Comments | Page 4

Comments

The Administration of Justice in Administrative Tribunals: Zalewski v. Adjudication Office [2021] IESC 24 (Practical Consequences)

See my introductory note here and previous posts here (on Article 34.1) and here (on Article 37.1). See also Tom Hickey’s note on Zalewski, available open-access from the Modern Law Review, Now, the reader may be wondering what, if any, practical consequences this decision carries. The interpretive discussion of Articles 34.1 and 37.1 is all […] Read more

Comments

The Administration of Justice in Administrative Tribunals: Zalewski v. Adjudication Office [2021] IESC 24 (Article 37.1)

See my introductory note here and previous post (on Article 34.1) here. Article 37.1 was designed as a ‘saver’ clause to ensure that administrative decision-makers could exercise some powers and functions of a judicial nature. The historical background is covered in McKechnie J’s dissenting opinion (at paras. 25-30). I think the history is ambiguous (a […] Read more

Comments

The Administration of Justice in Administrative Tribunals: Zalewski v. Adjudication Office [2021] IESC 24 (Article 34.1)

See my introductory note here. The settled approach to Article 34.1 was set out in McDonald v. Bord na gCon [1965] I.R. 217, where Kenny J elaborated a set of criteria for determining whether a body is administering justice. (i.)               a dispute or controversy as to the existence of legal rights or a violation of […] Read more

Comments

Context, Reasonableness Review and Statutory Interpretation: Mason v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 SCC 21

After a hiatus of nearly four years, the Supreme Court of Canada yesterday applied the reasonableness standard for the first time since Vavilov and the companion case of Canada Post. The decision in Mason v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 SCC 21 (Jamal J for the majority; Côté J concurring) is significant as far as […] Read more