JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES IN CANADA
AbstractWithin the field of judicial review of administrative authorities in Canada, conflict has flourished. In this article the author examines the development of such conflict, as well as the resulting uncertainty of judicial review. Through a discussion of several recent Canadian cases, the author illustrates the prevailing confusion of thought, as well as the absence of any clearly defined principles for judicial review. In an attempt to ascertain any principles governing judicial review of administrative tribunals, he examines the remedies of prohibition, mandamus, and certiorari in relation to the concept of jurisdictional defect. He also examines instances of error of law on the face of the record, as well as instances of breach of the principles of natural justice, as grounds for granting such remedies. The author examines closely the concept of jurisdictional defect, and discusses the courts’ control over administrative bodies through judicial review in comparison to the control exercised by way of appeal. He concludes by proposing that in order for the courts to exercise supervision effectively, a measure of consistency in judicial review must be obtained, and present uncertainties resolved.
Download data is not yet available.