Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
almostnot

Vavilov and Bell: SCC new SOR

Recommended Posts

Well that decisions just changed a lot in my world. Merry Christmas. 
 

I found the minority reasons (from the headnote only!) in Vavilov much more compelling. The rebuttable presumption of reasonableness where a statutory appeal exists completely fails to recognize tribunal expertise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That CRTC decision about the Super Bowl was so boneheadedly stupid that I knew it would be overturned eventually!

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/19/2019 at 10:14 AM, almostnot said:

Well that decisions just changed a lot in my world. Merry Christmas. 
 

I found the minority reasons (from the headnote only!) in Vavilov much more compelling. The rebuttable presumption of reasonableness where a statutory appeal exists completely fails to recognize tribunal expertise. 

I find it way more coherent conceptually. If the Legislature thinks the expertise justifies courts staying out, they can choose not to include an appeal clause in the home statute and then the reasonableness presumption stays intact. Otherwise, what's the point of the appeal clause...?

Overall, I think the decision is a step forward for admin law. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Recent Posts

    • May I know the link so I can calculate as well? 
    • I was going to say Carbolic Smoke Ball. That image is great. I recall there was a criminal law case that began with definition of “go go dancer” that my classmates and I found amusing I read in 1L but the name escapes me.   I think the Baker decision (about procedural fairness obligations for administrative bodies) is an interesting yet accessible case. It’s about an immigration decision where fairness obligations were not met. Also a good way to discuss systemic racism. Ewanchuk, an important case about assessing consent in relation to sexual assault is a good way to discuss intersection of law and gender.  
    • I would think it would help, but I suppose it depends on what you did in the military, and what the resumes look like of the rest of the applicant pool. People love to make predictions but at the end of the day, we don’t really know who we’re “up against”. I thought my resume was pretty interesting, for my age, considering I also have two kids, but I’ve come to realize it’s pretty unexceptional compared to a lot of high-achievers applying to law school 😆 My gut tells me military experience shows dedication, discipline, etc.    If your GPA is decent, you do well on the LSAT, and you can write a good personal statement, you certainly stand a strong chance! 
    • Ryerson and Ottawa U (applied in mature category at Ottawa U). I think I have a more realistic chance at Ryerson.
    • R v Miller. Criminal law case where a squatter lights a cigarette then falls asleep. He awakes to find the mattress he's sleeping on is on fire. Instead of attempting to put it out or vacating the premises he gets up, goes to a different room, and goes back to his nap. Next time he wakes up the whole house is on fire.

×
×
  • Create New...