No results found
Troubling Trends in Indigenous Investigation in Thunder Bay (Pt. 2)
Nancy Bediako | November 26, 2024
Nancy Bediako reviews recent case law and systemic problems regarding the Thunder Bay Police Services' investigations involving Indigenous Canadians in this second article of a two-part series.
Learn moreMason v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
Mina Karabit | January 31, 2024
In September 2023, the Supreme Court of Canada took the opportunity to further clarify the standard of review following the seminal case: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov. As discussed below, the Court made it clear that reasonableness is the default standard, and correctness will only arise in limited situations.
Learn moreDavid P. Jacobs | January 30, 2024
On December 8, 2023, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) released a decision mandating that administrative decision-makers account for Charter values (as well as or instead of Charter rights) in their rulings whether bidden or unbidden by the parties before them.
Learn moreMr. Khorsand applied for judicial review of the Toronto Police Service Board’s background check after multiple failures as he sought employment as a Special Constable with the Toronto Community Housing Corporation. The Board refused to give Mr. Khorsand the reasons for the failed checks even though he has no prior criminal convictions or charges. After accessing police records that confirmed this, he challenged the Board’s decision by seeking Judicial Review of the Divisional Court.
Learn moreExhausting Administrative Processes Prior to Commencing a Judicial Review
Carina Reider, associate, Jillian M. Siskind & Associates | June 12, 2023
Before advising clients to commence a judicial review of an administrative decision, it is important to verify that all administrative processes have been exhausted. This principle comes from an administrative law rule known by multiple names, including the doctrine of exhaustion, the rule against interlocutory judicial reviews, and the objection against premature judicial reviews (hereinafter referred to as the “Doctrine of Exhaustion”).
Learn moreFederal Court Finds Ontario Premier Ford Immune From Testifying at Emergencies Act Inquiry
Alex Smith and Christopher Wirth, Keel Cottrelle LLP | January 31, 2023
In Ontario (Premier) v. Canada (Commissioner of the Public Order Emergency Commission) the Federal Court provides a useful analysis of the application and scope of parliamentary privilege, in particular with respect to testimonial immunity.
Learn morePatchett v Optimum, 2021 ONSC 8466: Interpretation of "catastrophic impairment" under SABS
Ed Montigny | February 14, 2022
Ms. Patchette appealed the decision made by the License Appeal Tribunal (“LAT”), finding that the appellant was not catastrophically impaired pursuant to sec. 3.1 (1) 2 iii of the STATUTORY ACCIDENTS BENEFITS SCHEDULE O reg 34/10 (“SABS”). This was the first time that sec. 3.1(1)2 iii of the Sabs was considered by LAT. The Appeal concerned the interpretation and application of s. 3.1(1) 2 iii of SABS, specifically the meaning of “permanent and serious.”
Learn moreYuan V. Matsuura, 2022 ONSC 45: Fence Disputes in the City of Toronto
Ed Montigny | February 14, 2022
A recent appeal from a judgment of the Small Claims Court raised an interesting question as to how fence disputes are to be resolved in the City of Toronto, although it left the answer to this question to be determined at a later date.
Learn moreMina Karabit | February 02, 2022
In November 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in <em>Northern Regional Health Authority v. Horrocks</em>. The decision upholds the status quo established in <em>Agraira v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) </em>(an earlier Supreme Court decision) regarding the applicable appellate standard of review when the first instance court is tasked with determining the applicable standard of review.
Learn moreAlexander J. Pease | November 15, 2021
In this year’s Annual Update on Judicial Review, held on October 18, 2021, the Honourable Justice David Stratas, Federal Court of Appeal, and Professor Paul Daly, University of Ottawa, discussed recent cases and developments in the administrative law jurisprudence across Canada. The event was chaired by Dina Awad and Jillian Siskind of the OBA Administrative Law Section Executive. This summary of the lively discussion is categorized into six themes, following the structure and flow of the event.
Learn moreChristopher Wirth, partner, Keel Cottrelle LLP | June 13, 2021
In The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v. the Canadian Council for Refugees, 2021 FCA 72, the Federal Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the Federal Court (2020 FC 770), which had found that section 101(1)(e) of the Immigration Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c.27 (the “Act”) and section 159.3 of the Regulations under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, S.O.R./2002-227 (the “Regulations”), infringed section 7 of the Charter.
Learn moreInterview with Vavilov lawyer, Hadayt Nazami
Saba Ahmad | February 18, 2021
One year ago, lawyer Hadayt Nazami won a landmark ruling from the Supreme Court in Vavilov v. Canada. In a candid interview, Nazami provides insights about the years-long saga behind his victory, securing his client's right to Canadian citizenship.
Learn moreFederal Court of Appeal Releases Decision Supportive of the Use of Jurisprudential Guides
Ed Montigny | February 06, 2021
This decision of the Federal Court of Appeal involved two applications for judicial review challenging the designation of four Jurisprudential Guides by the Chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB). This decision provides instructive analysis with respect to the use of jurisprudential guides.
Learn moreWhen Courts Consider Quality of Reasons: Association of Professional Engineers v Rew
Rachel Weiner | February 06, 2021
Association of Professional Engineers v Rew is an appeal to the Divisional Court by the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (the PEO) from a decision of a Discipline Panel of the PEO. This case demonstrates that quality of reasons can play an important role in determining whether an administrative decision should be upheld even where the reasons do permit review.
Learn more
