One of the panels at the inaugural Public Law Conference last week (see my previous post) was on legitimate expectations. I was keenly interested, as I have agreed to contribute a chapter to a forthcoming (early 2016) collection on legitimate expectations in the common law world. Cora Hoexter was sympathetic to legitimate expectations as she […] Read more

How should we describe what administrative decision-makers do when they interpret statutory provisions? In my view, they are making/interpreting/doing “law”, even if it is infused with policy considerations in a way that the judicial function is (arguably) not. Does it follow that they should perform this “law” function in the same way that courts do? […] Read more

Last week I presented my paper “Administrative Law: a Values-Based Approach” at the inaugural Public Law Conference at the University of Cambridge. I hope to have a few posts on the conference, focusing on panels that I attended. But I will start with a post on my own paper. By way of general comment, I […] Read more

Light blogging this week as I have just arrived in Cambridge for the inaugural Public Law Conference. You can download my paper on administrative law values here. I hope to have a round-up when I return!   UPDATE: the links are not working, so here they are in turn: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2460264 http://www.publiclawconference.law.cam.ac.uk   Read more

Here is a technical problem, discussed in Yellow Cab Company Ltd. v. Passenger Transportation Board, 2014 BCCA 329. When a decision-maker reconsiders, or refuses to reconsider a decision, what is the significance of the original decision for a judicial review application? As a general rule: [40]        Where a party has taken advantage of […] Read more

I posted recently about Canada’s new anti-spam law, mentioning the challenges that the CRTC would face in implementing it. The CRTC has established a complaints mechanism which can be accessed via its website.  Have a look here. It is proving popular: more than 1,000 complaints were received in the first week. By the end of […] Read more

This is the last extract from my forthcoming article, “Canada’s Bi-Polar Administrative Law: Time for Fusion“. I detail how procedural and substantive review might be fused and, in particular, why traditionalists should not flinch. Download the paper here.   It is now necessary to consider how the two poles might be fused. One possibility is […] Read more

Here is the second extract from my forthcoming article, “Canada’s Bi-Polar Administrative Law: Time for Fusion“, in which I argue for deference on questions of procedural fairness. This extract makes an argument specific to Canada. Download the paper here.     The Court’s recent insistence that “the standard for determining whether the decision maker complied […] Read more

Philip Hamburger‘s Is Administrative Law Unlawful? has been getting much attention in the blogosphere recently. Hamburger guest-blogged at the Volokh Conspiracy — and his series of posts laid out his position, an emphatic “Yes”, with admirable clarity — and his detractors (Adrian Vermeule, here and here) and supporters (Gary Lawson, Michael Ramsey) are now hammering […] Read more

In a forthcoming essay, “Canada’s Bi-Polar Administrative Law: Time For Fusion“, I argue that courts should defer to administrative decision-makers on questions of procedural fairness. In this extract, I develop an argument from first principles; in subsequent extracts, I will make an argument specific to Canada, and detail how a deferential approach might operate. Download […] Read more