In previous posts here and here, I have discussed the functus officio principle and statutory reconsideration authority. Here I discuss a recent case with a mix of both Now consider one further difficulty. Where an administrative decision-maker has reconsidered (Decision 2) its original decision (Decision 1), and an applicant seeks judicial review, what should the […] Read more

Here is the second part of my series on functus officio and reconsideration (see also here) Another layer of complexity is added by the fact that many statutes explicitly provide for reconsideration, often using different language, and sometimes giving the reconsideration authority to a member or panel that did not sit on the initial application. […] Read more

One of my favourite topics for dinner parties — which may be why I receive so few dinner party invitations — is the distinction between mandatory and directory considerations. Difficulties arise because while legislation often stipulates that certain formal and procedural requirements must be observed before an administrative decision is arrived at, it rarely states […] Read more

In my paper celebrating Vavilov’s fifth anniversary, I argued that the legal and factual constraints central to the application of the reasonableness standard of review have an objective character: it is up to reviewing courts to determine whether, in any given case, a particular legal or factual consideration constrains an administrative decision-maker. If the decision-maker has given […] Read more