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

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

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

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

The Irish Supreme Court recently released its judgment in Murphy v. Ireland, 2014 IESC 19. Of greatest general interest is the recognition that the applicant had a limited right of procedural fairness which imposed a duty on the Director of Public Prosecutions to give reasons to send him for a non-jury trial at the Special […] Read more

In Maritime Broadcasting System Ltd. v. Canadian Media Guild, 2014 FCA 59, Stratas J.A. added his voice to the chorus of judges urging deference on questions of procedural fairness. A choir composed of Bich J.A., Evans J.A. and Stratas J.A. cannot be drowned out by assertions of the orthodoxy that ‘correctness is the standard of […] Read more

In both Canada and the United States, considerable jurisprudential effort has been expended on identifying “standards of review” of administrative action. Standards of review refer to the tests applied to determine whether a court should strike down administrative decisions.Most of the time, when administrative lawyers speak of “deference” they have in mind a standard of […] Read more

Canadian judicial review of administrative action is structured around two poles: substantive review and procedural review. On matters of substance, the administrative decision maker is generally accorded deference by the reviewing court. On matters of procedural fairness, the court accords no deference, and determines the “correct” process. The author argues that this distinction is indefensible […] Read more

At the centre of R. (L.) v. West London Mental Health NHS Trust, [2014] EWCA Civ 47 was a man with significant mental health challenges. In a learned judgment, Beatson L.J. analyzed the requirements of the common law of procedural fairness and made some interesting observations about the challenges the common law poses for reviewing […] Read more

A troubling controversy is emerging about the decision of a couple of federal adjudicative tribunals, those charged with social security and refugee appeals, to refuse to publish all of their decisions. Those who regularly represent clients in these appeals are complaining. There is no general rule even that all judicial decisions be published. In courts […] Read more