Canadian administrative lawyers worry a lot about the standard of review. In many cases there is significant disagreement over whether the reasonableness standard or correctness standard should be applied. Occasionally, weary voices suggest that all this haggling over the standard of review is an unnecessary distraction from the merits of cases. An interesting perspective on […] Read more

In my recently published article, “The Unfortunate Triumph of Form over Substance in Canadian Administrative Law“, I argued that Dunsmuir did not make administrative law any simpler. It is always gratifying to be proved right, so it is with (gloating!) pleasure that I note the decision in Manitoba v. Russell Inns Ltd. et al., 2013 […] Read more

My essay on the Supreme Court of Canada’s copyright pentalogy will be published around Easter in a volume edited by Michael Geist, the working title of which is The Copyright Pentalogy: How the Supreme Court of Canada Shook the Foundations of Canadian Copyright Law (see page 18 here). You can download my paper here. Here […] Read more

But, I told you so. In my piece on the Supreme Court of Canada’s copyright pentalogy (to appear next year in Michael Geist’s edited collection), I predicted that the concurrent jurisdiction innovation would cause confusion. Sure enough, counsel for the losing party in Pastore v. Aviva Canada Inc., 2012 ONCA 887 made an application for […] Read more

Over the next couple of weeks, I am going to blog occasionally about my new book, A Theory of Deference in Administrative Law:Basis, Application and Scope. For my first post, I thought I would start with something that does not really appear in the book at all: a brief overview of the approach I urge. […] Read more

Another example from the Canadian courts of the thin line separating process from substance: Turner v. Canada (Attorney General), 2012 FCA 159. On this occasion, the determination that a question went to process is again plausible at first sight but troubling on closer inspection. The applicant here alleged that he was discriminated against by the […] Read more

The highest courts of both the United States and Canada have both recently pronounced on claims relating to the unfairness of local government taxation systems. Before the Supreme Court of Canada, the argument went to the substantive reasonableness of the municipal by-law at issue. Further south, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked […] 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 describing the deferential standard of review of reasonableness in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, the Supreme Court of Canada was very eloquent. Where a standard of review of correctness is appropriate, the reviewing court substitutes its judgment for that of the initial decision-maker. But where deference is owed, A court conducting a review for reasonableness […] 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