. There is no general rule even that all judicial decisions be published. In courts […] Read more

From Blogger

Reasons — Parroting the Statute as a Breach of Procedural Fairness, or Leading to Unreasonableness

The vexed question of the adequacy of reasons got another outing in Wall v. Independent Police Review Director, 2013 ONSC 3312. Here, an individual arrested during an allegedly heavy-handed police operation at the 2010 G20 summit in Toronto made a complaint about his treatment. Having spent 28 hours in custody, he was released without charge.His […] Read more

From Blogger

Boilerplate Reasons

The President of France, M. Hollande, has recently suggested that where the administration fails to reply to individual decisions silence should be taken as indicating consent: “dans de nombreux domaines, le silence de l’administration vaut décision d’acceptation et non plus décision de rejet”. The reasoning is obvious: citizens deserve responses from the machinery of the state; […] Read more