Articles 2021

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.

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.