According to the venerable Aristotelian maxim, the rule of law demands that one must “treat like cases alike.” In a forthcoming paper, we argue that a recent proliferation of novel tort species in Canada, through the purported recognition of the nominate torts “online harassment”, “harassment”, “public disclosure of private facts”, and “family violence”, is inconsistent with this quintessential facet of ...

I: Introduction On what basis can the Governor in Council reasonably conclude that there are “threats to the security of Canada” that justify invoking the Emergencies Act[1]? This question was front and centre during the recently concluded fact-finding hearings of the Public Order Emergency Commission (the “Commission”). What appeared at the outset to be a straightforward matter of statutory interpretation ...

Recently, in Poorkid Investments v HMTQ,Broad J of the Ontario Superior Court declared s 17 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019 (“CLPA”) unconstitutional. The provision imposed various procedural hurdles on plaintiffs who seek to bring claims against the Crown or its officers for “the tort of misfeasance in public office or a tort based on bad faith respecting anything ...

Fourteen months ago, I published a post here on two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions that potentially liberalized the ability to use motions to strike to determine questions of law. I explained how this can benefit both the rule of law and access to justice. This conceptualization of access to justice is not based on abstract notions of justice ...

Last month the High Court of Australia released its decision in Addy v Commissioner of Taxation [2021] HCA 24 (“Addy”). The Australian apex court’s decision has received an unusual (for an income tax case) amount of attention as “the backpacker’s case”. But the High Court’s ruling is interesting for a number of reasons and should be on the radar of ...

I recently went on the Runnymede Radio podcast to discuss how the law on motions to strike pleadings to determine novel questions of law may be changing after decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada earlier this year in Nevsun Resources Ltd v Araya (“Nevsun”) and Atlantic Lottery Corp Inc v Babstock (“Atlantic Lottery”). In this blog post, I briefly ...

Today, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decisions in Vavilov and Bell/NFL. I have previously summarized the facts of these cases and analyzed them here (Vavilov) and here (Bell/NFL). Overall, today’s decisions (a 7-2 decision, Abella and Karakatsanis JJ concurring in result) are a net positive for the law of judicial review in Canada. The Court has done a ...

The following is an excerpt from the author’s chapter in Constitutional Democracy Under Stress – A Time For Heroic Citizenship, Peter L. Biro (ed.), forthcoming from Mosaic Press, Oakville, Canada The Rule of Law entails the existence of a legal framework, binding at all times on the government and also on individuals in at least some of their interactions with ...

On October 6, 2019, I had the pleasure of speaking at a conference entitled “Constitutional Democracy Under Stress.” The conference was hosted by Section 1 and its founder, Peter Biro, who incidentally was one of my early mentors when I was a summer student. Mr. Biro, whose article for ARL on the Section 1 project can be read here, gathered ...

One of the litmus tests of the legitimacy of any government that presides over a “democracy”, is the extent to which it is genuinely and adequately accountable to its citizens.  While this may seem a trite observation, it has sadly become normal, within so-called democratic societies, to find governments that are wanting in the accountability department.  In Ontario, for example, ...