Your search

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.

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.

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.

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.