[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-294826-105":59,"doc-detail-294826-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","canadas-bipolar-administrative-law-time-for-fusion","Canada's Bipolar Administrative Law - Time for Fusion","","Canada’s judicial review of administrative action is organized around two poles: substantive review and procedural review. In substance matters, reviewing courts generally defer to decision makers; in procedure and procedural fairness, courts apply no deference and determine a “corect” process. The author argues the distinction is indefensible and proposes replacing the current framework for procedural review with the substantive review approach. The piece traces doctrine, legislative intent’s different roles, and Supreme Court reasoning in Khosa, then examines recent appellate decisions to show an impending fusion toward reasonableness.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/canadas-bipolar-administrative-law-time-for-fusion/294826/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/canadas-bipolar-administrative-law-time-for-fusion/294826.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Grenda","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-29","2026-09-18",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":39},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"How do courts treat substantive versus procedural review in Canada?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"Substantive review typically receives deference, meaning courts usually do not overturn reasonable administrative decisions. Procedural review focuses on procedural fairness, where the court applies no deference and determines the core process.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What is the author’s main argument for changing the procedural review framework?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"The author argues the procedural/substance distinction cannot be defended. Procedural review should be replaced by the substantive review framework, including applying the reasonableness standard in appropriate circumstances.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"How does legislative intent factor into the author’s case for fusion?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"Legislative intent justifies deferential substantive review, while it plays a subordinate role in procedural review under the current approach. The author contends that the heightened relevance of legislative intent in substantive review should also apply to procedural review, supporting reasonableness at both poles.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},294826,1789706620,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":39,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":129,"read_time":144,"preview_page_count":4},7971474921005,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_29158cc5080c5b710cf443261637dec0","Canada's Bipolar AdministrativeLaw:Time for Fusion  \nPaul Daly\"  \nCanadian judicial review of administrative action is structured around two poles:substantive review and procedural review.On matters of substance,the administrative decisionmaker is generally accorded deference by the reviewing court.On matters of proceduralfairness,the court accords no deference,and determines the “corect\"”process.The author argues that thisdistinction is indefensible and instead suggests that the current approach to procedural reviewshould be replaced by the framework for substantive review.  \nThe article begins by outlining the current status of the tweo poles of procedural andsubstantive judicial review.In doing so the author rejects the idea that institutional reviewrepresents a third pole,separate fromprocedural revieu.He then considers the diferent role thatlegislative intent plays in the two standards of review.Through the lens of the Supreme Courtof Canada's decision in Canada(Citizenship and Immigration)v Khosa,the author arguesthat the reasons supporting legislative intent's heightened role in substantive review apply alsoto procedural review,therefore justifying the application of the reasonableness standard at bothpoles,in appropriate circumstances.  \nEvidence of the impending fusion of review is further demonstrated by reviewing tworecent appellate court decisions where the reasonableness standard has been applied to traditionalprocedural issues.The author concludes that the universal application of the framework forsubstantive review is not only logistically desirable,but better respects the democratic principleas articulated through legislative intent.  \n# Introduction\n\nI.Canada's Bipolar Administrative Law  \nA.Substantive Review  \n(i)The Multi-Factor Test  \n(ii)Khosa and Administrative Common Law  \n(iii)Post-Khosa Inconsistency  \nB.Procedural Review  \n(i)Scope of Procedural Fairness  \n(ii)Content of the Right to Procedural Fairness  \nC.Independence  \nD.Clear Statutory Language  \nII.Fusing the Two Poles  \nA.Challenges to Orthodoxy  \nB.Arguments in Favour of Fusion  \nC.Timefor Fusion  \n# Conclusion\n\nIntroduction  \nA bipolarity afflicts the Canadian law of judicial review ofadministrative action.For more than thirty years,Canadian courtshave preached deference in substantive review by refusing to overturnreasonable decisions made by administrative decision makers,oftenrefusing to substitute their own judgment even on questions of law.2 Yet,on matters of procedure,courts have no qualms about stepping into theshoes of administrative decision makers.3  \nI am not the first to question the difference in the standards appliedto substantive and procedural review.Many others have urged reform.  \nSome perceived the landmark decision in Baker v Canada (Minister ofCitizenshipand Immigration⁵to be the sounding of the death knell for theprocess/substance distinction.6 That bell has not yet tolled.But I arguein this article that it is about to and that it should.The firm distinctionbetween substantive review and procedural review can no longer hold.  \nThe bipolarity is explained by the different role played by legislativeintent at the poles of substantive review and procedural review.Onmatters of substance,legislative intent is an important justification fordeferential judicial review;statutory provisions are taken to reveal alegislative preference for the primacy of administrative over judicialinterpretation.By contrast,on matters of procedure,legislative intentplays a subordinate role.Here,statutes only provide the context in whichcourts review the fairness of decision-making processes;courts maintaina position of interpretive supremacy,regardless of the breadth ofdecision-making power delegated by statute.8  \nThe lens through which I perceive the bipolarity is the SupremeCourt of Canada's largely unheralded decision in Canada(Citizenship andImmigration)v Khosa.9 There,the Court was faced with a statute,theFederal Courts Act,that purported to ","cbCaia8e0tWV8Cgg","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaia8e0tWV8Cgg","pdf",1746118,36,"English","# Introduction\n# I.Canada's Bipolar Administrative Law\n## A.Substantive Review\n## B.Procedural Review\n## C.Independence\n## D.Clear Statutory Language\n# II.Fusing the Two Poles\n## A.Challenges to Orthodoxy\n## B.Arguments in Favour of Fusion\n## C.Timefor Fusion\n# Conclusion","[{\"question\":\"How do courts treat substantive versus procedural review in Canada?\",\"answer\":\"Substantive review typically receives deference, meaning courts usually do not overturn reasonable administrative decisions. Procedural review focuses on procedural fairness, where the court applies no deference and determines the core process.\"},{\"question\":\"What is the author’s main argument for changing the procedural review framework?\",\"answer\":\"The author argues the procedural/substance distinction cannot be defended. Procedural review should be replaced by the substantive review framework, including applying the reasonableness standard in appropriate circumstances.\"},{\"question\":\"How does legislative intent factor into the author’s case for fusion?\",\"answer\":\"Legislative intent justifies deferential substantive review, while it plays a subordinate role in procedural review under the current approach. The author contends that the heightened relevance of legislative intent in substantive review should also apply to procedural review, supporting reasonableness at both poles.\"}]","Canada's Bipolar Administrative Law - Time for Fusion | PDF",91]