Some have asked if the judge can order a license be granted. The answer is no. I have highlighted some of the more pertinent facts of Canadian law with regards to judicial reviews. A judge also can order no review be held after reviewing submissions.
The court has a large latitude when it comes to actions it might, or might not take. That being said, there are other areas a judge could examine such as was the government person responsible for the decision biased? It all comes down to order another review but not reversing the decision.
Generally speaking, the Courts enjoy what is called a "supervisory jurisdiction" over government decision-makers. Particularly, the type of decision-makers over which there is jurisdiction are called "inferior tribunals", and they would include a government minister, a city council, a tribunal such as the Labour Board or the Motor Carrier Commission, or even an individual bureaucrat like a building inspector.
Judicial review is a unique area of law, generally found within the broader area called "public law". One of the unique qualities about judicial review is this: the Court will not examine the wisdom (or the rightness) of the decision brought before it. The Court does not ask itself, "If I had to make this decision in the first place, then what would I have decided?" So, for example, no Court will decide whether a school should be closed or not. No Court will decide whether it is wise to issue a logging permit or not. Similarly, the Court does not decide whether the original decision was right or wrong.
In fact, the Court's approach towards judicial review is to examine everything but the wisdom of the original decision.
What does a Court consider in judicial review lawsuit? Depending upon how the lawsuit is framed, the Court may examine several questions.
One question is this: does the decision-maker have the authority necessary to make this type of decision? For example, the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles in British Columbia could not prohibit a person from driving in Alberta. Nor could a City Council rezone private property exclusively as a park - this is effectively expropriating the land.
If a decision-maker can legally make a particular decision, then the Court may examine the procedure by which that decision is made. So, for example, a person who is affected by a government decision is often entitled to some sort of "opportunity to be heard". The right to be heard varies in proportion to the seriousness of the decision being made. In a matter of some importance to a citizen, there may be a right to participate in a hearing where witnesses are called and evidence is given under oath, including the evidence of the party affected. In less serious matters, the right to be heard may be simply the right to submit a letter or other document.
Lastly, the topic of judicial review must include a reference to the phrase curial deference. Essentially the Court is inclined to take a hands-off approach in areas where the decision-maker has some special talent or experience which the Court does not have. So, a Municipal Building Inspector may have to deal with and interpret the Building Code on a daily basis, and a Court will be extremely reluctant to suggest that the decision-maker was wrong on such matters. Nor will the Court tell a District Forest Manager how to manage the forest. In these areas of specialization, a Court is extremely reluctant to interfere by way of judicial review.
The court has a large latitude when it comes to actions it might, or might not take. That being said, there are other areas a judge could examine such as was the government person responsible for the decision biased? It all comes down to order another review but not reversing the decision.
Generally speaking, the Courts enjoy what is called a "supervisory jurisdiction" over government decision-makers. Particularly, the type of decision-makers over which there is jurisdiction are called "inferior tribunals", and they would include a government minister, a city council, a tribunal such as the Labour Board or the Motor Carrier Commission, or even an individual bureaucrat like a building inspector.
Judicial review is a unique area of law, generally found within the broader area called "public law". One of the unique qualities about judicial review is this: the Court will not examine the wisdom (or the rightness) of the decision brought before it. The Court does not ask itself, "If I had to make this decision in the first place, then what would I have decided?" So, for example, no Court will decide whether a school should be closed or not. No Court will decide whether it is wise to issue a logging permit or not. Similarly, the Court does not decide whether the original decision was right or wrong.
In fact, the Court's approach towards judicial review is to examine everything but the wisdom of the original decision.
What does a Court consider in judicial review lawsuit? Depending upon how the lawsuit is framed, the Court may examine several questions.
One question is this: does the decision-maker have the authority necessary to make this type of decision? For example, the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles in British Columbia could not prohibit a person from driving in Alberta. Nor could a City Council rezone private property exclusively as a park - this is effectively expropriating the land.
If a decision-maker can legally make a particular decision, then the Court may examine the procedure by which that decision is made. So, for example, a person who is affected by a government decision is often entitled to some sort of "opportunity to be heard". The right to be heard varies in proportion to the seriousness of the decision being made. In a matter of some importance to a citizen, there may be a right to participate in a hearing where witnesses are called and evidence is given under oath, including the evidence of the party affected. In less serious matters, the right to be heard may be simply the right to submit a letter or other document.
Lastly, the topic of judicial review must include a reference to the phrase curial deference. Essentially the Court is inclined to take a hands-off approach in areas where the decision-maker has some special talent or experience which the Court does not have. So, a Municipal Building Inspector may have to deal with and interpret the Building Code on a daily basis, and a Court will be extremely reluctant to suggest that the decision-maker was wrong on such matters. Nor will the Court tell a District Forest Manager how to manage the forest. In these areas of specialization, a Court is extremely reluctant to interfere by way of judicial review.
Creative Edge Nutrition Inc. (FITX) Stock Research Links
People always ask what my name means. Very easy. Stamford Connecticut Very Interesting. The place is chock full of history.
