2012
From Blogger
Municipal Powers: Another Look at the Ford Case
Paul Daly December 2, 2012
News stories about an Ontario court striking down the City of Toronto’s ban on shark fin products (decision not yet available online), as well as a pending media engagement, led me to have another look at Hackland J.’s decision to remove Mayor Rob Ford from office earlier in the week.One of the aspects of the […] Read more
From Blogger
Failure to Exercise a Discretionary Power
Paul Daly November 29, 2012
RM v. Scottish Ministers, [2012] UKSC 58 was a relatively straightforward case for the UK Supreme Court. The applicant/appellant is currently detained in a mental health facility under a compulsion order and wishes to apply to the Mental Health Tribunal for an order declaring that he is being held in conditions of excessive security. The […] Read more
From Blogger
Interpretations of “Home” Statutes and Deference
Paul Daly November 28, 2012
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
From Blogger
The Mayor, Bias, Procedural Fairness, and Democracy
Paul Daly November 27, 2012
Plenty of cyberink has already been spilled on the removal from office yesterday of Toronto mayor, Rob Ford. Hackland J.’s decision has aroused surprise, support, calls for reform of Ontario’s Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, and, worst of all, bad sporting metaphors. While Hackland J.’s conclusions and interpretive approach are perfectly respectable, I do not […] Read more
From Blogger
Be-BAPE-A-Lula
Paul Daly November 23, 2012
One of the more interesting political stories in Québec at the moment involves the new environment minister, Daniel Breton and the Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement. On a visit to the BAPE’s offices in October, Breton allegedly told members of the BAPE that he would telephone the chairperson whenever the BAPE made a recommendation he […] Read more
From Blogger
Supreme Court of Canada decision in Kane
Paul Daly November 23, 2012
Quick and brutal. The webcast of the hearing in Canada (Attorney General) v. Kane, 2012 SCC 64, was barely up on the Supreme Court’s website before the appeal was allowed. Only 17 days elapsed between the hearing on November 6 and this morning’s per curiam opinion.Evans J.A. delivered a complex judgment in the Court of […] Read more
From Blogger
Jurisdictional Error, Procedural Fairness and Advocacy by Tribunals
Paul Daly November 15, 2012
There is much to say about Samatar c. Canada (Procureur général), 2012 CF 1263, a case involving an apparent jurisdictional error, a flagrant breach of procedural fairness, and over-zealous advocacy on the part of an arm of the state.Martineau J. did not mince his words. In justifying the award of solicitor-and-client costs to the applicants, […] Read more
From Blogger
The Federal Court of Appeal on Inadequate Reasons
Paul Daly November 9, 2012
The Supreme Court of Canada took the (in my view) reasonable step in Newfoundland Nurses, 2011 SCC 62 of separating procedural review for failure to provide reasons from substantive review for reasonableness. One concern that might be voiced in response is that rolling a procedural right to reasons into substantive review may give too much […] Read more
From Blogger
Justice Stratas on Reasonableness and Context
Paul Daly November 9, 2012
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
From Blogger
Section 1 of the Charter: A (Con)Way Out of the Morass?
Paul Daly November 9, 2012
Section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides that any infringement of a Charter right must be “prescribed by law”, a requirement that must be satisfied by the government before an application of the proportionality test. The jurisprudence on section 1 is very messy and has been criticized. Indeed, the Supreme Court of […] Read more