reasonableness

Comments

Some More Thoughts on the TWU Litigation

I have been following, via Trinity Western University School of Law’s invaluable Twitter feed, proceedings at the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal: I posted on the first-instance decision here. The questions from the bench on Day One did not augur particularly well for the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society, but the judges have also probed the […] 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

On the Blurry Line Between Substance and Procedure? Syndicat des employées et employés professionnels et de bureau, section locale 574, SEPB, CTC-FTQ c. Groupe Pages jaunes Cie, 2015 QCCA 918

When an administrative decision-maker hears argument but decides a point on another ground, what is the appropriate posture of a reviewing court? Is this a matter of procedural fairness, because it goes to the ability of the parties to make full and complete submissions, or is it a matter of substantive reasonableness, because it goes […] Read more

Comments

You Say “Tomato”, I Say “Reasonableness”: Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 19

Shortly after a majority of the Supreme Court of Canada wrote that when fundamental rights are engaged by an administrative decision, “reasonableness requires proportionality” (here, at para. 38), the members of the UK Supreme Court said something very similar in Pham v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2015] UKSC 19. The case was […] 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

The “Common Objective” of Courts and Administrators: Correctly Applying the Principles of Statutory Interpretation?

How should we describe what administrative decision-makers do when they interpret statutory provisions? In my view, they are making/interpreting/doing “law”, even if it is infused with policy considerations in a way that the judicial function is (arguably) not. Does it follow that they should perform this “law” function in the same way that courts do? […] Read more