deference

Comments

Unresolved Issues in Standard of Review: B010 v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 SCC 58

Although B010 v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 SCC 58 was billed in the initial summary as an administrative law case, there is precious little discussion of the general principles of standard of review in McLachlin C.J.’s decision for a unanimous Supreme Court of Canada. At issue was the interpretation of legislation designed to discourage […] Read more

Comments

Ideology and Administrative Law

Now that all the fuss about his past life as a blogger has died down, it is safe to venture a few comments about Justice Russell Brown’s appointment to the Supreme Court. He replaces Rothstein J., who retires today, leaving a very large gap in the Court’s administrative law and economic regulation expertise. Brown J. […] Read more

Comments

Discrimination, Deference and Pluralism: Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v. Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier Aerospace Training Center), 2015 SCC 39

In my view, the Supreme Court of Canada’s commitment to deference is in tension with its institutional role as the country’s highest court. According deference to administrative decision-makers means favoring legal pluralism, permitting those decision-makers to put their own spin on rules of substantive and procedural law. But a court of final resort may feel […] Read more

Comments

Reasonableness, Proportionality and Religious Freedom: Loyola High School v. Quebec (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 12

Where an administrative decision-maker has violated a fundamental right, how should courts review the decision? Should they apply the standards of constitutional law (a proportionality test, for example)? Or should they apply the standard grounds of administrative law (such as reasonableness)? The Supreme Court of Canada has written more than most on this question and […] Read more

Comments

Categories versus Rebuttable Presumptions: Tervita Corp. v. Canada (Commissioner of Competition), 2015 SCC 3

Tervita Corp. v. Canada (Commissioner of Competition), 2015 SCC 3 is a long, complex and important decision on competition law. It also contains a spirited disagreement between Rothstein and Abella JJ. on the appropriate standard of review of determinations of law made by the Competition Tribunal. Oddly enough, I think both of them are right: […] Read more

Comments

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

Comments

The Law of Unintended (Standard of Review) Consequences: Kanthasamy v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FCA 113

My post on Febles v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 SCC 68 has attracted many comments. Some readers are sympathetic to the Supreme Court of Canada. And, indeed, one may wonder what the practical effect is of standard-of-review discussions that sometimes border on the metaphysical. Should the Supreme Court of Canada not focus on resolving […] Read more