NCA Administrative Law 4 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Which statutory provision gives the Federal Court authority to grant remedies on judicial review, including certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition?
- Section 18 and 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act (Correct answer)
- Section 24 of the Charter
- Section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867
- Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982
Correct answer: Section 18 and 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act
Sections 18 and 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act grant the Federal Court exclusive jurisdiction to issue certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and injunctions against federal boards, and set out the grounds for judicial review including procedural unfairness and jurisdictional error.
Question 2: A professional regulatory body refuses to license a foreign-trained lawyer without providing a hearing or reasons. Which administrative law principle is most directly engaged?
- The principle of administrative efficiency
- The duty of procedural fairness, which is particularly robust when an important professional interest is at stake (Correct answer)
- The principle that regulatory bodies have absolute discretion over licensing
- The rule against bias
Correct answer: The duty of procedural fairness, which is particularly robust when an important professional interest is at stake
When a decision significantly affects an individual's ability to practise a profession, the duty of procedural fairness requires meaningful notice of the reasons for refusal and an opportunity to respond. A bare refusal without reasons or hearing would likely violate fairness.
Question 3: What is the effect of a privative clause in a statute that purports to shield an administrative decision from judicial review?
- It completely bars judicial review, including for constitutional issues
- It signals legislative intent for deference but does not eliminate review for jurisdictional excess or constitutional violations (Correct answer)
- It automatically triggers correctness review
- It is constitutionally invalid and has no effect
Correct answer: It signals legislative intent for deference but does not eliminate review for jurisdictional excess or constitutional violations
Privative clauses signal that the legislature wants courts to defer to the tribunal. They support reasonableness review but cannot oust judicial review entirely—courts retain jurisdiction to review for jurisdictional excess, breach of natural justice, and constitutional violations under s. 96 and the rule of law.
Question 4: The doctrine of 'issue estoppel' in administrative law prevents a party from re-litigating an issue already decided. Which SCC case addressed this in the administrative context and recognized the courts' residual discretion to decline to apply the doctrine?
- Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc. [2001] (Correct answer)
- Penner v. Niagara (Regional Police Services Board) [2013]
- Minott v. O'Shanter Development [1999]
- Figliola v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal) [2011]
Correct answer: Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc. [2001]
Danyluk v. Ainsworth [2001] established that even where the preconditions of issue estoppel are met (same issue, final decision, same parties), courts retain residual discretion to decline to apply the doctrine where doing so would work an injustice.
Question 5: Which writ compels a public authority to perform a public duty it has refused or failed to perform?
- Certiorari
- Habeas corpus
- Mandamus (Correct answer)
- Quo warranto
Correct answer: Mandamus
Mandamus ('we command') compels a public authority to perform a ministerial or public duty where it has jurisdiction and a duty to act. It is available when the authority has refused to exercise a power it is legally obligated to exercise.
Question 6: A refugee determination panel member has previously made public statements about the lack of credibility of claimants from a specific country. An applicant from that country raises a bias argument. Under the reasonable apprehension of bias test, what is the most likely outcome?
- No bias because the member has not met the applicant personally
- The statements raise a reasonable apprehension of bias and the member should be disqualified (Correct answer)
- The applicant must prove actual bias, not just apprehension
- Bias arguments cannot be raised before the hearing concludes
Correct answer: The statements raise a reasonable apprehension of bias and the member should be disqualified
Prior public statements suggesting prejudgment of an issue before the panel constitutes a reasonable apprehension of bias. An informed, reasonable observer would think it more likely than not that the decision-maker could not approach the claim with an open mind.
NCA Administrative Law 4
Which statutory provision gives the Federal Court authority to grant remedies on judicial review, including certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition?