In other words, while Justices LeBel and Cromwell purported to apply the categorical approach, [60] the real drivers of the choice of standard of review were the much - maligned
standard of review analysis factors.
The Court's rhetoric suggests the categorical approach, but a more close analysis suggests that
the standard of review analysis factors, or some variant thereon, are the real motor.
Not exact matches
For all its warts, Chevron at least avoids the protracted
standard of review analysis, with its attendant
standards, presumptions, categories, and
factors which are confusing for the most learned
of administrative lawyers.
Litigants and litigators are likely to become more confused in the future than they ever were by the
standard of review analysis: at least the categorical approach's predecessor comprised four fixed
factors.
[25] The expertise
of the decision maker and the raison d'être
of the commissioner (i.e., balancing competing interests) are
factors that would have been taken into account in a
standard of review analysis.
At least with the previous
standard of review analysis it was clear what
factors would be relied upon.
Not since Dunsmuir has the Supreme Court identified the
review standard through a sustained
analysis of contextualism's four
factors.
My
analysis in this post is organized under the following themes: (1) the presumption
of deference; (2) the statutory right
of appeal; (3) relative expertise; and (4) the contextual or
factored standard of review analysis.