Vavilov and the Culture of Justification in Contemporary Administrative Law

In Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, the Supreme Court of Canada attempted to bring clarity and coherence to Canadian administrative law, an area of legal doctrine long characterized by uncertainty and confusion. The focus in Vavilov was on substantive review, where the “merits” of an administrative decision are challenged in judicial review proceedings. Most judicial review cases in Canada involve substantive review of matters ranging from the grant or refusal of passports to national telecommunications policy and turn on whether a decision was, in whole or in part, incorrect or unreasonable. Challenges to the procedural fairness of a decision-making process, or the general structure of an administrative agency, are comparatively rarer. Unfortunately, substantive review — the task Canadian courts are most often asked to undertake — is the area which has been wracked by uncertainty and confusion

With Great Advantage Should Come Responsibility: How the Territorialist Approach in Private International Law Maybe Overcome to Ensure Justice is Done for those Left in the Wake of Canadian Business Abroad

Conflict of laws rules in Canada bias toward taking jurisdiction over matters involving human rights or environmental abuse inflicted abroad, particularly when inflicted by Canadian corporations. Contrary to enumerated tests for jurisdiction, many Canadian courts have instead preferred a regressive state-centric/hyper-comity anchor in applying such tests to putative foreign plaintiffs. This Thesis argues this preference can be effectively understood using the lens and language of Pierre Bourdieus field theory as representing a habitus of the Canadian judiciary. In light of the habitus of the Canadian judicial field, and in order to encourage an interpretation of conflict of laws rules in Canada that prefers an uptake of such claims, practitioners ought to introduce issues of jurisdiction to Canadian courts framed with respect to fairness, notably whether it is fair to provide Canadian corporations significant benefit when operating abroad and, through failure to take jurisdiction, allow such corporations to avoid civil prosecution

L'accord de libre-échange Canada-États-Unis prévoit-il un contrôle judiciaire binational?

L'entrée en vigueur de l'Accord de libre-échange entre le Canada et les États-Unis d'Amérique marque l’avènement d'un nouveau forum de contrôle judiciaire. En effet, la présente analyse des modes de règlement des différends prévus par l'Accord démontre l'exercice d'un véritable pouvoir de contrôle judiciaire par les groupes spéciaux binationaux sur les mesures de droit interne canadien. En outre, cette nouvelle institution binationale s'avère tout à fait compatible avec le cadre constitutionnel canadien.The coming into force of the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States sets the stage for a new forum of judicial review. Indeed, the present analysis of ways for settling disputes provided by the Agreement demonstrates the exercising of a veritable power of judicial review by special bi-national groups on matters under domestic Canadian jurisdiction. In addition, this new bi-national institution proves to be totally compatible with the Canadian constitutional framework

The Differing Federalisms of Canada and the United States

The differences in the ways in which the US and Canada have structured their federalisms are discussed. Both systems have judicial supremacy, but Canada recognizes far more legislative power in the provinces than the US allows its states

L'effectivité des décisions de justice en droit public interne [constitutionnel]

In practice, no question ever arises respecting the effectiveness of judicial decisions in matters of public law. Whether or not a judgment is technically executory is of no importance. There is such a high degree of respect for the decisions of the courts, specially those of the Supreme Court of Canada, that public authorities practically never feel free to seek a way out of compliance with a judicial pronouncement. Remedial powers of the courts are entrenched under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution is declared to be the supreme law of Canada. There is thus very limited scope for governmental action in defiance of court orders. The only specific provision for such action appears to be a section of the Extradition Act authorizing the Minister of Justice to refuse to surrender a fugitive if he determines that the latter's offence is of a political character

Founding Father-in-Law: Judicial Amendment of the Canadian Constitution

Judicial amendment of the Canadian Constitution is discussed. The Supreme Court of Canada can nullify or alter the constitutional text or its accepted meaning through constitutional interpretations

Examining the Role of Courts in Canada\u27s Policy-Making Process

This piece explores the apparent disjuncture between the prescribed duties of both the judicial and legislative branches of the Canadian government, and the genuine means by which such duties are attended to regardless of codified jurisdiction. Namely, this piece conducts a dual analysis - including both normative and descriptive components - in order to consider whether or not the Supreme Court of Canada has unduly encroached upon both the Provincial Legislature\u27s and the Federal Parliament\u27s duty to formulate legislation through their exercising of judicial review. In assessing the judiciary\u27s role in policy-making, abstract considerations - such as the inherently undemocratic nature of the judiciary - are examined alongside more practical items, such as the courts\u27 veritable ability to craft sound policy in the first place. Ultimately, this piece concludes that the adoption of a conventional coordinate model would serve best as both a means through which to make sound policy in both a normative and descriptive sense