Abstract 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 […] Lire la suite

Résumé (en anglais seulement) Is the decision of an administrative tribunal owed deference on the review standard of « reasonableness »? What constitutes an « unreasonable » interpretation of the law? What is the proper application of the deferential standard of review? In short – and based on the ongoing evolution of the deference doctrine – when is it […] Lire la suite

Résumé (seulement en anglais) Reasonableness has become the dominant standard of review of administrative action in Canada. Understanding what makes a decision unreasonable has become a critical issue for Canadian judges and jurists. The question I will address in this essay is: what does it mean to say that an interpretation of law is unreasonable?Recently, […] Lire la suite

Résumé (seulement en anglais) Canadian courts have struggled to interpret the “prescribed by law” requirement contained in section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Indeed, they have frustrated the achievement of its three functions: furthering the rule of law; heightening accountability; and providing additional protection for the individual. The flawed analytical framework set […] Lire la suite