The politics of soft law: How judicial decisions influence bureaucratic discretion in Canada

Judicial Review and Bureaucratic Impact: International and Interdisciplinary Perspectives

Volumn , Issue , 2004, Pages 129-160

  Sossin, Lorne ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33750538109     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511493782.006     Document Type: Chapter

References (55)

1. http://laws. justice. gc. ca/en/charter/.
2. J. Kelly, 'Bureaucratic Activism and the Charter of Rights: The Department of Justice and Its Entry into the Centre of Government' (1999) 42 Canadian Public Administration 478.
3. P. Hogg and A. Bushell, 'The Charter Dialogue Between Courts and Legislatures (Or Perhaps the Charter of Rights Isn't Such a Bad Thing After All)' (1997) 35 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 75.
4. K. Roach, 'Constitutional and Common Law Dialogues Between the Supreme Court and Canadian Legislatures' (2001) 80 Canadian Bar Review 481.
5. J. Hiebert, 'Determining the Limits of Charter Rights: How Much Discretion Do Governments Retain' (Toronto University, PhD dissertation, 1991).
6. A. Campbell and K. C. Glass, 'The Legal Status of Clinical and Ethics Policies, Codes, and Guidelines in Medical Practice and Research' (2001) 46 McGill Law Journal 473-89.
7. L. Sossin and C. Smith, 'Hard Choices and Soft Law: Ethical Codes, Policy Guidelines and the Role of the Courts in Regulating Government' (2003) 40 Alberta Law Review 867.
8. D. Mullan, Administrative Law (Toronto, Irwin, 2001), pp. 375-9.
9. F. Houle, 'La zone fictive de l'infra-droit: l'integration des regles administratives dans la categorie des texts reglementaires' (2001) 47 McGill Law Journal 161.
10. G. Ganz, Quasi-Legislation: Recent Developments in Secondary Legislation (London, Sweet & Maxwell, 1987), pp. 16-22.
11. R. Baldwin and J. Houghton, 'Circular Arguments: The Status and Legitimacy of Administrative Rules' [1985] Public Law 239-84.
12. S. Halliday, 'The Influence of Judicial Review on Bureaucratic Decision-Making' [2000] Public Law 110 at 117.
13. Robin Creyke and John McMillan 'Executive Perceptions of Administrative Law-An Empirical Study' (2002) 9 Australian Journal of Administrative Law 163-90.
14. L. Sossin, 'Law and Intimacy in the Bureaucrat-Citizen Relationship' in N. des Rosiers (ed.), No Person Is an Island: Personal Relationships of Dependence and Independence (Vancouver, University of British Columbia Press, 2002), pp. 120-54.
15. N. des Rosiers (ed.), Les rapports de dependance et d'interdependance (Quebec City, Les Presses de l'Universite Laval, 2002), pp. 109-50.
16. L. Sossin, 'An Intimate Approach to Fairness, Impartiality and Reasonableness in Administrative Law' (2002) 28 Queen's Law Journal 809-58.
17. L. Sossin, 'Discretion Unbound: Reconciling the Charter and Soft Law' (2002) 45 Canadian Public Administration 465.
18. Sossin and Smith 'Hard Choices.'.
19. L. Sossin, 'The Rule of Policy: Baker and the Impact of Judicial Review on Administrative Discretion' in D. Dyzehaus et al. (eds.), The Unity of Public Law (London, Hart, 2004).
20. Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Immigration and Citizenship) 2002 SCC 1, paras. 26-41.
21. Ainsley Financial Corporation v. Ontario Securities Commission (1995) 21 OR (3d) 104 (CA) at 108-9.
22. Law Reform Commission of Canada Report 26, Report on Independent Administrative Agencies: Framework for Decision Making (1985), pp. 29-31.
23. L. Sossin, Boundaries of Judicial Review (Toronto, Carswell, 1999), pp. 9-19.
24. Ainsley Financial Corporation v. Ontario Securities Commission (1995) 21 OR (3d) 104 (Ont. CA) at 109.
25. Baker [1999] 2 SCR 817.
26. Sossin, 'Discretion Unbound.'.
27. D. Dyzenhaus, 'Constituting the Rule of Law: Fundamental Values in Administrative Law' (2002) 27 Queen's Law Journal 445 at 471-80.
28. U. H. Richardson, 'Administrative Policy-Making: Rule of Law or Bureaucracy?' in D. Dyzenhaus (ed.), Recrafting the Rule of Law (London, Oxford University Press, 1999).
29. K. C. Davis, Discretionary Justice: APreliminary Inquiry (Baton Rouge, Louisiana State University, 1969).
30. D. Galligan, Discretionary Powers: A Legal Study of Official Discretion (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1986), pp. 170-7.
31. K. Hawkins, 'The Uses of Legal Discretion: Perspectives from Law and Social Science' in K. Hawkins (ed.), The Uses of Discretion (Oxford, Clarendon, 1992), pp. 16-17.
32. Re Hopedale Developments Ltd v. Town of Oakville (1964) 47 DLR (2d) 482.
33. Houle, 'La zone fictive'.
34. H. Janisch, 'The Choice of Decision-Making Method: Adjudication, Policies and Rule-Making' in Administrative Law: Principles, Practices and Pluralism (Scarborough, Ont., Carswell, 1992).
35. M. Little, No Car, No Radio, No Liquor Permit: The Moral Regulation of Single Mothers in Ontario, 1920-1997 (Toronto, Oxford University Press, 1998).
36. L. Gordon, Pitied But Not Entitled: Single Mothers and the History ofWelfare (Toronto, The Free Press, 1994).
37. M. Little and I. Morrison, 'The Pecker Detectors Are Back' (1999) 34 Journal of Canadian Studies 110-36.
38. M. Lipsky, Street Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services (New York, Russell Sage, 1980).
39. J. Handler, The Conditions of Discretion: Autonomy, Community Bureaucracy (New York, Russell Sage, 1986).
40. Falkiner v. Ontario [2000] OJ No. 2433 (Div. Ct).
41. www. cic. gc. ca/manuals-guides/english/om-web/2000/ip/ip00-08e. html (issued 10 July 2000, OM#00-08).
42. L. Sossin, 'Discretion Unbound.' also B. Ryder, 'Case Comment on Little Sisters' (2001) 39 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 207.
43. Little Sisters [2000] 2 SCR 1120, para. 40.
44. Ryder, 'Case Comment,' n. 39.
45. N. des Rosier and B. Feldthussen, 'Discretion in Social Assistance Legislation' (1992) 8 Journal of Law and Social Policy 204.
46. L. Sossin, 'The Politics of Discretion: Toward a Critical Theory of Public Administration' (1992) 36 Canadian Public Administration 364.
47. P. Robson, 'Judicial Review and Social Security' in T. Buck (ed.), Judicial Review and Social Welfare (London, Pinter, 1998), p. 105.
48. L. Bridges, G. Meszaros and M. Sunkin, Judicial Review in Perspective (London, Cavendish, 1995).
49. L. Sossin, 'Regulating Virtue: A Purposive Approach to the Administration of Charities in Canada' in J. Phillips, B. Chapman and D. Stevens (eds.), Charities: Between State and Market (Kingston, Ont., McGill-Queen's Press, 2001), pp. 373-406.
50. A. Hammond, 'Judicial Review: the continuing interplay between law and policy' [1998] Public Law 34 at 40-1.
51. W. Simon, 'Legality, Bureaucracy and Class in the Welfare System' (1983) 92 Yale Law Journal 1198.
52. J. Handler, 'Dependent People, the State and the Modern/Postmodern Search for the Dialogic Community' (1988) 35 UCLA Law Review 999.
53. J. Vining, The Authoritative and the Authoritarian (Chicago, University of Chicago, 1986).
54. J. Mashaw, Due Process in the Administrative State (New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1985), pp. 87-93.
55. D. Dyzenhaus, M. Hunt and M. Taggart, 'The Principle of Legality in Administrative Law: Internationalization as Constitutionalization' (2001) 1 Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal 5.