Articles 2019

Within his first few months in office, Ontario’s new Premier, Doug Ford, has prompted a carefully worded but vehement defence of the rule of law in Tesla v Ontario (Ministry of Transportation), 2018 ONSC 5062. Justice Myers reviewed the discretionary exclusion of Tesla from the transitional program for car subsidies, determining it was unrelated to any statutory purpose and did not afford any procedural fairness. Justice Myers quashed the decision and remitted it back to the Minister.

In Delta Airlines Inc v Lukács, the Supreme Court addresses two important issues. First, in a counter-intuitive way, it addresses when a reviewing court may supplement reasons, following concerns raised by administrative lawyers after the seminal case of Edmonton East. Second, it reaffirms that tribunals and courts should provide access to justice by maintaining an open door to public interest litigants with genuine complaints.

Commenting on Girouard v Canada (AG), 2018 FC 865, the author argues this case is an example of a trend towards more administrative decision-makers that have unlimited powers. This trend has profound implications for the Rule of Law, as it places such decision-makers alongside the Constitution as beyond reproach. But the administrative state is not a constitutional mandate. The Canadian Judicial Council is vested with powers by its enabling statute. It does not have inherent power.

The Supreme Court of Canada has recently granted leave to appeal from the decisions in Bell Canada v. Canada/ National Football League v. Canada, 2017 FCA 249 and Vavilov v. Canada, 2017 FCA 132 and, in so doing, advised that it will hear these three appeals together in order to reconsider the nature and scope of judicial review of administrative decision-makers addressed in Dunsmuir and subsequent cases and has specifically directed the parties to address the question of standard of review.

In Denton v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal), 2017 BCCA 403, the British Columbia Court of Appeal ("Court of Appeal") has confirmed that generally speaking, constitutional issues should not be raised for the first time on judicial review as they should be first considered in the context of a developed record.

The Ontario Court of Appeal has confirmed a robust and plaintiff-friendly framework for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments against state supporters of terrorism under the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, SC 2012 c 1 (the “JVTA”).

Summaries of recent decisions discussed in the Stockwoods LLP Administrative & Regulatory Law Case Review newsletter.

This article summarizes a recent Divisional Court decision, Challans v Timms-Fryer, which considered the minimum obligations a tribunal has to an unrepresented party.

In the latest volume of the Canadian Bar Review, which examines the legacy of the former Supreme Court Justice Louis LeBel, Paul Daly explores the limits of language in administrative law, and LeBel’s role in clarifying our understanding of judicial review. CBA National sat down with the senior lecturer in public law at the University of Cambridge to ask him about why descriptive language in law can be more of burden than help.

In Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. University of Calgary, the majority held that the standard of correctness is to be applied when judicially reviewing the Commissioner’s ability to request copies of documents for the purpose of review claims of solicitor-client privilege.