Readers may be interested in “The Scope and Meaning of Reasonableness Review“, a new article of mine on judicial review of administrative action which will appear shortly in the Alberta Law Review. (Apologies to RSS and email subscribers who have already received the notification: I hope to fix the ‘double post’ issue shortly.) It is […] Read more

A well-written student note takes me to task for my interpretation of Catalyst Paper Corp. v. North Cowichan (District), [2012] 1 SCR 5. Catalyst has not (yet) proved to be catalytic. It has not been applied to delegated legislation or decisions taken by other elected bodies. I unhesitatingly concede that Canadian courts have treated Catalyst […] Read more

Here is a problem for deferential approaches to judicial review: what about an administrative decision that is a reasonable resolution of a particular case but which is reached by flawed logic? If the flawed logic is not sanctioned, it remains on the books and may influence future administrative decision-makers: indeed, failing to follow a previous […] Read more

Here is a great passage from an Australian case (Mainteck Services v. Stein Heurtey) on contractual interpretation: What is the legal meaning of a promise to sell “my Dürer drawing”, if the vendor’s wife owns a Dürer drawing which is on display in their home, and the vendor keeps another secretly in his study? What […] Read more

By now, it is a familiar story. The standard of review is reasonableness. An exhaustive review of the relevant statutory language and factual matrices follows. And then there is a brief conclusion: the decision is reasonable or unreasonable.At the risk of beating a horse whose death certificate is now turning yellow and fraying at the […] Read more

The province of Quebec allows pregnant workers to exercise a right of withdrawal from dangerous work environments. At issue in Dionne v. Commission scolaire des Patriotes, 2014 SCC 33 was a supply teacher’s thwarted effort to exercise her right of withdrawal. A unanimous Supreme Court of Canada quashed the decision of the Commission des lésions […] Read more

Cass Sunstein has a nice short essay on Justice Breyer in a forthcoming issue of the Harvard Law Review, “From Technocrat to Democrat“: There is an epistemic argument for judicial deference to the decisions of administrative agencies and legislatures: courts do not have easy access to relevant information, and they should defer to those who […] Read more

Martin v. Alberta (Workers’ Compensation Board), 2014 SCC 25 does little or nothing in the way of doctrinal development, and so should not be expected to have a lasting impact on the law. Three aspects of this Supreme Court of Canada decision are nonetheless worth highlighting in an effort to explain why Martin is best […] Read more

I was rather optimistic in thinking that the question of deference to ministerial interpretations of law had been settled by the Supreme Court of Canada in Agraira (see my post here). Two stern responses arrived last week from the Federal Court of Appeal, the body which deals more than any other with judicial review of […] Read more

My post welcoming Evans J.A.’s recent suggestion that weight could be accorded to administrative determinations of procedural fairness questions has provoked some debate, some in the comments section of that post, some on Twitter and some in emails to me. Another Federal Court of Appeal decision is therefore timely: Canada (Transport, Infrastructure and Communities) v. […] Read more