The Supreme Court of Canada has attempted several times to reform the way it approaches the issue of curial deference in judicial review. Each attempt however, has been in vain. This paper argues that the cause of this failure of each reform of the deference test proposed by the Supreme Court is not necessarily one of content, but instead one of structure. Each of the reforms retained a ‘multifactorial approach’ to the deference test, involving the weighing of several factors leading to a prescribed level of deference. Through critical analysis of the approach, and the postulation of an alternative, this paper argues that the multifactorial approach is what thwarts the Court’s intentions, and that it needs to abandon it should it wish to achieve clarity and coherence within judicial review.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:TORONTO/oai:tspace.library.utoronto.ca:1807/33507 |
| Date | 26 November 2012 |
| Creators | Marcelo, Rodriguez Ferrere |
| Contributors | Dyzenhaus, David |
| Source Sets | University of Toronto |
| Language | en_ca |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis |
Page generated in 0.0014 seconds