Full bibliography

In the past decade or so, one has seen an increase in the use of the term “inquisitorial” with it becoming de rigueur for many instances of non-adversarial decision-making in the administrative state. The phenomenon of terming non-adversarial administrative process as inquisitorial, is not peculiar to Canada. In other Commonwealth jurisdictions where the adversarial tradition prevails, such as Australia and the UK, a similar phenomenon has occurred. Similarly, in the United States, the Supreme Court has labeled the federal Social Security adjudicatory scheme an inquisitorial procedure, owing in part to the investigatory nature of the Administrative Law Judge. Despite the classification, in most jurisdictions around the world, the meaning of the term “inquisitorial” refers to many different concepts and processes that often do not replicate the pure inquisitorial model that originated in the Civil Law tradition. This article reports on an international research workshop that brought together academics, policy-makers, and judges who have served as Commissioners of public inquiries, to discuss polyjural decision-making in the administrative state. Participants stemmed from traditionally adversarial and inquisitorial jurisdictions, generating innovative comparative insights on hybridized administrative process and institutional design, in relation to hearing processes, legislative oversight, ombudsman, public inquiries and administrative investigations. The conference website can be found at: http://www.uwindsor.ca/law/inquisitorial-processes/ .