Your search

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.

There are two possible forms of evidence in a custody or access (visitation) case which is determined through adjudication. First, the judge may hear from the adult parties and the witnesses whom they choose to call. Second, the judge may hear "children's evidence," which comes either directly from the child, or from a neutral professional with child-related expertise. To determine the prevalence of children's evidence in Canadian custody and access litigation, the author conducted a quantitative survey of 181 reported decisions from 2009. The central finding was that only 45% mentioned any form of children's evidence. Among the various varieties of children's evidence, assessments (also known as child custody evaluations) were much more common than legal representation of children or direct evidence from children. The paper concludes by contrasting the primacy of the child in custody and access doctrine with the reality that the children involved appear to be effectively silent in the majority of the adjudicated cases.

In this paper, the aim is to assess the procedure of the recent Sri Lankan Presidential Commission of Inquiry and to provide a substantive legal critique of the conflict of interest that troubled the Commission. Divided in four sections, the article provides a general introduction on the recent Commission of Inquiry and its observing body, the act in which it is grounded, the Presidential Warrant that created it, the visible conflict of interests regarding the Attorney General’s Office in serious violations of human rights and the alleged bias in the proceedings of the Commission, especially in the case about the killing of 17 aid workers of an international non-governmental organization and the killing of five students. In conclusion, a case for the existence of the apparent bias will be made, not because of the ‘actual and legal’ role of the Sri Lankan Attorney General, but because of the practical realities of Sri Lanka.

Among the casualties in the ‘war on terror’ is the presumption of innocence. It is now known that four Canadians who were the subject of investigation by the RCMP and CSIS were detained and tortured in Syria on the basis of information that originated in and was shared by Canada. None has ever been charged with a crime. On their return home, all four men called for a process that would expose the truth about the role of Canadian agencies in what happened to them, and ultimately help them clear their names and rebuild their lives. To date, in varying degrees, all four men continue to wait for that 'process'. In this paper, I examine the access to justice mechanisms available to persons who are wrongfully accused of being involved in terrorist activities. Utilizing the case study of one of the four men, Abdullah Almalki, I explore the various processes available to him: (i) a complaint to the relevant domestic complaints bodies, the Security Intelligence Review Committee and the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP; (ii) a commission of inquiry; and (iii) a civil tort claim. Due in large part to the role national security confidentiality plays in these mechanisms, all three models are found to be ineffective for those seeking accountability in the national security context.

This paper is based on my LL.M thesis, which I successfully defended on June 10, 2009.

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.

Even if they did not procure or otherwise contribute to the torture of nationals abroad, Canadian officials owe Canadian nationals a positive duty to prevent torture overseas. This duty is non-delegable in nature.

Tort law can only deliver justice if decision-makers exercise cultural competence; one cannot see the true suffering of the other by looking through a uni-cultural lens. A uni-cultural lens blurs the differences between people’s lived experiences and obscures the decision-maker’s capacity to understand the suffering of others, thereby silencing that suffering. This silencing in turn undermines the aims of tort law. This paper emphasizes the importance of cultural competence for tort law by analyzing the Federal Court’s 2007 decision in Haj Khalil v. Canada. The Federal Court held that immigration officials did not owe a duty of care to Haj Khalil and could not be held accountable for the unreasonable delay in processing her application for permanent residency. It also ruled that the delay could not have caused her losses. I conclude that an examination of the facts that framed Haj Khalil`s claim against immigration officials through a culturally competent lens would open the possibility of a different understanding of causation as it arises on the facts of the case.

This paper emphasizes the importance of cultural competence for tort law by analyzing the Federal Court’s decision in Haj Khalil v. Canada. Given that this symposium in honour of Rose Voyvodic’s life and work is entitled "Re-Imagining Access to Justice," this paper asks "how do the principles of cultural competence allow us to think about the facts of the Haj Khalil differently. In particular, what would a cause in fact analysis look like if it were informed by the principles of cultural competence?" My analysis proceeds by "reading the silences" or focusing on the unstated assumptions and unexplored elements of Haj Khalil’s story to bring into focus factors relevant to factual causation which remain largely unexplored or undervalued by the Federal Court. An examination of the facts that framed Haj Khalil`s claim against immigration officials through a culturally competent lens would open the possibility of a different understanding of causation as it arises on the facts of the case. While Canadian courts have emphasized the importance of social context for fair judgment, they have not fully come to grips with the implications of social context for judicial decision-making. This is particularly the case within negligence law which remains vexed by the need to maintain an objective standard while simultaneously recognizing the importance of context and circumstance to particular claims.

It is just a little over thirty years since the Supreme Court of Canada took Canada’s assessment of personal injury damages on a different tack in the trilogy. In hindsight, the view then taken on damages for non-pecuniary loss was prescient, for it foreshadowed movements now taken legislatively in the United States and Australia, and has parallels in the English Court of Appeal decision in Heil v. Rankin. The Supreme Court did not tackle the issue of lump sum verses periodic payment/reassessment in the trilogy, although it did express its views on this issue many years later. For obvious constitutional and jurisprudential reasons touching on the appropriate limits of judicial activism, and, one suspects, out of personal belief, the Supreme Court did not question the underlying premise of providing compensation for personal injury as a result of tortious conduct. The success of the Supreme Court’s intervention is perhaps best revealed by the fact that apart from some minor skirmishes over automobile insurance, there has never been any real clamour in Canada for tort reform, or an insurance crisis similar to the experience in the United States and Australia.

Freedom of expression protects the individual's freedom to communicate with others. The right of the individual is to participate in an activity that is deeply social in character. The value of freedom of expression rests on the social nature of individuals and the constitutive character of public discourse. This understanding of the freedom, however, has been inhibited by the individualism that dominates contemporary thinking about rights its assumptions about the pre-social individual and the instrumental value of community life. While the social character of human agency is seldom mentioned in the different accounts of the freedom value, it is the unstated premise of each. Once we recognize that individual agency and identity emerge in the social relationship of communication, the traditional split between intrinsic and instrumental accounts (and between speaker and listener -based accounts) of the value of freedom of expression dissolves.

Professor Voyvodic’s call for cultural competence as an ethical requirement challenges perceptions of the legal profession as inherently and necessarily morally neutral. While lawyers wrestle with the boundaries of ethical mandates, alternative dispute resolution practitioners have adopted their own codes of ethics following very much in the path of the law. Although expanding dispute resolution options for disputants, many theorists have warned of the potential of informalism to undermine natural justice principals. I will argue that the choice to omit any explicit commitment to a "social justice ethic" leaves the practice of ADR vulnerable to these decades-old arguments that informalism erodes protections for marginalized populations. As such, I will argue that mediators must call for an explicit social justice mandate in their codes of conduct, training and practices to cement the place of informal processes as equitable – not just efficient – options for settlement. In doing so, informal processes, particularly mediation, may increase discourse in civil society about human rights, thus strengthening their congruence with lived realities of citizens.

When an intimate relationship breaks down and one of the people involved seeks money from the other, should it make any difference to the law whether or not they were formally married? This article argues that it should make a difference, at least when spousal support is being sought and the parties were never parents together. Winner of the 2008 Falconer Memorial Student Essay Competition in Family Law.

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.

In June of this year I was asked by the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) to consider, and to make recommendations concerning, “the most appropriate mechanisms to address hate messages and more particularly those on the Internet, with specific emphasis on the role of section 13 of the CHRA [Canadian Human Rights Act] and the role of the Commission.”I was asked to “take into consideration: existing statutory/regulatory mechanisms; whether they are appropriate and/or in any manner, require further precision; the mandates of human rights commissions and tribunals, as well as other government institutions presently engaged in addressing hate messages on the Internet; whether other governmental or non-governmental organizations might have a role to play and if so, what that role might be; Canadian human rights principles, including but not limited to, those contained in the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; Canada’s international human rights obligations; and comparable international mechanisms.” I was asked to provide a final report to the Commission on or before October 17, 2008.

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 2005 Supreme Court decision of Chaoulli v. Quebec (A.G.) is the most significant Canadian case vis-a-vis health care rights in the last decade. The two litigants were Dr. Chaoulli, a physician originally from France who was frustrated with governmental limits on his ability to practice privately, and George Zeliotis, a sixty-seven-year-old patient with hip and heart conditions who had to wait nine months for a hip operation. Mr. Zeliotis thought that if he were able to purchase private insurance then he could have financed his hip operation in the private sector. Chaoulli and Zeliotis were unsuccessful at both the trial and appeal levels but struck controversial success before the Supreme Court of Canada.

Through this paper we attempt to define the concept of the expert tribunal both as a juridical notion and a tribunal reality. The first part is devoted to a brief overview of the movement of expertise from political theory to legal concept. Following this, we discuss the use of expertise within the tribunal and on judicial review, in an era in which legislators do not always stipulate the qualifications necessary for tribunal appointment.

One consistent and disturbing trend since the birth of the Charter in 1982 is that race has been and continues to be, with a few notable exceptions, erased from the factual narratives presented to the Supreme Court of Canada and from the constitutional legal rules established by the Court in criminal procedure cases. Understanding the etiology of this erasing is not easy. In earlier pieces, the author has explored the role of trial and appellate lawyers. This paper focuses on principles of judicial review and the failure of the Supreme Court to consistently consider the impact of the constitutional rules it creates or interprets on Aboriginal and racialized communities. What makes the silence so problematic is that the Supreme Court gave itself the tool in 2001 to address part of the identified problem when it established an anti-racism principle of Charter interpretation in R. v. Golden, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 369. This paper seeks to address a number of questions focused on the legacy of Golden. What is the origin and content of the Golden principle of judicial review? What is the evidence from subsequent cases and academic commentary that this is indeed an accepted principle of constitutional interpretation? What cases from the 2007 Supreme Court term would have benefited from a critical race analysis? And, in particular, how would factoring in Golden have impacted the Court's analysis in R. v. Clayton, 2007 SCC 32? And finally, how should the Golden principle be applied in future cases?

This article examines the impact of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on systemic racism in the criminal justice system in Canada. The article's thesis is that while there is reason to be optimistic about the possibilities of future reform, the Charter has, to date, had very little impact on racial injustice in Canada. We continue to incarcerate Aboriginals and African Canadians at alarming rates, racial profiling at our borders and in our streets continues to flourish, and the federal government continues to pass legislation that will further entrench the problem. Of course, some might say that it is simply naive to think that a constitutional document can make a difference and so Part II (Part I is the Introduction) briefly addresses this larger philosophical question. In Part III, the article explores why it is not the Charter that is the problem, but rather those who apply and interpret it. Racial justice has not had a chance to grow over the last 25 years because there has been a significant failure of trial and appellate lawyers to engage in race talk in the courts and a failure of the judiciary to adopt appropriate critical race standards when invited to do so.