The supervisory jurisdiction is a core function of Canada’s superior courts. It cannot be exercised by another body, nor can access to the supervisory jurisdiction be precluded, as this superintending and reforming power has a solid constitutional foundation in s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867. (The sweep of these propositions will be in issue […] Read more

I have uploaded a pre-proof version of the first chapter of A Culture of Justification: Vavilov and the Future of Administrative Law to SSRN: “Why is Administrative Law So Complicated?” Here is a final extract from the chapter: It should be clear from the discussion so far in this Chapter that there is no ‘Constitution’ […] Read more

I should flag a very fun/interesting/depressing paper by Professor Andrew Green (University of Toronto), “How Important are the Groundbreaking Cases in Administrative Law?“: The story of Canadian administrative law could seen as a move towards deference driven by some fundamental decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada. Debates about this move centre around the proper […] Read more

I have uploaded a pre-proof version of the first chapter of A Culture of Justification: Vavilov and the Future of Administrative Law to SSRN: “Why is Administrative Law So Complicated?” Here is an extract: Three concepts have been of central importance to Canadian administrative law in recent decades. One of them – jurisdiction – is […] Read more

As is well known, administrative tribunals enjoy no constitutional status in Canada and benefit from no entrenched protection for independence. In McAnsh v. Ontario, 2023 ONSC 3537, the representative plaintiff sought to present a novel administrative independence claim in contract (Disclosure: I aided counsel for the representative plaintiff in this case though I had no […] Read more

It is settled law that discretionary powers must be exercised for proper purposes and by taking into account relevant considerations. A pair of recent decisions from the High Court of Australia illustrate this settled law quite nicely: Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Thornton [2023] HCA 17; and ENT19 v Minister […] Read more

I have uploaded a pre-proof version of the first chapter of A Culture of Justification: Vavilov and the Future of Administrative Law to SSRN: “Why is Administrative Law So Complicated?” Here is an extract: All Canadians are affected by the administrative state in all sorts of ways: when they return from abroad; apply for a […] Read more

In a recent post I described the concept of procedural duties in administrative law. The UK Supreme Court recently delivered an important decision on the scope of procedural duties: R (Marouf) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2023] UKSC 23. The particular question addressed by the Supreme Court was whether the duty has […] Read more

This is the final excerpt from my forthcoming article “The Doré Duty: Fundamental Rights in Public Administration“, to appear shortly in the Canadian Bar Review. The Doré duty is a procedural duty. It makes Charter values a mandatory consideration in cases to which the duty applies. Failure to take relevant Charter values into account before […] Read more

It is well established in Westminster systems, such as Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, that civil servants may exercise the statutory powers of a minister: this is the Carltona principle. But the Carltona principle can be displaced by statutory language prescribing that the minister must exercise the statutory power personally. Where a ministerial statutory […] Read more