ABLawg - - Page 96

Statutory Appeal Rights in Relation to Administrative Decision-Maker Now Attract an Appellate Standard of Review: A Possible Legislative Response

On January 3, 2020

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Statutory Appeal Rights in Relation to Administrative Decision-Maker Now Attract an Appellate Standard of Review: A Possible Legislative Response

Decision Commented On: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 (CanLII)

The Supreme Court of Canada used Vavilov and its companion cases Bell Canada v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 SCC 66 (CanLII)) (the Super Bowl Case) and Canada Post Corp. v Canadian Union of Postal Workers, 2019 SCC 67 (CanLII) as an opportunity to re-examine its approach to judicial review of administrative decisions. The Court reaffirmed much of the Dunsmuir approach (Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 (CanLII), [2008] 1 SCR 190) as refined in the subsequent case law. In particular, it has reaffirmed that in most cases the standard of review is reasonableness. The Court also reaffirmed a series of exceptions to that presumption namely where the legislature has indicated that a different standard should apply, and where the rule of law requires that a correctness standard should apply (i.e. constitutional questions, general questions of law of central importance to the legal system as a whole, and jurisdictional boundaries between two or more administrative bodies).

Clawbies 2019

By Admin

On January 2, 2020

In Blogs and Websites

ABlawg is delighted to announce that Nigel Bankes was awarded a 2019 Canadian Law Blog Award (Clawbie) in the category of Best Bloggers on a Platform or Shared Blog. The awards committee noted his “great analysis of everything going on in energy law, particularly in Alberta” and that “readers call him “the blogger’s blogger” who sets the standard for his fellow authors at ABlawg.” We could not agree more – congratulations Nigel!

We also congratulate U Calgary Law’s Pro Bono Students Canada team, whose podcast Hearsay won a Clawbie in the Best Student Projects category, and our alumnus and ABlawgger Joshua Sealy-Harrington for his success in the Best Twitter Accounts category.

Congratulations to all the Clawbie winners and thanks to our readers for your nominations and continued support.

Coercive Control: What Should a Good Lawyer Do?

By Deanne Sowter

On January 2, 2020

In Ethics and the Legal Profession, Family, State Responses to Violence

By: Deanne Sowter

PDF Version: Coercive Control: What Should a Good Lawyer Do?

Matter Commented On: Federation of Law Societies Model Code of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.3-3

I am currently conducting research to determine whether coercive control can be considered psychological harm for the purpose of the future harm exception to confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege. (FLSC Model Code R 3.3-3; Smith v Jones, [1999] 1 SCR 455 (SCC)) My research is supported by the OBA Fellowship in Legal Ethics and Professionalism Studies. In that research I’m determining whether a lawyer can disclose, but doing that research has provoked me to wonder whether a lawyer should disclose.

ABlawg: Year in Review 2019

By Admin

On December 23, 2019

In Uncategorized

By: Admin

PDF Version: ABlawg: Year in Review 2019

Introduction

This was another busy year for ABlawg, with a total of 113 posts in 2019 to date. Nigel Bankes surpassed the 300 mark for lifetime posts in 2019 and one of his posts from 2017 was cited by the Supreme Court of Canada in Redwater (aka Orphan Well Association v Grant Thornton Ltd, 2019 SCC 5 (CanLII)), the second time the SCC has cited ABlawg (see also Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Governor General in Council), 2018 SCC 40 (CanLII), citing another of Professor Bankes’ posts).

Here are some other highlights of the year on ABlawg.

The Alberta Inquiry and Freedom of Expression

By Jennifer Koshan

On December 17, 2019

In Constitutional, Energy

By: Jennifer Koshan and Linda McKay-Panos

PDF Version: The Alberta Inquiry and Freedom of Expression

Matter Commented On: Alberta Inquiry into Anti-Alberta Energy Campaigns

Our colleagues Martin Olszynski and Shaun Fluker have posted concerns about the Alberta Inquiry into Anti-Alberta Energy Campaigns from the perspective of the rule of law and procedural fairness (see here and here). Amnesty International has also raised concerns about the Inquiry’s “aggressive approach to defending the oil and gas industry from criticism” and the impact this approach will have on human rights defenders – especially those who are Indigenous, women, and/or environmental activists. Ecojustice flagged similar concerns about freedom of expression in its letter to Inquiry Commissioner Steve Allan.