In Canada the creative tension between the rule of law and democracy — constitutional principles recognised by the Supreme Court of Canada [1]-- provides a crucible in which
judicial review doctrine is formed.
But should the preferences of my ego be translated into
judicial review doctrine?
This distinction was specifically rejected as a touchstone of
judicial review doctrine in Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [99] and properly so.
In its decision in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, [3] the Court attempted to clarify and simplify Canadian
judicial review doctrine.
Calibrating
judicial review doctrine is a difficult undertaking, particularly when the Court has not been presented with a raft of viable alternatives.
In a recent decision, Justice Stratas of the Federal Court of Appeal raised a host of questions about the applicability of the Supreme Court of Canada's re-shaping of
judicial review doctrine to decisions taken by discretionary decision - makers: [19] I am inclined to find that the Director is subject to this «normal» or -LSB-...] Read more
Not exact matches
Restrictions on non-lawyers practicing law seemed as fundamental to our legal system as the hallowed
doctrine of
judicial review.
4 The «double exequatur»
doctrine requires two sorts of
judicial reviews: the first one, by the country that issues the award; the second one, by the country where the award is enforced.
matter of principle based on the
doctrine of separation of powers as well as a matter of policy founded on the efficiency of the system of criminal justice» which also recognizes that prosecutorial discretion is «especially ill - suited to
judicial review»... (cites omitted)
Judicial non-interference with prosecutorial discretion has been referred to as a «matter of principle based on the doctrine of separation of powers as well as a matter of policy founded on the efficiency of the system of criminal justice» which also recognizes that prosecutorial discretion is «especially ill - suited to judicial review»... (cites
Judicial non-interference with prosecutorial discretion has been referred to as a «matter of principle based on the
doctrine of separation of powers as well as a matter of policy founded on the efficiency of the system of criminal justice» which also recognizes that prosecutorial discretion is «especially ill - suited to
judicial review»... (cites
judicial review»... (cites omitted)
The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's order striking down the pledges or promises and commit clauses on the grounds that a pre-enforcement challenge to the
judicial canons was unfit for
review under the ripeness
doctrine.
The fourth edition covers: Fair procedures including the rule against bias and audi alteram partem;
Review of discretionary powers, with the doctrines of reasonableness and proportionality and the impact of constitutional rights; Judicial review practice -LSB-...] Rea
Review of discretionary powers, with the
doctrines of reasonableness and proportionality and the impact of constitutional rights;
Judicial review practice -LSB-...] Rea
review practice -LSB-...] Read more
This is known as the
doctrine of «
judicial review.»
In a unanimous verdict, a nine - judge bench headed by Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal held that all laws included in the Ninth Schedule after the evolution of the basic - structure
doctrine of the constitution — through the 1973 verdict of the Keshavananda Bharti case — are open to
judicial review.
Now Stratas, suspecting that the SCC is about to revisit the
doctrine of
judicial review, is making a plea for some kind of coherent approach:
We submit that logic requires that the application of the
judicial immunity
doctrine should be addressed by the JCC and
reviewed by the Supreme Court.
We respectfully submit that an important jurisdictional issue and constitutional question is presented by this case, and that a failure of the Supreme Court to
review the findings of the Board of Governors will have the effect of voiding the
Judicial Immunity
Doctrine, and will destroy the justification for the existence of the
Judicial Conduct Commission.
If the Supreme Court does not
review this jurisdictional issue, then there will be established a precedent which will void the
Doctrine of
Judicial Immunity.
Stratas J.A. has pointed to a range of factors that may help provide the basis for a more «nuanced» approach to the choice of standard of
review as well as strong arguments against an overall presumption of reasonableness: David Stratas, «The Canadian Law of Judicial Review: Some Doctrine and Cases» (October 2017), available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=29
review as well as strong arguments against an overall presumption of reasonableness: David Stratas, «The Canadian Law of
Judicial Review: Some Doctrine and Cases» (October 2017), available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=29
Review: Some
Doctrine and Cases» (October 2017), available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2924049.
Called «The Canadian Law of
Judicial Review: Some
Doctrine and Cases ``, it is nothing less than a comprehensive overview of the concepts, principles, and rules of administrative law in an accessible format, for the reference of judges, lawyers, scholars, and students.
The issue sought to be raised in the Amicus brief is that the KBA has no jurisdiction to
review the legal rulings of any judge made in his official capacity due to the
Judicial Immunity
Doctrine.