Comments | Page 77

Comments

Who Should Decide Procedural Fairness Questions?

The latest contributor to the growing literature on deference and procedural fairness is Adrian Vermeule in “Deference and Due Process“: In the textbooks, procedural due process is a strictly judicial enterprise; although substantive entitlements are created by legislative and executive action, it is for courts to decide independently what process the Constitution requires. The notion […] Read more

Comments

Must the Show Go On? Budlakoti v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FCA 139

In several recent decisions, the Federal Court of Appeal has set out a general framework for conducting judicial reviews of administrative action. Budlakoti v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FCA 139 is an example. Stratas J.A. noted that there are “three distinct analytical steps” in any judicial review: (1)               Preliminary objections. […] Read more

Comments

An Age of Facts? R. v. Smith, 2015 SCC 34

A new edition of Grant Gilmore’s classic Storrs Lectures, The Ages of American Law, was published recently with a new postscript by Philip Bobbitt. Gilmore left American law in the “Age of Anxiety”, an era in which I fear Americans remain, although Bobbitt makes a powerful case for the emergence of an “Age of Consent”. […] Read more

Comments

On the Blurry Line Between Substance and Procedure? Syndicat des employées et employés professionnels et de bureau, section locale 574, SEPB, CTC-FTQ c. Groupe Pages jaunes Cie, 2015 QCCA 918

When an administrative decision-maker hears argument but decides a point on another ground, what is the appropriate posture of a reviewing court? Is this a matter of procedural fairness, because it goes to the ability of the parties to make full and complete submissions, or is it a matter of substantive reasonableness, because it goes […] Read more