The Road to the Promised Land Runs Past Conway: Administrative Tribunals and Charter Remedies

Authors

  • Ranjan K. Agarwal

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29173/alr151

Abstract

In the 30 years since the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was proclaimed, one of the most litigated issues has been the role of administrative tribunals in deciding Charter claims. Early Supreme Court jurisprudence suggested that only the provincial superior courts had the jurisdiction to decide Charter claims and remedy a Charter breach. Over time, and in concert with the expansion of the administrative state in Canada, the Supreme Court recognized that administrative tribunals could in fact decide Charter questions. However, the issue of whether they could remedy a Charter breach became bogged down by the test from Mills v. R.: tribunals and courts had to analyze the tribunal’s jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis by examining the remedy being sought, as opposed to analyzing jurisdiction on an institutional basis, which would examine the tribunal's statutory mandate and function.

Author Biography

Ranjan K. Agarwal

B.A. (Hons.) (Alberta), M.A. (Carleton), LL.B. (Ottawa). Ranjan Agarwal is an associate in the litigation department at Bennett Jones LLP in Toronto. He was called to the Bar of Ontario in 2004. Ranjan's practice includes commercial, constitutional, employment, and class action litigation. Professor Kent Roach and Rahool Agarwal provided comments on an earlier version of this comment.

Downloads

Issue

Vol 48, No 3

Section

Case Comments

License

For Editions following and including Volume 61 No. 1, the following applies.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License

For Editions prior to Volume 61 No. 1, the following applies.

Author(s) retain original copyright in the substantive content of the titled work, subject to the following rights that are granted indefinitely:

  1. 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;
  2. Author(s) grant the Alberta Law Review permission to post the titled work on the Alberta Law Review website and/or related websites.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.