Questions continue to abound about the standard of review of administrative action in Canada. For something apparently simplified in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick and subsequent cases, it provokes a great many questions. The key question now, in light of the “triumph” of reasonableness, is the scope and meaning of reasonableness review. To what does the […] Read more

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

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

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

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

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

As you probably know by now, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Friday that federal court judges are not eligible for appointment to its three ‘Quebec seats’: Reference re Supreme Court Act, ss. 5 and 6, 2014 SCC 21. Although retrospective legislation was introduced after the appointment of Justice Marc Nadon to the Court, […] Read more

In Canada, a global reasonableness test is supposed to be applied in the review of administrative decisions, even where the allegation is that the decision-maker abused its discretion. The Supreme Court said as much in 2003 (see paras. 22-25). But some of the traditional grounds of review for abuse of discretion fit uneasily under the […] Read more