NCA Administrative Law flashcards

32 cards. Read the term and the definition here. The deck at the top of this page is optional.

Baker v Canada

A 1999 Supreme Court of Canada case establishing that the duty of fairness applies to administrative decisions affecting individual rights, and setting out five factors that determine the content of that duty.

Duty of fairness

A common law obligation on administrative decision-makers to act fairly toward persons affected by their decisions, with content varying by context rather than fixed by a single standard.

Procedural fairness

The requirement that administrative decisions affecting individuals be made through fair procedures, including adequate notice, disclosure, and an opportunity to respond where the duty applies.

Legitimate expectation

A doctrine holding that where an administrative body makes a clear promise or follows a consistent practice, affected persons may be entitled to procedural fairness consistent with that expectation.

Natural justice

The two traditional common law rules of fair procedure: the right to an unbiased decision-maker (nemo judex) and the right to be heard (audi alteram partem).

Audi alteram partem

A Latin maxim meaning 'hear the other side,' requiring that a person affected by a decision be given notice and a meaningful opportunity to present their case.

Nemo judex rule

The rule that no person may be judge in their own cause, requiring decision-makers to be free from actual bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias.

Reasonable apprehension of bias

The test asks whether a reasonable and informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically, would conclude the decision-maker might not decide fairly.

GCHQ case

Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service, [1985] AC 374, which organized judicial review grounds into illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety.

Illegality ground

The judicial review ground that a decision-maker must correctly understand the law, act within the powers granted, and not exceed or misuse statutory authority.

Irrationality ground

The Wednesbury ground that a decision so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have reached it is reviewable, applied with deference to the decision-maker's discretion.

Procedural impropriety

The judicial review ground encompassing breach of statutory procedures and breach of the common law duty of fairness, including bias and failure to hear a party.

Jurisdictional error

An error by a decision-maker on a matter essential to its authority to act, which may render the decision void and subject to judicial review.

Abuse of discretion

Improper exercise of statutory discretion through bad faith, improper purpose, reliance on irrelevant considerations, or failure to consider relevant ones.

Vavilov framework

A 2019 Supreme Court of Canada decision setting the presumptive standard of review as reasonableness and clarifying when correctness applies and how reasonableness is assessed.

Reasonableness standard

A deferential standard asking whether the decision is internally coherent, justified, transparent, and intelligible, and within a range of acceptable outcomes defensible on the law and facts.

Correctness standard

A non-deferential standard in which the reviewing court substitutes its own view on the law, applied to constitutional questions and other categories identified in Vavilov.

Dunsmuir v New Brunswick

A 2008 Supreme Court of Canada decision simplifying the standards of review to reasonableness and correctness and describing deference as respecting the decision-maker's specialized expertise.

Certiorari remedy

A prerogative writ by which a superior court quashes or sets aside a decision of an inferior tribunal for jurisdictional error or reviewable error.

Prohibition remedy

A prerogative writ restraining an inferior tribunal from acting beyond its jurisdiction or from proceeding in a manner contrary to law or fairness.

Mandamus remedy

A prerogative writ compelling a public authority to perform a legal duty it has unlawfully refused or failed to perform.

Quo warranto remedy

A prerogative writ used to challenge a person's legal authority to hold a public office or exercise a public function.

Declaratory relief

A judicial remedy declaring the legal rights or status of parties or the invalidity of an administrative act, without ordering coercive action.

Standard of review

The degree of deference a reviewing court gives to an administrative decision, determined by the Vavilov framework in Canada and by statutory context and expertise.

Statutory appeal mechanism

A provision allowing appeals from an administrative tribunal to a court; under Vavilov it may rebut the presumption of reasonableness and indicate correctness for legal questions.

Patently unreasonable

A highly deferential standard formerly used in Canada for certain tribunals, asking whether the decision is clearly irrational or unsupported by any evidence.

Fettering discretion

An unlawful practice in which a decision-maker adopts a rigid policy and refuses to consider the individual circumstances of a particular case.

Improper purpose

An abuse of discretion in which a decision-maker exercises a statutory power for a purpose other than the one for which the power was granted.

Irrelevant considerations

An abuse of discretion in which a decision-maker relies on factors outside the scope of the statutory scheme in reaching a decision.

Subdelegation rule

The principle that a delegate cannot further delegate discretionary authority unless the enabling statute expressly or by necessary implication authorizes subdelegation.

Prematurity and exhaustion

Judicial review may be premature if adequate alternative remedies or statutory appeal routes remain available, though courts retain discretion to hear the matter.

Ouster clauses

Statutory provisions purporting to exclude judicial review; Canadian courts interpret them narrowly and retain jurisdiction to review jurisdictional errors.