A recent decision of the Federal Court of Appeal («FCA») has muddied the waters regarding
the role of the administrative tribunals in Crown - Aboriginal consultation and effectively diminished the duty of tribunals to assess the adequacy of Crown consultation in respect of project applications before them.
Not exact matches
This case raises challenging questions about the proper constitutional
role of courts, their appropriate function on judicial review, and the relationship between
administrative tribunals and the judiciary.
To demonstrate the broad applicability
of FIPPA, Justice Morgan explored the
role and function
of administrative tribunals, as an
administrative arm and an independent adjudicative body, but noted the lack
of distinction in FIPPA
of the business functions
of government or the adjudicative functions
of tribunals.
Apart from that, the only «fix» is for the Legislature to be more specific as to the scope
of appeals that may be taken from
administrative tribunal decisions and the breadth
of the court's
role on appeal.
A lingering uneasiness remains over the perceived risk that
Tribunals may permit the
administrative role of legal assistants to become unsupervised, or, even worse, to morph into that
of a delegated decision maker.
Before long, it was clear that the rules
of evidence play substantially different
roles in access to justice depending on the sphere
of the legal system (i.e. in a criminal court, in an
administrative tribunal, in a setting
of self - represented individuals, in mediation, etc.).
In recent years, change in the Canadian legal landscape has been fuelled by two dominant factors: first, the growing influence
of constitutional concerns, including federal / provincial division
of powers issues and a variety
of matters arising from the Charter
of Rights and Freedoms, and second, the burgeoning number and power
of Charter - oriented
administrative tribunals that play an increasingly influential
role in our complicated, interest - based society.