• Print
  • Administrative Law accounts for 21 out of 812 casebriefs.

Style of causeRatio

Agha (Mustapha) v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 564

Case does not raise issue worthy of appeal.

Authorson v. Canada (Attorney General), 2003 SCC 39, [2003] 2 SCR 40

Due process protections do not apply to the legislative process.

Black v Chretien (2001) 199 D.L.R. (4th) 228 (C.A.)

Test for whether the exercise of a prerogative power is reviewable: Where the right or legitimate expectation of an individual are affected, the court is both competent and qualified to judicially review the exercise of the prerogative power – if not, then not reviewable

Brown v Alberta (1999), 177 DLR (4th) 349 (Alta. CA)

A case must have a legal issue for the court to have jurisdiction to hear and rule on the case

The legislature can elect any Senator they want, they do not have to elect from the Senatorial Selection Act in Alberta

Brown v Alberta (1999), 177 DLR (4th) 349 (Alta. CA)

(1) A case must have a legal issue for the court to have jurisdiction to hear and rule on the case.

(2) There was no justiciability for the courts to rule on the case.

Canada (Attorney General) v Mossop, [1993] 1 SCR 554

(1) Only identified grounds can be pursued in a human rights claim.

(2) Definitions in human rights legislation are generally interpreted broadly, but the definition given by Parliament in the statute has a good deal of authority in the court's decision on what falls under the definition and what does not.

Canada (Attorney General) v Ward, [1993] 2 SCR 689

** State complicity is not required to ground a claim for the purposes of ‘unable’ or ‘unwilling’ in the Convention definition.
** 3 categories of particular social group
** Political opinion can be imputed from actions --- it is the opinion attributed to the claimant by their persecutors that is determinative

Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SCC 53, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 471.

The CHRC/CHRT cannot award costs as part of a decision that they have rendered.

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Tobiass, [1997] 3 SCR 391

One judge cannot interfere with the reasoning of another judge, as this goes to judicial independence.

Charkaoui v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 SCC 9, [2007] 1 SCR 350

Add special advocates to review of reasonableness of certificates ( now s.77(2)) and detention review (now s.82), and give FNs and PRs the same rights to review of detention under (former) s.84(2)

Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190, 2008 SCC 9

the three previous standards of correctness, reasonableness simplicitur and patent unreasonableness were too complicated with too many difficulties. So now there will only be two standards: reasonableness and correctness.

Ezokola v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FCA 224

A senior official who remains in his/her position without protest and continuing to defend the interests of their gov't while being aware of the crimes committed by this gov't may demonstrate ‘personal knowledge and participation’ in these crimes and be complicit with the gov't in their commission.

Fraser v Canada (Public Service Staff Relations Board), [1985] 2 SCR 455

Public servants must not engage in sustained and highly visible attacks on major government policies.

Public servants have a duty of loyalty to their employer, except if the government is engaged in illegal acts or if its policies jeopardize the life, health or safety of the public servant or others.

Krauchanka v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 209

No question of general importance was raised by the case -- but shows that each case needs to considered independently on its own merits.
** But judge also says officer was entitled to consider Mr. K’s own misconduct in making the determination.

Krieger v Law Society (Alberta), 2002 SCC 65, [2002] 2 SCR 372

The Courts should not interfere with prosecutorial discretion. The Law Society retains jurisdiction.