not <\/em><\/strong>dispensing\nthe type of justice that one might have hoped.<\/p>\n\n\n\nI\nadd this brief addendum to my earlier post to attempt to emphasize, yet again,\nthat standard of review and the fundamental role of the courts in judicial\nreview should not be construed as a left-right political issue. I suspect many\n\u201cProgressives\u201d from the era of W.P.M. Kennedy (no relation) would be surprised,\nto say the least, that their successors are arguing for deference to\nimmigration officials revoking citizenship or prison wardens assigning\nindividuals to solitary confinement. While the opposite may occur in labour\nlaw, we should ask ourselves whether departing from traditional principles of\nstatutory interpretation is justified in any individual case. And if a\nparticular statute indeed calls for deference, principles of statutory\ninterpretation can generally respect that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
One\ncould of course argue that deference should be granted to all administrators\nfor reasons such as efficiency, expertise, and independence. This is a genuine\npolicy view to hold (though Mark Mancini convincingly casts doubt on whether\nthe empirical assumptions underlying such viewpoints are actually true). But\none should be careful what one wishes for regarding the consequences of such a\nview.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Now,\nit\u2019s time to wait for the trilogy\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In my last post on this blog, I commented and mostly praised two recent blog posts at Double Aspect by Mark Mancini from earlier this month calling for less deference to administrators in judicial review, unless a statute explicitly calls for such deference. But after I began drafting my response, a new development arose that …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":133,"featured_media":2379,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[35,34],"tags":[264,265,140,266,512,273],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ruleoflaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3166"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ruleoflaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ruleoflaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ruleoflaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/133"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ruleoflaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3166"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.ruleoflaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3166\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3167,"href":"https:\/\/www.ruleoflaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3166\/revisions\/3167"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ruleoflaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2379"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ruleoflaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3166"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ruleoflaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3166"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ruleoflaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3166"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}