The Unfortunate Triumph of Form over Substance in Canadian Administrative Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The standard of review analysis for judicial review of administrative action developed by the Supreme Court of Canada before Dunsmuir v New Brunswick had two important features. First, it provided a bulwark against interventionist judges, thereby protecting the autonomy of administrative decision makers and promoting deference. Second, it was substantive, rather than formal, and moved the focus of judicial review away from abstract concepts and towards the eccentricities of statutory schemes. However, in its more recent forays into the general principles of judicial review, the Court has threatened to reverse its deferential and substantive course by following a formalistic, categorical approach. In this article I describe the Court’s efforts to reshape the law of judicial review of administrative action, critique these efforts as favouring a formalistic approach to judicial review, and suggest that in its haste to simplify the law of judicial review, the Court has jeopardized the due deference that should be accorded to administrative decision makers: It has erroneously favoured form over substance.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".