Douglas v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., (2014) 452 F.T.R. 1 (FC)

JudgeMosley, J.
CourtFederal Court (Canada)
Case DateMarch 28, 2014
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(2014), 452 F.T.R. 1 (FC);2014 FC 299

Douglas v. Can. (A.G.) (2014), 452 F.T.R. 1 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2014] F.T.R. TBEd. AP.002

The Honourable Lori Douglas (applicant) v. The Attorney General of Canada (respondent) and The Canadian Judicial Council and the Independent Counsel to the Canadian Judicial Council and The Canadian Superior Court Judges Association (intervenors)

(T-1567-12; 2014 FC 299; 2014 CF 299)

Indexed As: Douglas v. Canada (Attorney General) et al.

Federal Court

Mosley, J.

March 28, 2014.

Summary:

An Inquiry Committee of the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) was constituted to investigate the conduct of the Honourable Lori Douglas, Associate Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Douglas, A.C.J.). Douglas, A.C.J., applied for judicial review (Federal Courts Act, s. 18.1), seeking declaratory relief and a prohibition order. She claimed that the CJC's assertion of a solicitor-client relationship with the Independent Counsel appointed to present the case to the Inquiry Committee, gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of institutional bias. Preliminary questions were raised by the CJC relating to the jurisdiction of the court to consider the application and, should jurisdiction be established, as to whether the application was premature.

The Federal Court ruled that it had jurisdiction to consider the application under the Federal Courts Act and that the application was not premature. However, the court found that institutional bias was not made out and, accordingly, the application for judicial review was dismissed. The court rejected the solicitor-client relationship argument and ordered the contents of a sealed packet filed by the CJC released to the parties.

Administrative Law - Topic 2088

Natural justice - Constitution of board or tribunal (considerations incl. bias) - Bias - Apprehension of - [See both Administrative Law - Topic 2093 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2093

Natural justice - Constitution of board or tribunal (considerations incl. bias) - Bias - Institutional or systemic bias - The Federal Court reviewed the test for a reasonable apprehension of institutional bias - See paragraphs 149 to 154.

Administrative Law - Topic 2093

Natural justice - Constitution of board or tribunal (considerations incl. bias) - Bias - Institutional or systemic bias - An Inquiry Committee of the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) was constituted to investigate the conduct of a judge (Douglas, A.C.J.) - During the proceedings, Independent Counsel (Pratte), who had been appointed pursuant to the CJC Bylaws and Policy to present the case to the Inquiry Committee, resigned - CJC's counsel (Sabourin) refused to provide Douglas, A.C.J., with a copy of the resignation letter and any related communications, asserting solicitor-client privilege - Douglas, A.C.J., applied for judicial review of the CJC's assertion of a solicitor-client relationship with the Independent Counsel, arguing that the assertion gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of institutional bias - The Federal Court held that the standard of review on this issue was correctness - The court rejected the reasonable apprehension of bias argument - See paragraphs 71 and 148 to 200.

Constitutional Law - Topic 8701

Federal power to establish courts - General - [See first Courts - Topic 451.1 ].

Courts - Topic 451

Judges - Discipline - Canadian Judicial Council - General - The Federal Court reviewed the statutory framework governing removal of a judge from office, including the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) inquiry and review process - Among other things, the court discussed the role of Independent Counsel in the inquiry and review process - See paragraphs 4 to 30, 198 and 199.

Courts - Topic 451

Judges - Discipline - Canadian Judicial Council - General - [See second Administrative Law - Topic 2093 ].

Courts - Topic 451.1

Judges - Discipline - Canadian Judicial Council, Chairperson or Inquiry Committee - Judicial review - At issue was whether an Inquiry Committee and the Canadian Judicial Council, when conducting investigations and inquiries under the Judges Act, were subject to judicial review as federal administrative tribunals - The Federal Court held that this issue was reviewable on the standard of correctness, being a true issue of jurisdiction or vires - The court concluded that it had jurisdiction under s. 18 of the Federal Courts Act (FCA) - The CJC was a "federal board, commission or other tribunal" within the meaning of s. 2 of the FCA - Section 63(4) of the Judge's Act, which deemed the CJC or an Inquiry Committee to be a "superior court", was for purposes of inquiries or investigations only - That provision did not create them as superior courts under s. 101 of the Constitution Act, 1867 - Section 63(4) did not expressly oust the jurisdiction of the Federal Court - See paragraphs 69 and 72 to 126.

Courts - Topic 451.1

Judges - Discipline - Canadian Judicial Council, Chairperson or Inquiry Committee - Judicial review - An Inquiry Committee of the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) was constituted to investigate the conduct of a judge (Douglas, A.C.J.) - During the proceedings, Independent Counsel (Pratte), who had been appointed by the Judicial Conduct Committee to present the case to the Inquiry Committee, resigned - CJC's counsel (Sabourin) refused to provide Douglas, A.C.J., with a copy of the resignation letter and any related communications, asserting solicitor-client privilege - Douglas, A.C.J., applied for judicial review of the CJC's assertion of a solicitor-client relationship with the Independent Counsel, arguing that the assertion gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of institutional bias - At issue was whether the application was premature - The Federal Court held that this was a mixed question of fact and law reviewable for reasonableness - The court determined that the application was not premature - See paragraphs 70 and 127 to 147.

Courts - Topic 451.1

Judges - Discipline - Canadian Judicial Council, Chairperson or Inquiry Committee - Judicial review - [See second Administrative Law - Topic 2093 ].

Courts - Topic 451.2

Judges - Discipline - Canadian Judicial Council - Disclosure obligations - [See first Courts - Topic 453.3 ].

Courts - Topic 453.3

Judges - Discipline - Inquiry - Role of independent counsel - An Inquiry Committee of the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) was constituted to investigate the conduct of a judge (Douglas, A.C.J.) - During the proceedings, Independent Counsel (Pratte), who had been appointed pursuant to the CJC Bylaws and Policy to present the case to the Inquiry Committee, resigned - CJC's counsel (Sabourin) refused to provide Douglas, A.C.J., with a copy of the resignation letter and any related communications, asserting solicitor-client privilege - The Federal Court held that there no solicitor-client relationship between the CJC and Independent Counsel - Pursuant to the terms of his appointment, Independent Counsel had no client - That role was inconsistent with the creation of a solicitor-client relationship - Even if a solicitor-client relationship existed, the communications relating to the appointment and resignation were not subject to solicitor-client privilege (i.e., legal advice privilege) - See paragraphs 71 and 148 to 190.

Courts - Topic 453.3

Judges - Discipline - Inquiry - Role of independent counsel - [See second Administrative Law - Topic 2093 and first Courts - Topic 451 ].

Courts - Topic 475

Judges - Removal and retirement - General - [See second Administrative Law - Topic 2093 , first Courts - Topic 451 and first Courts - Topic 453.3 ].

Courts - Topic 479

Judges - Removal - Judicial review - [See first and second Courts - Topic 451.1 ].

Courts - Topic 4021.1

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Decisions of federal boards, commissions or tribunals (incl. ministers) - [See first Courts - Topic 451.1 ].

Practice - Topic 4577

Discovery - What documents must be produced - Privileged documents - Attorney-client communications (legal advice privilege) - The Federal Court discussed the elements of the test for determining whether a communication qualified for legal advice privilege - See paragraphs 179 to 186.

Practice - Topic 4577

Discovery - What documents must be produced - Privileged documents - Attorney-client communications (legal advice privilege) - [See first Courts - Topic 453.3 ].

Statutes - Topic 1845

Interpretation - Intrinsic aids - Titles, headings and section numbers - Headings and marginal notes - The Federal Court, in interpreting s. 63(4) of the Judge's Act, held that the marginal notes to that section were relevant to the consideration of the context of the legislation as a whole - See paragraph 106.

Statutes - Topic 2459

Interpretation - Interpretation of words and phrases - Interpretation and definition clauses - Use of word "deemed" - The Federal Court discussed the use of a "deeming provision" in legislation - See paragraphs 112 and 113.

Cases Noticed:

Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342; 92 N.R. 110; 75 Sask.R. 82, refd to. [para. 2].

Cosgrove v. Canadian Judicial Council et al. (2007), 361 N.R. 201; 2007 FCA 103, refd to. [para. 5].

Black v. Advisory Council for the Order of Canada (2012), 420 F.T.R. 79; 2012 FC 1234, affd. (2013), 454 N.R. 202; 2013 FCA 267, refd to. [para. 10].

Toronto (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77; 311 N.R. 201; 179 O.A.C. 291; 2003 SCC 63, refd to. [para. 69].

Alberta Teachers' Association v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al., [2011] S.C.R. 654; 424 N.R. 70; 519 A.R. 1; 539 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 69].

Conseil de la magistrature (N.-B.) v. Moreau-Bérubé, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 249; 281 N.R. 201; 245 N.B.R.(2d) 201; 636 A.P.R. 201; 2002 SCC 11, refd to. [para. 70].

Gagliano v. Gomery et al. (2008), 333 F.T.R. 22; 2008 FC 981, refd to. [para. 71].

Canadian College of Business and Computers Inc. et al. v. Superintendent Under the Private Career Colleges Act (2010), 272 O.A.C. 177; 2010 ONCA 856, refd to. [para. 71].

TeleZone Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2010] 3 S.C.R. 585; 410 N.R. 1; 273 O.A.C. 1; 2010 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 80].

Anisman v. Canada Border Services Agency et al. (2010), 400 N.R. 137; 2010 FCA 52, refd to. [para. 81].

Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development v. Ranville et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 518; 44 N.R. 616, refd to. [para. 84].

Canada (Attorney General) et al. v. Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada et al., [1997] 2 F.C. 36; 207 N.R. 1 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 85].

Minde v. Ermineskin Cree Nation et al. (2008), 372 N.R. 268; 2008 FCA 52, refd to. [para. 89].

Jock et al. v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs) et al., [1991] 2 F.C. 355; 41 F.T.R. 189 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 89].

Onuschak v. Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants et al. (2009), 357 F.T.R. 22; 2009 FC 1135, refd to. [para. 89].

Gratton v. Canadian Judicial Council et al., [1994] 2 F.C. 769, 78 F.T.R. 214 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 90].

Taylor v. Canada (Attorney General) (2001), 212 F.T.R. 246; 2001 FCT 1247, affd. (2003), 300 N.R. 1; 2003 FCA 55, leave to appeal denied (2003), 321 N.R. 399 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 90].

Cosgrove v. Canadian Judicial Council et al. (2005), 282 F.T.R. 60; 2005 FC 1454, affd. in part (2007) 361 N.R. 201; 2007 FCA 103, leave to appeal dismissed (2007), 383 N.R. 388 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 90].

Cosgrove v. Canada (Attorney General) (2008), 331 F.T.R. 271; 2008 FC 941, refd to. [para. 90].

Akladyous v. Canadian Judicial Council (2008), 325 F.T.R. 240; 2008 FC 50, refd to. [para. 90].

Slansky v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2011), 402 F.T.R. 230; 2011 FC 1467, affd. (2013), 449 N.R. 28; 2013 FCA 199, leave to appeal denied, [2013] S.C.C.A. No. 452, refd to. [para. 90].

MacKeigan, J.A. et al. v. Royal Commission (Marshall Inquiry), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 796; 100 N.R. 81; 94 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 247 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 96].

Conacher et al. v. Prime Minister (Can.) et al. (2011), 403 N.R. 326; 2010 FCA 131, refd to. [para. 100].

A.Y.S.A. Amateur Youth Soccer Association v. Canada Revenue Agency (2007), 367 N.R. 264; 2007 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 100].

Corbett v. Minister of National Revenue, [1997] 1 F.C. 386; 205 N.R. 365 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 106].

R. v. Verrette, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 838; 21 N.R. 571, refd to. [para. 112].

Diamond and the Ontario Municipal Board, Re, [1962] O.R. 328 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 1113].

Taylor v. Canada (Attorney General), [2002] 3 F.C. 91; 212 F.T.R. 246, 2001 FCT 1247, refd to. [para. 117].

Crevier v. Quebec (Attorney General) et al. (1981), 38 N.R. 541; 127 D.L.R.(3d) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 119].

Shubenacadie Indian Band v. Canadian Human Rights Commission et al. (1997) 138 F.T.R. 275; 154 D.L.R.(4th) 344 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 119].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 120].

R. v. Valente, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 673; 64 N.R. 1; 14 O.A.C. 79, refd to. [para. 121].

Powell (C.B.) Ltd. v. Canada Border Services Agency (President) et al., [2011] 2 F.C.R. 332; 400 N.R. 367; 2010 FCA 61, refd to. [para. 128].

Sztern v. Deslongchamps et al. (2008), 324 F.T.R. 121; 2008 FC 285, refd to. [para. 128].

Sztern v. Canada (Superintendent of Bankruptcy) - see Sztern v. Deslongchamps et al.

Air Canada v. Lorenz et al., [2000] 1 F.C. 494; 175 F.T.R. 211 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 129].

R. v. R.D.S., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484; 218 N.R. 1; 161 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 477 A.P.R. 241, refd to. [para. 149].

Newfoundland Telephone Co. v. Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities (Nfld.), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 623; 134 N.R. 241; 95 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 271; 301 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 149].

Committee for Justice and Liberty Foundation et al. v. National Energy Board et al., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369; 9 N.R. 115, refd to. [para. 150].

Belize Bank Ltd. v. Belize (Attorney General) et al., [2011] N.R. Uned. 178; [2011] UKPC 36, refd to. [para. 151].

Zündel v. Citron et al., [2000] 4 F.C. 225; 256 N.R. 201 (F.C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2000), 266 N.R. 392 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 152].

2747-3174 Québec Inc. v. Régie des permis d'alcool du Québec et autres, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 919; 205 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 153].

Société d'énergie Foster Wheeler ltée v. Sociéte intermunicipale de gestion et d'élimination des déchets (SIGED) Inc., [2004] 1 S.C.R. 456; 318 N.R. 111; 2004 SCC 18, refd to. [para. 169].

Maranda v. Leblanc (2003), 311 N.R. 357; 232 D.L.R.(4th) 14 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 170].

Blank v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [2006] 2 S.C.R. 319; 352 N.R. 201; 2006 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 176].

Blood Tribe Department of Health v. Privacy Commissioner (Can.) et al., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 574; 376 N.R. 327; 2008 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 180].

R. v. Campbell (J.) and Shirose (S.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 565; 237 N.R. 86; 119 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 183].

Lim et al. v. Association of Professional Engineers (Ont.) (2010), 274 O.A.C. 292; 2011 ONSC 106 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 195].

Van Rassel v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police, [1987] 1 F.C. 47; 7 F.T.R. 187 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 196].

M. v. H., [1996] O.J. No 2597 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 204].

Lavigne v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union et al., [1987] O.J. No 653 (H.C.J.), revsd. (1989), 31 O.A.C. 40 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 204].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Judicial Council Inquiries and Investigations Bylaws - see Judges Act Regulations (Can.).

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 99(1) [para. 4, Annex]; sect. 101 [para. 75].

Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 2 [para. 77, Annex]; sect. 18 [para. 75, Annex].

Judges Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. J-1, sect. 62 [para. 160]; sect. 63 [para. 8, Annex]; sect. 63(4) [para. 93, Annex].

Judges Act Regulations (Can.), Canadian Judicial Council Inquiries and Investigations Bylaws, SOR/2002-371, generally [para. 9, Annex].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Sullivan, Ruth, Statutory Interpretation (2nd Ed. 2007), generally [para. 113].

Counsel:

Sheila Block and Molly Reynolds, for the applicant;

Catherine A. Lawrence and Zoe Oxaal, for the respondent, The Attorney General of Canada;

Suzanne Côté and Alexandre Fallon, for the intervenors, Independent Counsel to the Canadian Judicial Council;

Paul Cavalluzzo, Freya Kristjanson and Adrienne Telford, for the intervenors, The Canadian Judicial Council;

Chris Paliare and Richard Stephenson, for the intervenors, The Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association.

Solicitors of Record:

Sheila Block and Molly Reynolds, Ottawa, Ontario, for the applicant;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent, The Attorney General of Canada;

Suzanne Côté and Alexandre Fallon, Montreal, Quebec, for the intervenors, Independent Counsel to the Canadian Judicial Council;

Paul Cavalluzzo, Freya Kristjanson and Adrienne Telford, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenors The Canadian Judicial Council;

Chris Paliare and Richard Stephenson, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenors, The Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association.

This application was heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on November 27, 28 and 29, 2013, before Mosley, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on March 28, 2014.

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 practice notes
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Law of Evidence. Eighth Edition
    • June 25, 2020
    ...Dos Santos v Sun Life Assurance Co of Canada, 2005 BCCA 4 ................ 330, 332 Douglas v Canada (Attorney General), 2014 FC 299 ......................................... 299 DP v Wagg (2004), 184 CCC (3d) 321 (Ont CA) ..................................................17 DPP v Boardman,......
  • Privileges, Protections, and Immunities
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Law of Evidence. Eighth Edition
    • June 25, 2020
    ...2007 NSSC 97, aff’d 2008 NSCA 47. 52 AARC Society v Sparks , 2018 ABCA 177 at para 2 [ Sparks ]. 53 Douglas v Canada (Attorney General) , 2014 FC 299. THE LAW OF EVIDENCE 300 Even in the context of more traditional solicitor-client relationships, not all advice given by lawyers is legal in ......
  • Girouard c. Canada (Procureure générale),
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • August 29, 2018
    ...318(2). [2019] 1 R.C.F. 411GIROUARD c. CANADA (PROCUREURE GÉNÉRALE)CASES CITEDAPPLIED: Douglas v . Canada (Attorney General), 2014 FC 299, [2015] 2 F.C.R. 911 ; Ruffo v. Conseil de la magistrature, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 267 , (1995), 130 D.L.R. (4th) 1 ; Anisman v. Canada (Border Ser......
  • Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) et al. v. The Canadian Council for Refugees et al., 2021 FCA 72
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Canada)
    • April 15, 2021
    ...this point); Canada (Judicial Council) v. Girouard, 2019 FCA 148, [2019] 3 F.C.R. 503 at para. 103; Douglas v Canada (Attorney General), 2014 FC 299, [2015] 2 F.C.R. 911 at para. 119. [105] The rationale against the complete immunization of administrative conduct from review is as fundament......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
25 cases
  • Girouard c. Canada (Procureure générale),
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • August 29, 2018
    ...318(2). [2019] 1 R.C.F. 411GIROUARD c. CANADA (PROCUREURE GÉNÉRALE)CASES CITEDAPPLIED: Douglas v . Canada (Attorney General), 2014 FC 299, [2015] 2 F.C.R. 911 ; Ruffo v. Conseil de la magistrature, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 267 , (1995), 130 D.L.R. (4th) 1 ; Anisman v. Canada (Border Ser......
  • Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) et al. v. The Canadian Council for Refugees et al., 2021 FCA 72
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Canada)
    • April 15, 2021
    ...this point); Canada (Judicial Council) v. Girouard, 2019 FCA 148, [2019] 3 F.C.R. 503 at para. 103; Douglas v Canada (Attorney General), 2014 FC 299, [2015] 2 F.C.R. 911 at para. 119. [105] The rationale against the complete immunization of administrative conduct from review is as fundament......
  • Conseil Canadien de la Magistrature c. Girouard,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Canada)
    • May 16, 2019
    ...[Council] is [therefore] separate from that of its components” (Decision, at paragraph 88; Douglas v. Canada (Attorney General), 2014 FC 299, [2015] 2 F.C.R. 911 (Douglas), at paragraph 84).[74] It is also interesting to note, as the Judge does in paragraph 81 of his reasons, that th......
  • Groupe SNC-Lavalin Inc. c. Canada (Service des poursuites pénales),
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • March 8, 2019
    ...exercise of pros-ecutorial discretion, but an administrative decision.[155] The applicants rely on Douglas v. Canada (Attorney General), 2014 FC 299, [2015] 2 F.C.R. 911, at paragraph 80, where the Court noted, “[t]o fall within017; &#x......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Privileges, Protections, and Immunities
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Law of Evidence. Eighth Edition
    • June 25, 2020
    ...2007 NSSC 97, aff’d 2008 NSCA 47. 52 AARC Society v Sparks , 2018 ABCA 177 at para 2 [ Sparks ]. 53 Douglas v Canada (Attorney General) , 2014 FC 299. THE LAW OF EVIDENCE 300 Even in the context of more traditional solicitor-client relationships, not all advice given by lawyers is legal in ......
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Law of Evidence. Eighth Edition
    • June 25, 2020
    ...Dos Santos v Sun Life Assurance Co of Canada, 2005 BCCA 4 ................ 330, 332 Douglas v Canada (Attorney General), 2014 FC 299 ......................................... 299 DP v Wagg (2004), 184 CCC (3d) 321 (Ont CA) ..................................................17 DPP v Boardman,......
  • THE STRUCTURAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE DEMANDS OF UNWRITTEN CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES.
    • Canada
    • McGill Law Journal Vol. 65 No. 2, December 2019
    • December 1, 2019
    ...refused, 38765 (12 December 2019) [Girouard Appeal]; Girouard v Canada (AG), 2018 FC 865 [Girouard Application]; Douglas u Canada (AG), 2014 FC 299 (3) I have addressed this issue in Kate Glover Berger, "The Constitutional Status of the Administrative State" (2019), online (pdf): Social Sci......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT