2014 SCC 24
Procedural Fairness: a View from 20,000 Feet
Should courts defer to administrative decision-makers on procedural matters? As things stand (for the most part), judicial intervention is warranted whenever a decision-maker fails to live up to judicially developed conceptions of fairness. But this judicial supremacy sits uneasily with the modern, context-sensitive duty of fairness. Historically, automatic intervention whenever a decision-maker deviated from the […] Read more
Is Deference on Procedural Fairness now the Law in the Federal Courts?
It seems to be, post-Forest Ethics Advocacy Association v. National Energy Board, 2014 FCA 245. First, the facts. The Board conditionally approved a major pipeline project to be completed by Enbridge. There are various challenges to the decision pending before the courts. This challenge concerned a number of matters that could fairly be described as […] Read more
Breaking Out of Federal Court: Mission Institution v. Khela, 2014 SCC 24
Under the Federal Courts Act, the Federal Court has exclusive jurisdiction to issue an injunction, writ of certiorari, writ of prohibition, writ of mandamus or writ of quo warranto, or grant declaratory relief, against any federal board, commission or other tribunal. A notable absentee from this list is the writ of habeas corpus. Since its […] Read more
Move Along, Nothing to See Here: Orthodoxy and Procedural Fairness
A vigorous debate erupted in the comments to a recent post on deference on questions of procedural fairness. Recently, doctrinal orthodoxy has been challenged by several Canadian judges (a challenge based on Canadian developments but which ought also to be on the radar of those overseas) who have contended that procedural questions can no longer […] Read more