This is so for two reasons, firstly, because it would upset the institutional balance of power created by the Treaties, and secondly, because there would be a risk of lack of
judicial supervision by the Court of such powers.
Not exact matches
«
By allowing one party to the appeal to put the other at serious procedural disadvantage without sufficient
judicial supervision, the rules are not securing that justice be done or that the tribunal system is fair.»
The aim, for example, to broaden the range of
judicial decisions that are made
by non-judges (and even non-lawyers), under the «
supervision» of judges, is more concerned with greater centralisation of services and with savings in the
judicial salaries budget.
An Ontario court declined to suspend a
supervision order made
by a Quality Assurance Committee (a «QAC») against a physician, as he could not prove that that the
supervision requirement, if left undisturbed until his
judicial review, would result in...
First, if effective
supervision by the courts is the rationale for the duty to give reasons, wouldn't a duty arise in any case where the underlying decision is subject to
judicial review (which, nowadays, is more or less all decisions)?
He held that the fast track rules «do incorporate structural unfairness» and that «
by allowing one party to the appeal to put the other at serious procedural disadvantage without sufficient
judicial supervision, the rules are not securing that justice be done or that the tribunal system is fair.