Over at slaw.ca, Simon Fodden points us in the direction of the Canadian Judicial Council's website, which has a collection of documents relevant to the Douglas Inquiry. For those of you who have been dwelling under rocks, this Inquiry is into a sad and sordid tale involving Justice Douglas and her former partner.
Like Simon, I am reluctant to enter the debate on the appropriateness of the Inquiry. But the Inquiry's website is an excellent source of relevant documents.
There are now two judicial review applications before the Federal Court, one initiated by Justice Douglas and one by the former independent counsel to the Inquiry, Guy Pratte (who has now resigned).
Common to both is the allegation that the Inquiry has been conducting itself in an improper manner, by acting in an inquisitorial fashion. If and when the matter gets to court, it will be interesting to see what conclusion is reached on this important question.
Tuesday, 21 August 2012
The Manitoba Court of Appeal, in London Limos v. Unicity Taxi Ltd., 2012 MBCA 75, recently discussed whether market participants in regulated industries have any procedural rights when new companies apply to enter the market. The answer in this case was some, but not many.
Volochay v. College of Massage Therapists of Ontario, 2012 ONCA 541, involves a masseur, (alleged) extra-marital sex, (alleged) intimidation of a witness and (allegedly) a vengeful government agency. A story interesting enough, then, to survive even the following injection of administrative law principles.
Thursday, 16 August 2012
Julian Assange is currently hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy, where he may be for some time. The British government's suggestion that he could be arrested there is wide of the mark, however.
I've commented previously on administrators' interpretations of their own regulations. In a recent Federal Court case, Moya v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 971, the question of how reviewing courts should treat such interpretations arose again.
Tuesday, 14 August 2012
A decision from the Irish High Court in the long-running saga of Dontex Ltd. v. Dublin Docklands Development Authority,  IEHC 318 is a useful example both of the division between private law and public law and of judicial reluctance to bar claims on the basis that the parties have chosen the wrong juridical route.
Monday, 13 August 2012
A helpful way to keep up with recent legal developments in Canada is to follow the output of the country's leading law firms.
Wednesday, 8 August 2012
An interesting decision from the Federal Court of Canada today, the latest installment in a long-running labour relations saga at Canada Post.
Friday, 3 August 2012
An individual aggrieved by a governmental decision may have two choices: sue the government for damages, or seek judicial review. Some of the most difficult questions in administrative law arise on the border between a civil suit (private law) and judicial review (public law).
Thursday, 2 August 2012
Ireland's National Asset Management Agency won a High Court legal battle against Treasury Holdings earlier this week, but it may end up losing the war. Finlay Geoghegan J.'s judgment,  IEHC 297, cannot have been well received at NAMA headquarters. Over at NAMA Wine Lake, the editors wonder out loud "if indeed the Agency is panicking at the prospect of floodgates of legal action in the wake of yesterday’s judgment".
Wednesday, 1 August 2012
Karole Cuddihy passes along an interesting Irish High Court decision. In the following passage, from EMI Records (Ireland) Ltd. v. The Data Protection Commissioner,  IEHC 264, the ever-reliable Charleton J. describes the place of deference in Irish law. I think it also functions as a serviceable description of prevailing English law:
Nothing new under the sun is to be found in Spirit Airlines v. Department of Transportation, but the facts are interesting.