How important are the groundbreaking cases in administrative law?

IF 0.7 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW
Andrew Green
{"title":"How important are the groundbreaking cases in administrative law?","authors":"Andrew Green","doi":"10.3138/utlj-2021-0056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":46289,"journal":{"name":"University of Toronto Law Journal","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Toronto Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3138/utlj-2021-0056","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.
行政法中具有开创性的案例有多重要?
加拿大行政法的故事可以被看作是在加拿大最高法院的一些基本判决的推动下走向服从的一个步骤。关于这一举措的争论集中在审查法院的适当作用以及行政法决定背后的政治。最近,2019年最高法院在瓦维洛夫的裁决引发了人们的担忧,即它允许法官进行更具侵入性的审查。这个故事的关键是一个假设,即最高法院的这些开创性决定影响了下级法院法官在行政法背景下对挑战的裁决。先前的实证研究发现,2008年最高法院在Dunsmuir案中的判决增加了审查合理性标准的使用,以及法官确认行政决定的比率。然而,从经验上解释所涉及的各种背景和决策者是很困难的。本文利用联邦法院的判决来考察邓斯缪尔和瓦维洛夫是否改变了法官的判决方式。报告发现,虽然合理的运用大大增加,但法官维持行政决定的比率并没有随着时间的推移而改变。本文讨论了这些结果,以及它们对最高法院这些开创性判决的影响的暗示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
16.70%
发文量
26
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信