How important are the groundbreaking cases in administrative law
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 10854093 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Andrew Green (0000-0003-0643-6182, University of Toronto, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2023 |
| Volume | 73 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 426-466 |
| Publication date | 2023-10-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | University of Toronto Law Journal (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0042-0220 • E-ISSN: 1710-1174 |
| Publisher | University of Toronto Press Inc. (UTPress) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.3138/utlj-2021-0056 |
| OpenAlex | W4306822587 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 12 |
The story of Canadian administrative law could be seen as a move toward deference driven by some fundamental decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada. Debates about this move centre on the proper role for reviewing courts as well as the politics lying behind administrative law decisions. Most recently, the 2019 Supreme Court decision in Vavilov raised concerns that it licenses judges to undertake more intrusive review. Key to this story is the assumption that these groundbreaking decisions of the Supreme Court influence how lower court judges decide challenges in the administrative law context. Prior empirical studies have found that the 2008 Supreme Court decision in Dunsmuir increased the use of the reasonableness standard of review as well as the rate at which judges affirm administrative decisions. However, it can be difficult to empirically account for the variety of contexts and decision makers involved. This article uses decisions of the Federal Court to examine whether Dunsmuir and Vavilov changed how judges decide. It finds that, while the use of reasonableness has dramatically increased, the rate at which judges affirm administrative decisions has not changed over time. The article discusses these results and what they imply about the influence of these groundbreaking Supreme Court decisions
Administrative law · Certiorari · Concurring opinion · Context (archaeology · Court of record · Deference · Judicial opinion · Judicial review · Majority opinion · Original jurisdiction · Political science · Precedent · Standard of review · Supreme court · Supreme Court Decisions · Criminal Law and Evidence · History · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Law · Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems
| Highly cited | No |
|---|