A recurring issue in the law of judicial review is the distinction between law and discretion. Where this matters the most is in substantive review: should a similar standard of reasonableness be applied to questions of law and exercises of discretion? The Supreme Court of Canada has been sceptical of attempts to distinguish between the […] Read more

Not so long ago, I posted on “Deference and Reasonableness“. I have also just posted some thoughts on rationality. It is quite timely, then, that I recently came across the reasons of Robertson J.A. in Small v. New Brunswick Liquor Corporation, 2012 NBCA 53, a case decided last summer. They deserve careful reading by anyone […] Read more

The majority of the Federal Court of Appeal in Hernandez Febles v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FCA 324 refused to defer to the immigration authorities’ interpretation of Article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention (as implemented by s. 36 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act).The question at issue was whether the applicant had properly […] Read more

Justice Stratas voiced some interesting thoughts on the meaning of reasonableness and context in Canada (Attorney General) v. Abraham, 2012 FCA 266: [44]           For example, where the decision-maker is considering a discretionary matter that is based primarily on factual and policy matters having very little legal content, the range of possible, acceptable […] Read more

Last week the Supreme Court of Canada released its reasons in a “fivefecta” of copyright cases. Interesting questions were raised. Are additional royalties payable when a video game is downloaded rather than bought over the counter? Is streaming a communication to the public which requires payment to the copyright holder? When a consumer listens to […] Read more

Unlike many (perhaps most?) other countries, Canada allows administrative bodies to make non-binding interpretations of constitutional provisions and to grant remedies for human rights violations by state actors.To put it in terms first suggested by the now-Chief Justice, the constitution is “not some holy grail which only judicial initiates of the superior courts may touch” […] Read more

Je pensais de garder cette décision jusqu’au retour en classe des étudiants du préscolaire à la fin de l’été, mais finalement j’ai conclu que les principes découlant de ladite décision sont trop intéressants pour les cacher plus longtemps. La Cour d’appel y explique très clairement les principes de la révision judiciaire au Québec. Au centre […] Read more

In a recent decision, Justice Stratas of the Federal Court of Appeal raised a host of questions about the applicability of the Supreme Court of Canada’s re-shaping of judicial review doctrine to decisions taken by discretionary decision-makers: [19]           I am inclined to find that the Director is subject to this “normal” or […] Read more

Some philosophical reflections, courtesy of Justice Martineau: [92]           The legal explanation for allowing two [differing] interpretations of the law, if reasonable, to stand is simply that courts must respect the legislator’s intention that such types of administrative decisions, which are protected by a privative clause, be not reviewed unless the tribunal has […] Read more