Sentences with phrase «of substantive judicial review»

Not exact matches

At the centre of this appeal is the approach to be taken by a court to judicial review of such decisions, both on procedural and substantive grounds.

In addition to these administrative mechanisms, a patient may turn to the courts for judicial review of either the substantive decision (i.e. the decision to cover (or not) a particular medical service) or the process used to make that decision.

The 1910 amendment, by its terms, did not eliminate those substantive standards but altered the procedures of judicial review:» [N] 0 fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of this state, unless the court can affirmatively say there is no evidence to support the verdict» (emphasis added).

The Court was in this case probably not really confronted with an «uncontrollable centre of power» considering the procedural and substantive checks and balances imposed in the regulation as well as the possibility of judicial review by the Court and therefore did not see the need to annul a regulation that itself tried to curb an uncontrollable centre of power: the financial markets.

If the United Kingdom, having already triggered Article 50 TEU, make a unilateral attempt to revoke this notice, and this exercise of prerogative power were submitted to judicial review before the UK courts, then a substantive interpretation of EU law would be necessary to determine the question in the case.

Indeed, the Act specifically states that» [t] here shall be no judicial review of compliance or noncompliance with any provision of this Act» and, moreover, «no provision of this Act shall be construed to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any administrative or judicial action.»

Making distinctions like this between categories of decision - maker in substantive judicial review is, in my opinion, a step in the wrong direction.

The primary issue in substantive judicial review should always be what is the nature of the question decided by the administrative decision - maker and who as between the judiciary and the executive or its delegates is best - suited to have the final say in answering it.

Dunsmuir acknowledges the nature of the question as the most important factor in selecting the appropriate level of deference in substantive judicial review; endorsing what has been the reality for years despite claims that relative expertise is the most influential factor.

One can not also help but notice that in purporting to reformulate the pragmatic and functional approach to substantive judicial review, Dunsmuir consists of three concurring but inconsistent sets of reasons.

Binnie J.'s reasons aside, Dunsmuir is little more than formal acknowledgement of recent shifts in, and deficiencies with, the Supreme Court's attitude towards substantive judicial review.

PDF Version: Some Thoughts on the Presumption of Deference under the Dunsmuir Framework in Substantive Judicial Review

These findings on standard of review are not only consistent with the overall trend in existing jurisprudence concerning the judicial review of FOIP decisions, but are also consistent with the trend towards reasonableness as the standard of review generally in substantive judicial review of statutory interpretation by administrative decision - makers.

The first step in substantive judicial review under Canadian administrative law is to identify the standard of review applicable to the question or questions in the impugned statutory decision.

Perhaps it is folly to expect substantive judicial review to be a simple exercise, since at its core the review must both acknowledge and respect the exercise of legal authority by statutory officials while at the same time ensure such authority is legitimate under the rule of law.

I conclude with some thoughts on the developing presumption of deference in substantive judicial review post-Dunsmuir.

Permission to apply for judicial review was refused by the High Court, but granted by the Court of Appeal, which went on to hear and dismiss the substantive application for judicial review.

While a tribunal's substantive decision - making under its home statute may survive a judicial review merely by being reasonable, a tribunal must still be correct about questions of general law, and must still reach decisions on a foundation of procedural fairness; legislatures do not authorize tribunals to decide matters through unjust processes (Dunsmuir at 128 - 129).

That, in turn, would have clarified the substantive issues before the court on judicial review and allowed the court to determine whether that definition is reasonable (or correct, if that is the applicable standard) and within the legislative authority of the law society to apply.

The USPTO conceded that it uses «redundancy» to control its docket without substantive review of the grounds presented in a petition, but contends that its decisions effectively are not subject to judicial review.

Canadian judicial review of administrative action is structured around two poles: substantive review and procedural review.

From the perspective of any administrative decision - maker, isn't the import of this sort of decision that it is better to provide coherent reasons to survive substantive judicial review?

In Dunsmuir, the Supreme Court set out to do two things: first, to simplify the standards of judicial review by eliminating the patent unreasonableness standard, and second, to strike a balance between upholding the rule of law — that is, ensuring that administrative decision makers adhere to the law as written by legislatures — and according sufficient deference to the administrative decision maker to allow them to provide substantive «meat» to the legislative bones.

However, it is clear that Lord Toulson (rightly or wrongly) considers that judicial review in circumstances such as these would not be substantive review in its classic, outcomes - oriented sense, and that his approach may instead be based upon narrower grounds concerning the institutional particularities of the situation.

Download a full introduction to judicial review (pdf) by Robert Sutherland, who was called to the Bar in 1992 and has a special interest in this field, explaining both the procedure and the substantive grounds of challenge.

Where a commissioner refuses leave to appeal against a substantive tribunal decision, his refusal is susceptible to judicial review.Moreover, if a decision of the LQPM is unappealable to the commissioners, it is susceptible to judicial review.

Insofar as judicial review serves to uphold the Rule of Law, individual rights, federalism, procedural fairness, or whatever other substantive value, deferential review presumably accomplishes these objectives less well than aggressive review.

It is a constitutional principle that can, as the Supreme Court recognized in Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 SCR 217, result in «substantive limitations upon government action» — including, relevantly to us here, in government action aiming at reducing the courts» powers of judicial review.

Then it proceeds to the three analytical steps to determine an application for judicial review: preliminary and procedural concerns, the merits of the judicial review (review for substantive defects and procedural defects), and remedies.

And your substantive argument still isn't convincing: the Treaties rule out judicial review of the CFSP * by the CJEU *; that can't be taken to rule out other forms of judicial review by implication.

Other benefits are specific to the various substantive categories of judicial review.

Here is the abstract: The substantive law of judicial review of -LSB-...] Read more

On issues such as the content of the record on judicial review applications, the extent to which administrative decision - makers can participate in judicial reviews of their decisions, superior court review of federal prison decisions and tribunals» capacity to reconsider their decisions, Canadian courts have recently come under pressure to update the procedural law to bring it into line with the substantive law.

The substantive law of judicial review of administrative action has grown in leaps and bounds in recent decades.

R (OAO Southern Drinks) v HM Revenue and Custom Acted for an alcoholic drinks wholesaler in a judicial review challenge to a decision by HMRC refusing to grant interim reinstatement of a WOWGR approval pending the substantive determination by the FTT of an appeal against the revocation.

Mark's other books include Public Law Adjudication in Common Law Systems: Process and Substance (Hart Publishing 2016)(co-edited with John Bell, Jason Varuhas and Philip Murray), The Scope and Intensity of Substantive Review: Traversing Taggart's Rainbow (Hart Publishing 2015)(co-edited with Hanna Wilberg), The Cambridge Companion to Public Law (Cambridge University Press 2015)(co-edited with David Feldman) and The Constitutional Foundations of Judicial Review (Hart Publishing 2000).

First, there are few lawyers who are genuinely specialists in both substantive areas of law (such as environmental law, planning law, prison law and so on) and the general principles of judicial review of administrative action.