ENHANCING FAIRNESS, EFFICIENCY, AND ACCESSIBILITY IN CANADA ADMINISTRATIVE LEGAL SYSTEM

ENHANCING FAIRNESS, EFFICIENCY, AND ACCESSIBILITY IN CANADA'S ADMINISTRATIVE LEGAL SYSTEM Keywords: Administrative law, Canada, judicial review, administrative tribunals, access to justice, technology in law, automated decision-making (ADM), online dispute resolution (ODR), Vavilov, Dunsmuir, legal reform, procedural fairness, algorithmic bias. Abstract This research paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the Canadian administrative legal system, examining its foundational principles, the evolution of judicial oversight, and the key challenges it faces today. The report traces the development of judicial review standards through landmark cases like Dunsmuir and Vavilov, highlighting the ongoing debate regarding the consistent application of a "robust reasonableness" standard. It identifies a persistent access to justice crisis, which disproportionately affects self-represented and vulnerable individuals, and explores how emerging technologies present both opportunities for greater efficiency and significant risks to fundamental fairness. While the success of British Columbia's Civil Resolution Tribunal demonstrates the potential of online dispute resolution, the opaque use of automated decision-making systems in other areas, such as immigration, raises profound questions about transparency, accountability, and the right to a human decision. The paper concludes with a blueprint for reform that calls for a multi-faceted approach, including a new regulatory framework for artificial intelligence, an expansion of user-centered digital services, and a renewed emphasis on strengthening the independence and perceived importance of administrative tribunals as a cornerstone of a fair and accessible legal system. Introduction This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the contemporary Canadian administrative legal system, identifying key challenges and offering a values-driven blueprint for reform. The administrative state, a crucial third pillar of government, is tasked with implementing a vast array of policies and programs through a network of agencies, ministers, and quasi-judicial tribunals. While this system has brought expertise and efficiency to public administration, it is currently grappling with significant strains, including a complex and at times confusing judicial review framework, a persistent access to justice crisis, and the profound legal and ethical challenges posed by emerging technologies like automated decision-making (ADM). Through an examination of landmark judicial decisions such as Dunsmuir and Vavilov, the report traces the evolution of judicial oversight and argues that while Vavilov has brought a welcome measure of clarity, its application remains a subject of judicial debate. The report highlights the British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) as a case study in the successful use of technology to improve accessibility, but contrasts this with the profound risks of ADM systems in areas like immigration, which threaten to create opaque, unaccountable, and potentially biased decision-making. Ultimately, this paper argues that meaningful improvement requires a coordinated, multi-faceted approach. The analysis suggests that a fundamental, systemic issue is the structural and conceptual de-emphasis of administrative justice, which undermines its importance despite its critical role in the lives of ordinary Canadians. We must move beyond piecemeal reforms and embrace a vision that prioritizes fairness, transparency, and the human element. The recommendations advanced in this report call for a new regulatory framework for Artificial Intelligence (AI), a renewed commitment to plain-language and user-centered design, and a sustained effort to reinforce the independence and legitimacy of administrative tribunals as a cornerstone of Canadian democracy. General Objective The general objective of this research paper is to provide a comprehensive analysis of the Canadian administrative legal system, identify its key challenges, and propose a multi-faceted, values-driven blueprint for reform. The ultimate goal is to enhance the system's fairness, efficiency, and accessibility for all Canadians by addressing its structural deficiencies and adapting to new technologies. Specific Objectives The specific objectives of the paper are to: Analyze the core institutional and conceptual foundations of Canadian administrative law, including the principles of the rule of law and procedural fairness. Trace the evolution of the judicial review framework from Dunsmuir to Vavilov and evaluate the ongoing challenges in applying a consistent standard of review. Examine the pervasive "access to justice" crisis and the significant barriers faced by self-represented and vulnerable litigants. Evaluate the dual impact of technology by exploring the opportunities of online dispute resolution (ODR) and the significant risks posed by opaque automated decision-making (ADM) systems. Propose concrete recommendations for reform, including a new regulatory framework for artificial intelligence, measures to strengthen the independence and procedural fairness of administrative tribunals, and strategies to expand access to justice through user-centered design. Advocate for a conceptual shift that elevates the perceived status of administrative justice to ensure that these critical institutions receive the resources and recognition necessary to fulfill their democratic purpose. PART I: THE INSTITUTIONAL AND CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS OF CANADIAN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Chapter 1: The Administrative State in Context: Origins and Rationale The foundational premise of Canadian administrative law is that it is the body of law that governs the exercise of power delegated by statute to various components of the executive branch of government. This delegation is a practical necessity in a modern, highly regulated society where Parliament and the courts cannot directly address the vast and intricate array of regulatory functions required. These delegated powers are exercised by a wide range of administrative decision-makers (ADMs), including ministers, government departments, and a complex network of administrative tribunals and agencies. This system is concerned with three primary functions: the procedural expectations that ADMs must meet, the substantive constraints they must observe to avoid errors, and the remedial structures available through judicial review to challenge their decisions. This tripartite framework highlights the dual purpose of the system: it must enable the government to carry out its functions efficiently while simultaneously ensuring that all actions adhere to the principle of the rule of law. A central tension is inherent in this design, namely, the aspiration to create a capable and expert public administration that is also accountable and respectful of liberal-democratic norms. This fundamental conflict, between the objectives of neutrality and expertise on one hand and democracy and individual rights on the other, is a recurring theme that underpins the entire administrative law framework in Canada. Chapter 2: Defining Principles: The Rule of Law and Procedural Fairness The rule of law serves as the foundational principle that mandates that all government actors, including administrative decision-makers, must operate within the bounds of their legal authority. This concept is a core purpose of administrative law, as it ensures that delegated power is exercised in a "proper" manner. It is this principle that provides the basis for judicial oversight, as superior courts have an inherent common law power to review any administrative decision to ensure it is lawful, reasonable, and fair. Beyond the rule of law, the system is guided by the principles of procedural fairness, which concern the rights of individuals to participate in decisions that affect their rights, privileges, or interests. These rights are derived from a combination of legal sources, including the common law, enabling legislation, general statutes that impose procedural rules, and constitutional principles such as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The two core principles of natural justice are the right to be heard (audi alteram partem) and the right to be judged impartially (nemo judex in sua causa). A common law duty of fairness can also be invoked when a decision is sufficiently administrative, affects the claimant's interests, and is based on a statutory power. Furthermore, a "legitimate expectation" of a particular procedure can create a duty of fairness where a public authority has promised to follow a certain process and an individual has relied upon that promise. The content of this duty is not fixed but is determined by a contextual analysis of factors such as the nature of the decision, the statutory scheme, and the importance of the interest at stake. Chapter 3: The Role of Tribunals: Independence, Expertise, and the Hybrid Nature of Quasi-Judicial Bodies Administrative tribunals are a central component of the Canadian administrative state, acting as a parallel, specialized system of justice that is distinct from, yet supervised by, the traditional court system. As quasi-judicial bodies, they make decisions on behalf of federal, provincial, and territorial governments in areas where it would be impractical or inappropriate for a government department to do so directly. The mandates of these tribunals are incredibly diverse and specialized, handling a vast range of disputes from social security appeals and veterans' affairs to human rights, labour relations, and Indigenous land claims. The creation of these bodies is rooted in the need for specialized expertise and greater efficiency in public administration. However, a fundamental contradiction exists within this system. The very design of administrative tribunals, while intended to deliver specialized justice, has led to ongoing debates regarding

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.