This is an excerpt from my paper, “The Scope and Meaning of Reasonableness Review after Vavilov“ As is well known, Vavilov establishes that the presumptive standard of review for any administrative decision is reasonableness,[1] subject to two sets of exceptions, one based on the rule of law and the other based on institutional design. The […] Read more

This is an extract from my recent paper on bias (available here): Comments made by a decision-maker may give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. It is useful to contrast the statements at issue in two Canadian cases. On the one hand, in Newfoundland Telephone Co. v. Newfoundland (Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities),[1] […] Read more

Along with Professors Gerard Kennedy (Alberta) and Mark Mancini (TRU), I am organizing a one-day conference in Edmonton on June 19 to mark the fifth anniversary of the Vavilov decision. My contribution for the conference is “The Scope and Meaning of Reasonableness Review after Vavilov“: This paper, written for the fifth anniversary of the Supreme Court of Canada’s seminal […] Read more

In its recent decision in Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FCA 82, the Federal Court of Appeal returned to a theme it has mentioned more than once in recent years. What is the posture that an appellate court should take in relation to a first-instance judgment on a judicial review […] Read more

As a matter of general principle, when a statute vests a power or function in an identified person, such as “the Commissioner” or “the Board”, the identified person or entity – and no one else – should exercise the power or function (see, e.g. Canada (Attorney-General) v. Brent [1956] SCR 318; Roncarelli v. Duplessis [1959] […] Read more

This is an extract from my recent paper on bias (available here): In this section, I will draw a contrast between an Australian decision and one from Canada, again to support my proposition that the law relating to bias is best understood in terms of temporal and spatial proximity. At the centre of the tale […] Read more

This is an extract from my recent paper on bias (available here):   I will consider three Canadian decisions in this section. They each relate to the prior relationship between a decision-maker and a party to a matter. The issue in Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy Board[1] was the perceived lack of […] Read more

In my factum for the Telus case (noted here), I discussed two ways in which courts can engage in dynamic statutory interpretation. I represented the Canadian Telecommunications Association. I thought it might be helpful to reproduce the relevant portions of the factum here. Commonwealth courts manage the difficult task of applying statutory provisions to changing […] Read more

I had the privilege to be involved in Telus Communications Inc. v. Federation of Canadian Municipalities, 2025 SCC 15 as counsel for one of the intervenors (the Canadian Telecommunications Association) in this fascinating statutory interpretation case. The difficulty was as follows: the Telecommunications Act provides that in the event of a disagreement between telecommunications carriers and […] Read more

There are some interesting nuggets in the recent Privy Council decision in National Bank of Anguilla (Private Banking and Trust) Ltd (in Administration) v. Chief Minister of Anguilla, [2025] UKPC 14 one on the meaning of the arguable case standard for judicial review and one on the duty of candour. The case arose from a […] Read more