Some Initial Thoughts on Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd and Edmonton (City) v. Edmonton East (Capilano) Shopping Centres Ltd

Administrative law focusses on the way in which, and the extent to which, courts should oversee the exercise of administrative authority. The law on substantive review of administrative decision-making has changed drastically over the last several decades, particularly around choice of standard of review. In the words of the Honorable John M Evans, courts have returned to this issue “with almost monotonous regularity over the last 30 years”. Two Supreme Court of Canada decisions from 2016, Wilson v Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd and Edmonton (City) v Edmonton East (Capilano) Shopping Centres Ltd, have regenerated discussion about standard of review in relation to questions of law. No less an authority than the Honourable Justice David Stratas has suggested that the Court may be “about to embark on one of its once-a-decade, wholesale revisions to the law of judicial review”. To assess how Wilson and Capilano relate to the Supreme Court’s last wholesale revision of the law on substantive review in Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, this article: a) considers Justice Abella’s suggestion in Wilson that a separate standard of correctness review is no longer needed; b) assesses the trend, developing pre-Capilano and implicitly accepted by the majority in that decision, of limiting correctness review to the four categories of legal questions identified in Dunsmuir; and c) discusses the difficulties of applying the Dunsmuir understanding of reasonableness where there are only two possible interpretations of the legislative provision in dispute (Wilson and Capilano), or where the administrative decision-maker has not provided reasons on an issue under review (Capilano)

The Potential Impact of Aboriginal Title on Aquaculture Policy

This chapter discusses the potential impact of aboriginal property rights on the development of aquaculture policy by considering whether such rights could provide a basis for First Nation peoples to participate in aquaculture or to manage the participation of others in this industry. The purpose of the chapter is to describe the relevant law as it now stands, to identify issues that have not yet been decided and to consider how the courts might approach such issues in the future

Mandatory Reporting of Wife Assault by Health Care Professionals

This article examines the issue of mandatory reporting of wife assault\u27 by health care professionals. Should a health care professional who believes that a patient is being abused by her partner have a legal duty to report that belief, and the information on which it is based, to a designated government ministry or department?2 Such reporting is already required for cases of suspected child abuse and, in one province, for suspected abuse of adults who are mentally or physically unable to protect themselves from the abuse

Power Without Law: The Supreme Court of Canada, the Marshall Decisions, and the Failure of Judicial Activism

In Power Without Law, author Alex Cameron strongly criticizes incautious judicial activism which allows the law to become too malleable to personal judicial predilection. \u27 Cameron makes his arguments primarily through an analysis of a 1999 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, R v Marshall (No 1), in which the majority of the Court held that Aboriginal peoples in the Maritimes have a treaty right to hunt, fish and gather, and to sell the products of these activities in order to provide themselves with a moderate livelihood. Cameron also comments on two subsequent and closely related decisions, R v Marshall (No 2) and R v Stephen Marshall; R v Bernard. He characterizes these three decisions as reflecting a worrying trend in judging: a results-based judicial activism that blurs the line between law and policy, and between the role of judges and the role of elected legislatures. Cameron sees this approach to judging as inimical to the rule of law, and thus as an exercise of power without law

Aboriginal Title and Oceans Policy in Canada

The Oceans Act of Canada sets out a broad framework for the unified management of Canada’s oceans based on an ecosystem approach. In particular, the Oceans Act calls on the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to lead and facilitate the development of a national strategy to guide the management of Canada’s estuarine, coastal and marine ecosystems. The Oceans Act also reflects awareness that aboriginal rights may affect the development or implementation of policy surrounding oceans management. For example, s. 2(1) of the Act states that “. . . nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.” The Oceans Act also provides for collaboration with aboriginal organizations in the development and implementation of a national strategy and plans for integrated management of all activities affecting estuarine, coastal and marine waters, and provides for the possibility of aboriginal participation on certain advisory or management bodies, thus creating an opportunity for aboriginal input into Canada’s ocean policy in the future

Land Claim Settlement in Canadian Arctic: Pragmatism and Instrumentalism at Work

In Canada, comprehensive land claims based on Aboriginal title can be pursued through either litigation or negotiation. Generally, the relationship between litigation and negotiation of these claims is understood as one where the Supreme Court of Canada initially prodded the Canadian state to action, and then in a series of decisions developed the legal parameters within which the political realities of negotiation occur. Thus, settlement tends to follow and be shaped by the contours of the legal doctrine. However, settlement of land claims in Canada’s Arctic moved ahead of the case law in two key areas, as manifested in: (a) the negotiation of claims based on attenuated physical occupation of the lands in question; and (b) the application to waters and ice of principles developed in relation to terrestrial land. I argue below that this willingness to move beyond the precedents reflects both pragmatism and an instrumentalist approach to land claims in the Arctic

Administrative Law

Administrative law is concerned with the relationship between courts and those who make decisions in the course of exercising administrative powers. In particular, administrative law focuses on the way in which and the extent to which courts review or oversee administrative decision making. Administrative powers are largely created by statute. Such legislation is often referred to as the enabling legislation”. An action taken under the Crown\u27s prerogative powers is also considered to be administrative action; however, the focus of these materials is on action taken under enabling legislation

After the Revolution: Being Pragmatic and Functional in Canada\u27s Trial Courts and Courts of Appeal

In a 1998 decision, Pushpanathan v Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada synthesized and revised the previous jurisprudence on pragmatic and functional analysis - the approach used since the late 1980\u27s to determine the appropriate standard of deference in substantive review of administrative decision making. The next year, in Baker v. Canada, the Court expanded the reach of the pragmatic and functional analysis by applying it to the exercise of administrative discretion. This paper examines approximately 275 lower court decisions to determine how courts across Canada are responding to and implementing the doctrinal change initiated by the Supreme Court. Patterns discerned in the detailed analysis of cases are then used as a basis for reflections about the current approach to substantive review and possible future directions

Religious Discourse in the Public Square

Full, open, and civilized discourse among citizens is fundamental to the life of a liberal democracy. It seems trite to assert that no discourse should be prohibited or excluded simply because it is grounded in religious faith or employs religious beliefs to justify a particular position. Yet there are those who contend that it is improper for citizens to use religious arguments when debating or deciding issues in the public square, that metaphorical arena where issues of public policy are discussed and contested. In this article we challenge this position, examining the various arguments that are put forward for keeping public discourse secular, arguments that when citizens explicitly ground their social and political views in their religious beliefs, this is divisive, exclusionary, and ultimately antithetical to the liberal democratic state. We maintain that none of these arguments are persuasive

Judges and Religious-Based Reasoning

Is it ever acceptable for a judge in a secular liberal democracy to rely on, and explicitly refer to, religious-based reasoning in reaching a decision? While it is unlikely that many Canadian judges will be seized with the desire to include religious-based reasoning in their judgments, we raise this issue because it allows us to examine the appropriate role of religious-based discourse in a challenging context, where arguments about unconstitutionality are strongest. In a previous article, we concluded that there are no ethical impediments to citizens using such discourse in discussing public affairs. We argued that it is no less virtuous (although it may sometimes be less persuasive) to reason from one’s religious convictions than from any other comprehensive set of values, when advocating for or against public policy alternatives. We would suggest that this is generally also the case for elected representatives. Thus, in our view, it would be perfectly acceptable for a member of a legislature to buttress a call for increased funding for social services by reference to Proverbs 19:17: One who is gracious to a poor man lends to the Lord. However, it is unconstitutional for a legislature to pass legislation for a religious purpose; therefore, legislators must recognize the distinction between advocating legislation designed to achieve a religious purpose and using religious arguments to support or oppose legislation designed to achieve a public purpose