Administrative “Determinations of Law” and the Limits of Legal Pluralism after Vavilov
As the doctrine of judicial review has matured, Canadian courts have become increasingly attuned to the role that administrative agencies play in maintaining the rule of law. The courts have recognized that in order for administrative agencies to function effectively, they must have some freedom to interpret their statutes. Accommodation of nonjudicial interpretations of law, however, has limits. While the courts have often addressed jurisdictional limits in Diceyan terms, they have also addressed the structural limitations that flow from the nature of delegated discretion. These limitations make it impossible for administrative agencies to make determinations of law as courts do. Most agencies do not have the power to create binding policy or otherwise resolve ambiguities in their enabling statute. Rule of law concerns may arise from the resulting uncertainty as much as from questions of vires. Administrative agencies are unable to settle constitutional questions, questions of central importance to the legal system, or jurisdictional disputes between agencies. Settling ambiguity in existing law is a function that only the courts can perform. Nonetheless, the legitimacy of law-making by nonjudicial institutions within their limits has long been recognized in the common law world. This article describes the development of legal pluralism regarding the sources of law in Canadian jurisprudence. The article then examines the extent to which Vavilov’s new framework for reasonableness review articulates how nonjudicial decision-makers might manifest the rule of law within a “culture of justification.”
Author(s) retain original copyright in the substantive content of the titled work, subject to the following rights that are granted indefinitely:
- Author(s) grant the Alberta Law Review permission to produce, publish, disseminate, and distribute the titled work in electronic format to online database services, including, but not limited to: LexisNexis, QuickLaw, HeinOnline, and EBSCO;
- Author(s) grant the Alberta Law Review permission to post the titled work on the Alberta Law Review website and/or related websites.
- Author(s) agree that the titled work may be used for educational or instructional purposes and/or in educational or instructional materials. The author(s) acknowledge that the titled work is subject to other such "fair dealing" provisions and applicable legislation.
- Author(s) grant a limited license to those accessing the titled work from an electronic database or an Alberta Law Review website to download the titled work onto their computer and to print a copy for their own personal, non-commercial use, subject to proper attribution.
To use the journal's content elsewhere, permission must be obtained from the author(s) and the Alberta Law Review.