Discretion, Judicial Review and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vagueness in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) has led to unnecessary litigation and confusion over the respective roles of courts, Parliament, and especially responsible authorities. The CEAA is intended to provide an assessment regime to balance the possible economic and other benefits of various types of projects against their potential environmental harm. As highlighted in several recent cases, the CEAA provides only vague guidance in determining the scope of the project itself and the scope of the assessment of the immediate and cumulative environmental effects. It gives the responsible authority (which may be any federal body related to the project) near-complete discretion in making these determinations. This creates the danger that political or economic factors might unduly influence decisionmaking in this sensitive area, resulting in either unnecessarily high costs on the proponent or inadequate protection against environmental harm Federal courts have done little to improve this situation, adopting a “reasonableness simpliciter” standard of judicial review that defers to responsible authorities as long as they have followed the statutory process. For the CEAA assessment regime to be meaningful and consistent, both Parliament and the courts must take a more active part in defining the role of responsible authorities. Parliament, currently in the process of reviewing the CEAA, should make amendments to provide more specific criteria for decisions under the Act. It should also consider creating an expert administrative tribunal that would undertake a more detailed substantive review of these decisions. If the principles governing environmental assessments were clarified, courts could undertake more meaningful reviews of decisions; in the absence of a substantially amended CEAA, courts should require responsible authorities to set out dear reasons for their decisions. If Parliament and courts take some of these steps, the CEAA regime will gain much-needed clarity and accountability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".