Podcast 9a: More Recent Developments in Standard of Review

WARNING: This area is in considerable flux, and we await three decisions from the Supreme Court which may revamp substantive review considerably. This podcast will soon be replaced.

Case referred to in Podcast 9a are: Mouvement laïque québécois v. Saguenay, 2015 SCC 16; Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. University of Calgary, 2016 SCC 53; B010 v. Canada, 2015 SCC 58; CBC v. SODRAC, 2015 SCC 57; Tervita Corp. v. Canada, 2015 SCC 3; ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Alberta, 2015 SCC 45; Quebec v. Bombardier, 2015 SCC 39; Canadian National Railway Co. v. Canada, 2015 SCC 39; Edmonton (City) v. Edmonton East (Capilano) Shopping Centres Ltd., 2016 SCC 47.

Podcast 9: Dunsmuir and the Modern Standard of Review Approach

WARNING: This area is in considerable flux, and we await three decisions from the Supreme Court which may revamp substantive review considerably. This podcast will soon be replaced.

A discussion of the modern approach to standard of review for substantive grounds of review (fact, law, discretion). Among the cases mentioned that were not among the assigned reading are: Khosa, 2009 SCC 12; Doré, 2012 SCC 12.

Screencast 5: Grounds of Review and a Brief History of Substantive Review

This screencast describes what is meant by "grounds of reivew" and then focuses on the history of court judicial review approaches to substantive grounds of review: namely, errors of law, errors of discretion and errors of fact. This is all background necessary to understanding the modern approach to substantive review discussed in podcast 9. The screencast may be viewed here.

During this session, one of simulated clients will receive an unwelcome decision.

Screencast 4: Segue from Procedural Entitlement to Judicial Review

This short screencast explains why we segue in the course structure from procedural entitlements to a discussion of judicial review and only then discuss substantive obligations. The screencast may be viewed here.

In class, we shall work through some longer hypotheticals.

By this point, we also have an other administrative law decision (the VRAB decision) in one of our simulated client files.

Podcast 8: Nemo Judex

A discussion of the second major content area in admin procedural law: the right to an unbiased decision maker.  Be sure to read: Newfoundland Telephone, Ocean Port, Bell.

Other cases mentioned in the  podcast include: Tremblay v. Quebec (Commission des affaires sociales), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 952 (not assigned to read this year); Committee for Justice and Liberty v. Canada (National Energy Board), [1978] 1 S.C.R. 36; Old St. Boniface Residents Assn. Inc. v. Winnipeg (City), [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1170;  Save Richmond Farmland Society v. Richmond (Township), [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1213; Re Energy Probe And Atomic Energy Control Board (1984), 15 D.L.R. (4th) 48 (FCA); Re E.A. Manning Limited et al. and Ontario Securities Commission (1995), 23 O.R. (3d) 257 (OCA); Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Matsqui Indian Band, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 3.

Podcast 7a: Audi Alteram Pt I

An introduction to the content of procedural fairness, focusing on core ingredients and the idea that the precise components of those ingredients may be expressed differently depending on the context. An brief examination of "content" test in the Baker case. A discussion of notice and disclosure as aspects of audi alteram partem. Read the core readings of Baker. If assigned, read Suresh and Charkaoui. Other cases mentioned in the podcast include: Gallant, [1989] 3 F.C. 32 (FCA); Central Ontario Coalition (1984), 10 D.L.R. (4th) 341 (On Div Ct); Ciba-Geigy, [1994] F.C.J. No. 884 (FCA); May, 2005 SCC 82.

During the classroom sessions, we will start using these hypotheticals.

Podcast 5: Exceptions to Common Law Procedural Fairness

A continuation of the discussion on common law procedural fairness, focusing on circumstances in which it is not triggered. Cases mentioned include Martineau,[1980] 1 S.C.R. 602, Inuit Tapirisat, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 735, NAPO, [1989] 3 F.C. 684 (FCA), Canadian Shipowners Association (1995) 103 F.T.R. 170, Canadian Association of Regulated Importers (1993), 62 F.T.R. 172 (rev'd, but not on this issue, [1994] 2 F.C. 247 (FCA)), Vancouver Island, [1994] 1 F.C. 102, Homex, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 1011 and Walpole Island First Nation (1996), 31 O.R. (3d) 607 (Div. Ct).

Podcast 4: Common Law Procedural Fairness "Triggers"

A closer focus on the precise tests "triggering" the application of common law procedural fairness, divided into a discussion of Knight v. Indian Head "three prong" and the doctrine of legitimate expectation. In addition to the key readings of Knight and Mavi, cases mentioned in passing include Abel (1979), 97 DLR (3d) 304 (ONCA), Irvine, [1987] 1 SCR 181, Dairy Producers, [1994] 4 WWR 90 (Sask QB), Hutfield, (1986) 24 Admin LR 250 (Alta. QB), Old St. Boniface, [1990 3 SCR 1170, Hong Kong v. Shiu, [1983] 2 All E.R. 346, Libbey, (1999), 42 OR (3d) 417 and Mont Sinai, 2001 SCC 41.

Podcast 3: Origins of Common Law Procedural Obligations

This podcast provides an historical overview of concepts such as natural justice and procedural fairness. It discusses cases like Dr. Bentley's Case, Cooper v. Board of Words, Ridge v. Baldwin, Nicholson, Martineau and Cardinal. This history should be listened to before you turn to a discussion of the modern triggers for common law procedural fairness. The podcast also refers to Faghihi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] 1 FC 249, aff'd 2001 FCA 163. This case is no longer assigned reading, but if you wish to read it, it is located here.

Podcast 2b: The Seven Steps to Administrative Law Wisdom, Part 2

This is the second podcast on the "seven steps".  This podcast focuses on the last four questions: the Four Question Approach to the Control of the Exercise of Delegated Power.  To wit: 1. Who exercises the control? 2. What procedure must be followed in seeking to control the exercise of delegated power? 3. On what grounds is control exercised? 4. What relief can be granted?

Podcast 2a: The Seven Steps to Administrative Law Wisdom, Part 1

This podcast continues the introductory material to administrative law by describing a "seven step" or "seven question" means of approaching the subject. I have no recollection of where this seven step idea came from (it may be from when I learned administrative law), but it works as a sort of "table of contents" to administrative law. This podcast deals with the "3 Question Approach to the Exercise of Delegated Power", and focuses on three questions/steps: 1. To whom is the power delegated; 2. What is the nature of the power delegated; 3. How is the power to be exercised (and within this third question examines two sub-issues: what procedural standards must be observed? and what substantive standards must be observed?).

Screencast 1: Refresher on the Foundations of Canadian Public Law

Before delving into the minutiae of administrative law, it is important to situate the subject in the broader class of Canadian public law. This screencast briefly (and very superficially) traces a 1000 year history of Anglo-Canadian public law as a reminder of core doctrines such as parliamentary supremacy, rule of law, constitutionalism, and federalism. You may view the screencast here.

In class, we see if you can distinguish the applicable public law principles applicable (if any) in these hypotheticals.

Podcast 1: The Administrative Law Mantra

This podcast defines "administrative law" and proposes a simple "mantra" for understanding administrative law's core preoccupation. It also discusses the historic case of Roncarelli v. Duplessis. Although procedurally not an administrative law case (this was an action for damages), the wrongdoing in Roncarelli v. Duplessis stems from an administrative act and that wrongdoing serves as a means to illustrate the undergirding preoccupations of administrative law and its relationship to other concepts, such as the rule of law.

The first half of the podcast doesn't have quite the same sound fidelity as the second half, or later podcasts.  (I switched to a better microphone halfway through).  It is, however, still clear (if a bit tinny).

In this course, we will work through the administrative law dilemmas posed by two simulated client files. The initial facts are set out in the Aplikant memo to file and the Phelon memo to file.