PART XI: JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
The essence of this review is that we’re looking for accountability, constitutional protection, oversight, ensure fairness and preventing arbitrariness
There is a whole spectrum of judicial review associated with executive action – there are cases where you want to intervene more because the matters deal with serious issues, whereas there are others where you might not want to do so
Too much judicial involvement may take the way the finality of executive action
Judicial review is about achieving efficiency and a balance in terms with executive action
Judicial review should ensure that executive action is only doing what it is entitled to do by jurisdiction
Overview of Administrative Law
3 limits on exercise of executive powers
can only do what statute tells you to do (maintaining jurisdiction – ex. Ultra vires v inter vires)
must ensure appropriate procedural fairness; cannot exercise discretion arbitrarily
difficult to place along the scale of judicial review
in some cases, you cannot be wrong about your decision making power
In many cases where an administrative decision is made, you have the right to judicial review. This is the means by which the court overviews administrative powers.
An application is generally made and the court will decide whether or not to intervene (different from appeal because an appeal is a disagreement about what one level of court has decided)
THREE REASONS WHY JUDICIAL REVIEW IS DIFFEERENT THAN APPEAL
1. Right of appeal must be provided for by statute. Unless the law permits you to do so, there is no right to appeal
Even by statute, you cannot derogate something to be reviewed by judicial review
2. Standard that court applies in decision varies between appeal and judicial review
Courts are more exacting with appeals than judicial review
With judicial review, the courts will tolerate some level of error
Typically you just have to show that the decision was reasonable
3. On appeal court has broad remedial powers (can substitute decision for decision of lower courts)
- in judicial review, the remedial decision is more narrow; can only say that something was wrong. Cannot substitute its own decision or invoke a remedy.
On Judicial Review you could argue:
tribunal exceeded its authority
process by which decision was made wasn’t fair
decision maker has committed an error of law or fact
courts will typically look to a high standard of jurisdiction to see if the tribunal has exceeded its authority
ex. ONHC limitation period cannot bring a claim after a particular point in time (1 yr) – that limit has been considered a jurisdictional issue because if it’s filed after 1 year, the tribunal doesn’t have jurisdiction to...
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.