Your search

The constantly developing norm of access to justice is moving to occupy a central place in the administrative justice system,  prompting a need to rethink the values that should serve to animate the system. This article offers a framework for the administrative justice system in Canada, one that firmly and explicitly entrenches the value of access to administrative justice within it. It reflects on the requirements to achieve access for a significant population of its users – namely, equality-deserving communities. The author looks at the historical reasons why access to justice has been a concern for equality-deserving communities, and introduces the concept of social equity from the discipline of public administration as a tool to assist in addressing some of the structural and systemic access-to-administrative-justice challenges experienced. The author rearticulates the foundational values of administrative law in Canada to incorporate access to administrative justice as a distinct value, one that engages with access-to-justice barriers relating to structural and systemic inequality. In doing so, she details five core principles that underpin the new value of access to administrative justice and cites examples of recent tribunal reform projects in Canada that illustrate promising innovations in that direction. Finally, the author describes briefly the ways in which institutional design and tribunal culture can contribute to enhancing the value of access to administrative justice within the broad, on-the-ground context of different administrative actors. Overall, this article presents an analysis of the dynamic interaction between marginalized populations and the administrative state in order to move forward judicial and other contemporary discussions about access to administrative justice and how it should be defined.

The prospect of political interference is at the heart of the SNC-Lavalin controversy. But it raises more issues related to identifying and preventing inappropriate interference.

Evaluating Ombuds Oversight in the Canadian Access to Information Context: A Theoretical and Empirical Inquiry - 1

The 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 terms produced several noteworthy decisions in the area of administrative law, furthering administrative law jurisprudence in three key areas: the relationship between constitutional and administrative law, especially with respect to judicial review of exercises of administrative discretion that affect Charter rights and freedoms (Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite Bourgeoys); exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction (Tranchemontagne v. Ontario (Director, Disability Support Program) and Bisaillon v. Concordia University) and standard of review (Livis (City) v. Fraternite des policiers de Livis Inc. and Council of Canadians with Disabilities v. Via Rail Canada Inc.). Overall, there was a strong synergy between administrative law and human rights matters over the past two terms, with human rights issues driving many of the recent developments in the field.

In December 2009, the Ontario Legislative Assembly enacted the Adjudicative Tribunals Accountability, Governance and Appointments Act, 2009 (ATAGAA). This new legislation offers a unique approach to ensuring that adjudicative tribunals in the province are transparent, accountable and efficient in their operations while preserving their decision-making independence. The statute presents an approach that the author has termed "collaborative governance" as it aims to bring the executive branch of government and the tribunals together in reaching effective and accountable means of internal governance. The author argues, however, that the approach taken by the statute does not address many of the contemporary concerns about accountability that are experienced by tribunals on the ground. She argues further that the legislation is inconsistent in its underlying commitment to the concept of accountability as it does not take into account the importance of accountability on the part of the executive to tribunals. Finally, the approach taken by the legislation must be channelled properly to avoid disintegrating from a collaborative governance approach to one of command and control.

Transportation is the lifeline that connects persons with disabilities with the community, and facilitates greater opportunities for work, social inclusion and overall independence. Adequate accessible transportation has long been a concern of persons with disabilities, yet there is a dearth of sustained research on the legal and societal implications of transportation inequality for persons with disabilities. This article contributes to the research on both transportation inequality and equality theory by providing an empirical and theoretical analysis of the human rights tribunal decisions on transportation equality in Canada. In doing so, it examines the issues from the perspective of the voices of persons with disabilities by focusing on the substance of their legal claims. Ultimately, the author argues that narrow interpretations of prevailing law and doctrine have resulted in missed opportunities for achieving transportation equality on the ground for persons with disabilities. These opportunities may be captured by the application of a new theory of equality that addresses disability discrimination through the lens of what the author terms the ‘universality of the human condition’.

This article examines two key administrative law decisions of the 2008-2009 Supreme Court of Canada term. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Khosa 2009 SCC 12 [Khosa] and Canada (Privacy Commissioner) v. Blood Tribe Department of Health 2008 SCC 44 [Blood Tribe]. Following on the footsteps of Dunsmuir, the landmark decision of 2008 that eliminated the patent unreasonableness standard, members of the Supreme Court of Canada in Khosa debated the proper interpretation of judicial review legislation. Specifically, the central issue in Khosa was whether subsection 18.1 (4)(d) of the Federal Courts Act provides a legislated standard of review that is equivalent to patent unreasonableness. While on one level, the debate of the Court focused on how to recognize and interpret legislated standards of review, its underlying theoretical premise engaged fundamental questions about deference, expertise, rule of law and how judicial review of administrative action may be appropriately placed within the broader spectrum of curial oversight.

The first part of this article provides an overview of the most dominant private and public law approaches that have been attempted in the courts by plaintiffs seeking redress for historical wrongs and outlines why these approaches have been unsuccessful. It also defines the notion of historical wrongs and provides background on the two historical wrongs used as a case study in this paper – Aboriginal residential schools and sexual sterilization in Alberta. In the second part, I turn to discuss the phenomenon of creating compensation schemes as an alternative to traditional court action. Two illustrative examples are the outcry surrounding the introduction of a statute to compensate the victims of sterilization in Alberta and the continuing challenges related to the Aboriginal school resolution process established by the federal government. An examination of the compensation schemes that emerged in these two contexts as well as the process of their emergence provide valuable insight into some of the tensions that can occur when systems of compensation for victims of historical wrongs are designed. I argue that these tensions may be addressed by fostering continuous dialogue between the government and the victims and through independent oversight. Finally, I offer some observations on the ways in which compensatory schemes for historical wrongs expand our traditional conceptions of administrative justice.

This chapter is an excerpt from a study in which an ethnographic methodology was used to explore the concept of "tribunal independence" within access to information and privacy commissions in Canada. This chapter sets out the theory behind the ethnographic method and discusses how it was applied. As not much qualitative empirical research has been done in Canadian administrative law, the paper offers a contribution to the literature and methodologies in the field.

This special collection of articles in the Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice [WYAJ] stems from a symposium of the same name held at the Berkeley Law School at the University of California on 5 December 2014. The Berkeley Symposium is the first conference to bring together scholars and experts from both Canada and the United States to present research and exchange ideas on equality issues affecting persons with disabilities in both countries. Writing this introduction allows me to bring together my identities as a law and disability scholar, the principal organizer and convener of the Berkeley Symposium, and editor-in-chief of the WYAJ. Each academic was invited to write about an equality issue of their choice that is of contemporary concern to persons with disabilities, and to focus on Canada, the United States, or both, at their option. The result is a set of articles that is simultaneously introspective and comparative. The symposium papers fall within the emerging field of Disability Legal Studies. Disability Legal Studies asks us to think about, and critically evaluate, how law engages with and reflects the lived experiences of persons with disabilities, how the law does and should regulate the lives of persons with disabilities, and how persons with disabilities can induce change in policy and legislation. This introduction provides a brief overview of the articles, which fall into three themes: a) social and economic rights, particularly with respect to movement across borders and the definition of capacity to consent; b) the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) as a legal instrument designed to combat disability discrimination and further the socio-economic empowerment of persons with disabilities; and c) disability advocacy, its human and monetary impacts, and how social change may be effected through procedural design.

At the same time that Canadian public law jurisprudence has grappled with some very key cases on bias, a vibrant debate has also raged over the meaning and scope of the notion of impartiality within political and moral philosophy. Spurred by Rawls’ view of liberalism and culminating in deliberative democracy, this debate evolved over a span of more than four decades, yet, rarely, if at all, is this philosophical literature referred to in the public law jurisprudence dealing with impartiality. This paper inquires into whether the debates surrounding impartiality in political and moral philosophy and those in Canadian public law share common ground. In what ways might this literature and jurisprudence speak to one another? The author argues that knowledge of the two debates challenges us to reconsider the judicial methods by which decision-making impartiality is established. This is particularly so in administrative law. The author proposes a theory of grounded impartiality to be used in Canadian administrative law. The theory requires courts and administrative actors to pay close attention to factors such as administrative actor provenance, shared and local understandings, and the possibility for genuine discourse, to allow for more well-informed, meaningful, and transparent decision-making about allegations of bias. While these factors have been advocated by certain political and moral philosophers as an ideal means for assessing an individual’s claim to the good life, a parallel approach has faced ambivalent reception in Canadian administrative law impartiality jurisprudence.

Is the approach currently taken by Canadian courts to determine the amount of independence that administrative tribunals require appropriate to fulfil the goals of providing administrative justice and encouraging public confidence? The author argues that it is essential to appreciate the modes of internal functioning and the normative understandings within administrative bodies in order to make a valid determination of the degree and nature of independence that they should have. For this, more qualitative empirical analysis is needed in our administrative law literature. This article begins with an overview of the rationale behind tribunal independence, outlining the current approach used by the courts in evaluating independence and impartiality on judicial review applications. It then moves to discuss some of the shortcomings of the judicial model and the utility of empirical data in evaluating questions of tribunal independence. It concludes by considering the Supreme Court’s decisions on tribunal independence and impartiality, Bell Canada v. Canadian Telephone Employees Association and its predecessor, Ocean Port Hotel Ltd. v. British Columbia (Gen. Manager Liquor Control), and evaluating whether these cases have affected the jurisprudential notion that there is significant value in “seeing the tribunal in operation.”

The 2007-2008 term was a landmark year in Canadian administrative law. The Supreme Court of Canada decision in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick (2008 SCC 9) affected dramatically the approach to determining the applicable standard of review in administrative law. The Dunsmuir decision caused a fervour of discussion among practitioners, judges, academics and all those involved in the administrative justice community. It essentially eclipsed all other administrative law cases decided in the 2007-2008 Supreme Court term. This article discusses findings from an examination of cases that have been decided by lower courts, between the decision date and the end of 2007-2008 Supreme Court term, as a measure of Dunsmuir's impact with respect to the standard of review jurisprudence.

Access to information (ATI) dispute resolution is an administrative context in which polyjuralism abounds. This chapter examines the models of dispute resolution used by the legislative officers that have been statutorily created to resolve access to information complaints in Canada. Since the enactment of Canada’s first freedom of information legislation by the federal government in 1983, a debate has emerged as to whether an investigatory approach based on the ombuds tradition or an adversarial adjudicative approach is most suitable for achieving effective regulatory oversight. This chapter contributes to the debate in two ways. First, it defines three typologies for access to information dispute resolution regimes: investigatory, adjudicative, and mixed investigatory-adjudicative, using the access to information statutory regimes of the 14 territorial Canadian jurisdictions as a case study. With respect to mixed investigatory-adjudicative dispute resolution, it argues that the appropriate classification of Access to Information Commissioners endowed with both ombuds-like powers and order-making capacities is to understand them as independent accountability agencies. This avoids concerns about the 'citizen defender' image and denaturing the ombuds’ tradition, and instead properly focuses on the Commissioner as an agent of the policy goal of promoting governmental transparency. Second, this chapter takes an empirical look at how Canada's federal Office of the Information Commissioner is faring with respect to the four theoretical values of: i) institutional competence, ii) access to justice, iii) efficiency, and, iv) effectiveness in promoting government transparency. The empirical data for this discussion is taken from the preliminary results of an online survey administered to access officials in the federal government.

In this article, the administrative law decisions rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada during the 2004-2005 term are reviewed. These decisions addressed four major issues: i) exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction between competing adjudicative bodies; ii) the right to independent adjudication; iii) standard of review; and iv) expertise and deference. Questions relating to exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction occupied the most significant part of the Supreme Court's administrative law energy during the 2004-2005 term. The author analyzes these decisions on jurisdiction, paying particular attention to the many divides between the members of the Court. She argues that the decisions on jurisdiction ratione material between competing tribunals reflect a contest of two administrative law values that have become central to the Canadian administrative state: expertise and expediency. The Supreme Court's approach, which tends to privilege expediency, may have the effect of denying litigants the opportunity to obtain the most appropriate resolutions to their disputes - resolutions that benefit from the expertise and experience of the tribunals themselves. She also highlights the value of including the individual litigant's view of the dispute in the search for its essential character and possible parameters to the essential character test. Finally, the author discusses the issues related to interpreting legislative intent that arise in the cases concerning the right to independent adjudication and core expertise.

At both the policy development stage and the point of implementing administrative processes, more attention must be paid to the hidden challenges faced by disabled women of lower income in securing and using income support benefits. Many of these gendered barriers figure within the administrative processes subsumed in the design and delivery of disability income support programs, and in governmental regimes connected (directly and indirectly) to them. As the Canada Disability Benefit Act progressed through the House of Commons, it was modified to include a guarantee that the application process be “without barriers, as defined in section 2 of the Accessible Canada Act”. The Canada Disability Benefit Act therefore presents an excellent opportunity to examine the ways in which statutory administrative regimes designed to further disability equality rights may result in barriers leading to administrative violence how to avoid that consequence. By drawing on the theoretical frameworks of bureaucratic disentitlement, administrative violence and disability equality, this article examines the lived realities of women with disabilities in order to suggest ways that income support systems can be more responsively and ethically designed. Administrative justice requires that users of income support programs obtain substantive equality-based service at first instance. This should be the experience of all users and would also avoid the time, energy and emotional investment of further appeals and/or judicial review. Moreover, both disability equality and administrative justice call for heightened attention to the lived experiences of disabled women with intersecting backgrounds in order to create equality-based and effective systems of disability income support.