Articles

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.

In recent months, President Trump and his administration have issued a number of executive orders relating to immigration and travel bans in the United States. Since their issuance, these executive orders have received varying responses from many communities in the United States, including the judiciary. In light of the attention given to President Trump’s use of executive orders in the United States, this article seeks to provide a brief discussion of how executive orders are used in Canada.

On February 9, 2017, a group of administrative lawyers and attendees gathered for a sold out half-day program about public interest interveners, tribunal standing, and experts in administrative proceedings. The program was part of the Ontario Bar Association’s Institute 2017 and was chaired by Diane Janisse, of the Legal Aid Ontario Clinic Resource Office, and Christopher Wirth, of Keel Cottrelle LLP.

This is one of two companion pieces on the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Edmonton (City) v. Edmonton East (Capilano) Shopping Centres Ltd. authored exclusively for the OBA. This article focuses on the Supreme Court's treatment of the presumption of expertise afforded to tribunals.

This is one of two companion pieces on the Supreme Court of Canada's recent decision in Edmonton (City) v. Edmonton East (Capilano) Shopping Centres Ltd. authored exclusively for the OBA's Administrative Law Section. This article concerns the role of statutory provisions permitting a right of appeal in determining the standard of review.

The environmental assessment process can be long and complicated for investors seeking approval of a proposed project. If the investment is not approved, the investor may lose a considerable amount of money. But for foreign investors, the outlook is much rosier since the decision of a NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) arbitration panel in the spring of 2015 in a case called Bilcon of Delaware et al v Government of Canada.

This article recounts the October 28, 2015 OBA Administrative Law Section Program - Annual Update on Judicial Review. The program was moderated by Soussanna Karas and featured Justice David Stratus and Professor Paul Daly.

This paper explores four topics in connection with evidentiary rules that operate differently in the administrative as compared to the civil context: 1) the ability to compel testimony; 2) the limited protection against subsequent use of testimony gathered during the investigation stage at hearings; 3) the use of hearsay evidence; and 4) the expanding requirement on respondents to ‘disclose’ their defence to Staff prosecutors in advance of hearings and the resulting defence challenges.

On June 8, 2015, the OBA’s Administrative Law Section presented “Tribunal Check-Up: The Status of our Adjudicative Tribunals” at the section’s Annual Meeting. The speakers each delivered an illuminating speech relating to current challenges and new developments within adjudicative tribunals, with a focus on positive change.

On April 22, 2015, Susheel Gupta, Vice-Chair of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) led an informative discussion in Ottawa about the differences in litigating before courts and tribunals. The panel consisted of Michelle Flaherty, Member of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO), Laura Little, Counsel to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT) and Lucia Shatat, Senior Legal Advisor to the Competition Tribunal.