scholarly journals Recent Judicial Developments of Interest to Oil and Gas Lawyers

1996 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 664
Author(s):  
W. James Hope-Ross ◽  
Keith S. McClelland
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Fiduciary Duties ◽  
The Supreme Court

This article is a compilation of recent Canadian decisions pertaining to oil and gas law. The authors have dealt with cases in areas such as contracts, land leases and titles, fiduciary duties, tax, the environment, torts, surface rights, off-shore drilling, creditors rights and administrative law. The authors also look at three cases for which leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was requested.

scholarly journals The Supreme Court of Canada, the House of Lords, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and Administrative Law

1969 ◽  
pp. 5
Author(s):  
D. H. Clark
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Privy Council ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Mumbo Jumbo ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Individual

The Supreme Court of Canada's contribution to the jurisprudence of administra tive law has been weak and fitful, erratic and lacking in attention to the principles of its own previous decisions. Failure to articulate points of distinction between its decisions has led to uncertainty in the law. The speaker suggested that the insufficiency of the Court's reasoning and the inadequacy of its citation might be reduced if judgments were more often delivered by more members of the Court thus increasing the individual research and writing of the Court so that its earlier fcmons would be kept in view and the case law developed more coherently. Furthermore, the Court should foUow the House of Lords in not considering itself bound by ds own decisions. The speaker regretted the Court's tendency to take mechanically conceptualise approach to substantive administrative law issues- if Canadian courts are to keep pace with those of other jurisdictions, the Supreme Court of Canada cannot continue to use outworn mumbo-jumbo as substitute for identifyltZtJ «»*"*»* societal interests that are the stuff of /hefPe?kfr aho discussed and compared the contributions of the House of Lords and of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Although it has fewer members the House of Lords has more dissenters in administrative law decisions than the Supreme Court of Canada, (whereas the Privy Council until 1966 could not have dissent). While the S.C.C. has been inconsistent and weak, the Privy Council has been consistent and weak. Although there have been occasional achievements, between 1951 and 1971 the Privy Council rendered series of regressive decisions that impaired coherent development of the administrative law in England and in the Commonwealth. ReidZhh^ i*' f" H0USe °f Lof* under the influenc* of the late Lord h^'^nuJf has enjoyed as most creative °n TegreSSiVe period inPrivy relation Council to public decisions> law si™ However *• earlyhaknZd 1960's mnnt rxiicc ft ££Icrt has*eenperfo

scholarly journals The Devil Is in the Disclosure: The Role of R. v. Stinchcombe in Establishing Appropriate Disclosure Rules for Administrative Tribunals

1969 ◽  
pp. 717
Author(s):  
Alice Woolley
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Procedural Fairness ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Administrative Process ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Disclosure Rules ◽  
The Devil

This article examines disclosure rules for administrative tribunals in light of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Stinchcombe. The pre- and post-Stinchcombe administrative law cases relating to document disclosure are discussed with a view to determining the effect that Stinchcombe has had on the administrative process. It is argued that Stinchcombe has had a significant impact on judicial and legislative opinions regarding the importance of document disclosure on procedural fairness in administrative decision-making. However, the application of Stinchcombe in administrative law cases has been neither complete nor unanimous. The appropriateness of the principles of Stinchcombe in the context of proceedings before an administrative tribunal are discussed with specific regard to proceedings before the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board.

scholarly journals The Supreme Court of Canada and Administrative Law

1969 ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
David Phillip Jones
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Coherent Body ◽  
Fertile Area

The speaker observed that the Supreme Court of Canada has not been innovative Os approach to Administrative Law, although the fact that Canada has written constitution and the U.K. has not should provide fertile area for distinctive Canadian contributions in Administrative Law. Although the Roncarelli decision required the Court to look at policy in protecting individual rights against the state, the Court has generally failed to formulate policy and clear precedent and has not yet evolved coherent body of Administrative Law.

scholarly journals Two Myths of Administrative Law

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark P Mancini
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Decision Maker ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Statutory Interpretation ◽  
Administrative Action ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The One ◽  
Do So

In an upcoming set of cases, the Supreme Court of Canada will review its approach to the standard of review of administrative action. In this paper, the author suggests that the Court must go back to the foundation of judicial review in redesigning the standard of review, namely, the task of courts to police the legal boundaries of the administrative body. To do so, courts must authentically interpret the legislative grant of authority to the administrative decision-maker, particularly to determine the appropriate intensity of review. To that end, the author suggests that the Court should discard two myths that have pervaded modern administrative law: (1) that administrative decisionmakers should be granted deference based on purported expertise in matters of statutory interpretation; and (2) that jurisdictional questions exist separately from questions of law. The myths may impose a different standard of review than the one discernible with the ordinary tools of statutory interpretation. The author argues that these court-created devices should not exist at the expense of the constitutionally prescribed duty of the courts to exercise their policing function and engage in genuine statutory interpretation to determine the appropriate standard of judicial review in a given case.

scholarly journals Le contrôle judiciaire des erreurs de droit en présence d'une clause privative

2005 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-20
Author(s):  
Patrice Garant ◽  
Sylvio Normand
Keyword(s):  
New Brunswick ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Recent Case ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Supreme Court

Administrative Tribunals have jurisdiction to deal with questions of law. In the exercise of such jurisdiction they may sometimes make mistakes in the construction of the statutes, regulations or other instruments. Even in the presence of a privative clause, an inferior tribunal should not be the supreme interpret of the law. It is one of the requirements of the « rule of law » that the Superior Court should have a supervisory « droit de regard ». Traditionally, only errors of law going to jurisdiction were out of the shield of the privative clause ; the Superior Courts used to restrain their intervention only after charactarizing the alleged error as « jurisdictional error of law ». Two difficulties came to arise from the approach about whether there exists an error of jurisdiction or one « merely » of law. Firstly, who can tell whether there is a genuine error of law. Secondly, what criteria transmute in the minds of Superior Court Judges an error into one of jurisdiction. The recent case law convinces us of the necessity of a different approach in order to achieve some clarity in this field of Administrative law. Mr. Justice Dickson of the Supreme Court of Canada hints at it in the Nispawin and the New Brunswick Liquor Corporation cases. This approach would put an end to the confusion that still prevail in other Supreme Court cases like Blanco or Labrecque. The distinction between errors of law going to jurisdiction and « merely » errors of law is unrational and so unpracticable that it should be abandoned and replaced by what we suggest in the following lines... Mr. Justice Robert Reid of the Ontario Divisional Court has also expressed the same concern in a remarquable judgment.

scholarly journals Galambos v Perez, its Critics, and the Equity-Certainty Paradox in Fiduciary Law

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-22
Author(s):  
Calvin DeWolfe
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Current Approach ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Fiduciary Duties ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Fiduciary Relationships

This paper examines the merits of the current approach to identifying ad hoc fiduciary duties in Canada, which was exposited by the Supreme Court of Canada in its 2009 Galambos v Perez decision. The indicia of fiduciary relationships expressed in Galambos, I argue, are sufficiently comprehensive and certain to overcome popular academic criticisms of the indicia-based ad hoc approach. Specifically, I will challenge the arguments of the contractarian scholar Anthony Duggan and the equity-focused scholar Leonard Rotman -- both of which argue, albeit from different ends of the academic spectrum, that ad hoc fiduciary duties should not be identified using indicia.

scholarly journals Administrative Fairness in Alberta

1969 ◽  
pp. 351
Author(s):  
David Phillip Jones
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
The Supreme Court

This article discusses the recent development in the scope of the administrative law concept of the "duty to be fair" and the effect of that development on judicial review and on the need to characterize functions. The author examines in depth five recent cases, including Martineau v. Matsqui Institution Disciplinary Board (No. 2), decided by the Supreme Court of Canada in December 1979, insofar as they involve application of the concept of fairness.

PERSINGGUNGAN KEWENANGAN MENGADILI PENYALAHGUNAAN DISKRESI ANTARA PENGADILAN TUN DAN PENGADILAN TIPIKOR / INTERCEPTION OF JUSTICE AUTHORITY OF DISCRETION ABUSE BETWEEN ADMINISTRATION COURT AND CORRUPTION COURTS

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 213
Author(s):  
Budi Suhariyanto
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Government Officials ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
State Finance ◽  
The Law ◽  
To Receive

Diskresi sebagai wewenang bebas, keberadaannya rentan akan disalahgunakan. Penyalahgunaan diskresi yang berimplikasi merugikan keuangan negara dapat dituntutkan pertanggungjawabannya secara hukum administrasi maupun hukum pidana. Mengingat selama ini peraturan perundang-undangan tentang pemberantasan tindak pidana korupsi tidak merumuskan secara rinci yang dimaksudkan unsur menyalahgunakan kewenangan maka para hakim menggunakan konsep penyalahgunaan wewenang dari hukum administrasi. Problema muncul saat diberlakukannya Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2014 dimana telah memicu persinggungan dalam hal kewenangan mengadili penyalahgunaan wewenang (termasuk diskresi) antara Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara dengan Pengadilan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Pada perkembangannya, persinggungan kewenangan mengadili tersebut ditegaskan oleh Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 4 Tahun 2015 bahwa PTUN berwenang menerima, memeriksa, dan memutus permohonan penilaian ada atau tidak ada penyalahgunaan wewenang (termasuk diskresi) dalam Keputusan dan/atau Tindakan Pejabat Pemerintahan sebelum adanya proses pidana. Sehubungan tidak dijelaskan tentang definisi dan batasan proses pidana yang dimaksud, maka timbul penafsiran yang berbeda. Perlu diadakan kesepakatan bersama dan dituangkan dalam regulasi tentang tapal batas persinggungan yang jelas tanpa meniadakan kewenangan pengujian penyalahgunaan wewenang diskresi pada Pengadilan TUN.Discretion as free authority is vulnerable to being misused. The abuse of discretion implicating the state finance may be prosecuted by both administrative and criminal law. In view of the fact that the law on corruption eradication does not formulate in detail the intended element of authority abuse, the judges use the concept of authority abuse from administrative law. Problems arise when the enactment of Law No. 30 of 2014 triggered an interception in terms of justice/ adjudicate authority on authority abuse (including discretion) between the Administrative Court and Corruption Court. In its development, the interception of justice authority is affirmed by Regulation of the Supreme Court Number 4 of 2015 that the Administrative Court has the authority to receive, examine and decide upon the appeal there is or there is no misuse of authority in the Decision and / or Action of Government Officials prior to the criminal process. That is, shortly before the commencement of the criminal process then that's when the authority of PTUN decides to judge the misuse of authority over the case. In this context, Perma No. 4 of 2015 has imposed restrictions on the authority of the TUN Court in prosecuting the abuse of discretionary authority.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document