Join the conversation

To login: click the login link in the footer; to apply for user name and password: go to Contact.

Introduction

In Unjust by Design, I (Ellis) expressed the hope that the book would provoke a serious discussion not only about the book but about the structures and quality of the administrative justice system generally and I invited readers to an interactive  discussion at administrativejusticereform.ca – this is that website. You are in the site, and I hope that you will decide to join in the conversation.

Structuring the conversation

On this blog, the conversations will be structured in the form of postings, comments on postings and comments on those comments.  At the outset, posted “articles” will be written mainly by me and will at first be designed to focus the discussion principally on the issues presented in the book.

Invitation to Post Articles

However, I invite anyone who would like to initiate a discussion on an issue in the book, or on a different issue by writing a new post, to send me a message through the contact page (anonymously if you want – see below) identifying the issue and your views on it, and I will convert those messages into new posts on this blog. with or without attribution.

Alternatively, you might just send me an email message at my personal email address.

You will find that my first postings here are in the category of Unjust by Design Postscripts  – things that in an ideal world should have been in the book but for lack of space or mere inattention, were not.

The first post in the latter category explains who the late Nick McCombie was and why I dedicated the book to him; the second is about Peter Showler’s great book, Refugee Sandwich, which I should have mentioned in the book, but didn’t, and the third is an explanation for my talking in the book about a Canadian Administrative Justice system as if there were only one.

Participating Anonymously

In the book, I promised that to facilitate a free and frank discussion the website would be structured to allow participants to participate anonymously.  For those of you interested in participating anonymously go to the commenting anonymously page.

What’s Happening?   Sharing the information

I am hopeful that this website might serve as something of a clearing house for information that pertains to the design, administration or operation of administrative judicial tribunals in any of Canada’s various administrative justice systems.  I, therefore, invite anyone who comes upon such information, to consider sharing it with the visitors to this site.

What Information

I am not looking for standard of review jurisprudence.  What I have in mind are: especially interesting conference papers; journal articles; books; press clippings; new legislation or regulations; policy guidelines; practice directions; meaningful events, such as relevant litigation, court or tribunal decisions of general interest, major appointments (contentious dismissals); and announcements of relevant conferences, workshops, programs,  etc.

Mr. Justice LeBel’s speech to the CLEBC conference which was noted on this site on March 7 as a “Featured News” post is an example of the kind of thing that is inherently interesting to anyone concerned with the administrative justice system but inherently hard to find unless one knows it’s there.

How to do it

If you email me using the message form on the contact page, I will contact you to discuss whether and how the information in question might be presented on this site, and with what attribution, etc.

RE

(5120)

Workers’ Comp Reclamation? Alberta Points the Way.

Reclamation:  A process of claiming something back or reasserting a right. INTRODUCTION For the radical right of corporate employers, Alberta’s workers’ compensation system has long been the shining city on the hill – the system with the lowest premiums in Canada. In Ontario, the radical management regime that captured Ontario’s workers’ compensation system in 2010 View Post

 View Post

Ontario’s WSIB and the power implants – CMS Benefits Policy – A Case in Point – Wrong Standard of Proof

CHRONIC MENTAL STRESS BENEFITS THE WSIB’s DRAFT POLICY WRONG STANDARD OF PROOF INTRODUCTION On May 4, 2017, the Ontario WSIB published a draft Operational Policy concerning entitlement to “Traumatic or Chronic Mental Stress Benefits” respecting “accidents on or after January 1, 2018”.  (Draft for Consultation Purposes, Document Number 15-03-14.) The CMS (Chronic Mental Stress) Benefits View Post

 View Post

Ontario’s WSIB and the Bill 127 Amendments – The power implants – What do they Mean? – Part IV – Adjudicative Principles Policies

THE WSIB POWER IMPLANTS – PART IV           POLICIES CONCERNING             DIFFERENTIATED EVIDENTIARY REQUIREMENTS AND ADJUDICATIVE PRINCIPLES INTRODUCTION This is my fourth, and last, post on the WSIB’s four, mysterious power implants inserted in Ontario’s WSIA by means of the “Stronger, Healthier Ontario Act (Budget Measures), View Post

 View Post

Ontario’s WSIB and the Bill 127 Amendments – The power implants – What do they Mean? – Part III – Adjudicative Principles Policies

THE WSIB POWER IMPLANTS – PART III           POLICIES CONCERNING             ADJUDICATIVE PRINCIPLES INTRODUCTION This is my third post on the WSIB’s four, mysterious power implants inserted in Ontario’s WSIA by means of the “Stronger, Healthier Ontario Act (Budget Measures), 2017 in Schedule 33 of Bill View Post

 View Post

Ontario’s WSIB and the Bill 127 Amendments – The power implants – What do they do? – Part II – EVIDENTIARY REQUIREMENTS POLICIES

THE WSIB POWER IMPLANTS – PART II EVIDENTIARY REQUIREMENTS POLICIES INTRODUCTION This is my second post on the WSIB’s four, mysterious  power implants which Schedule 33 of Bill 127 has added to Ontario’s WSIA by means of the “Stronger, Healthier Ontario Act (Budget Measures), 2017”.  For a description of all four of those implants see View Post

 View Post

Ontario’s WSIB and the Bill 127 Amendments – The power implants – Why are they needed? Part I

THE WSIB POWER IMPLANTS INTRODUCTION Schedule 33 of Bill 127,  the “Stronger, Healthier Ontario Act (Budget Measures), 2017”, will amend the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Act in a number of ways, many of them apparently positive from an injured worker’s perspective – the addition of chronic mental stress benefits, increases in various minimum amounts, View Post

 View Post

Unjust by Design – still out there …

In the March 2017 issue of the Canadian Journal of Administrative Law & Practice (vol. 30, pp 119-144) one will find an article written by Andrew Taillon (of the Nova Scotia Department of Justice) entitled: “To the Rescue: The Grievance Arbitration Model as a Solution to Canada’s Unjust by Design Administrative Justice System Problem”. That View Post

 View Post

WSIB AND SOME OF THE EVIDENCE IT WILL HAVE TO CONFRONT IN CASTRILLO

INTRODUCTION The author’s March 10, 2017, post in this website described the highlights and implications of the Court of Appeal decision in Castrillo, the Fink & Bornstein class action against Ontario’s WSIB. The class action claims that the Board was guilty of misfeasance in public office when, from circa January 2012 to November 2014, it View Post

 View Post

WSIB and the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in the Castrillo Class Action

INTRODUCTION It seems likely that visitors to this site will have heard about, or, indeed, have read, the Court of Appeal’s February 13, 2017, decision in Fink & Bornstein’s class action against the WSIB  – Pietro Castrillo v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (Mr. Castrillo being the representative plaintiff) . It may be found at this View Post

 View Post

Workers’ Compensation Chronic Stress Benefits Remain in Limbo as Ontario Ombudsman Refuses to Investigate

THE PETITION On November 7, 2016, three Toronto workers’ compensation legal clinics (IWC, IAVGO, WHSLC), workers’ compensation lawyer, Gary Newhouse, and this author, formally petitioned the Ontario Ombudsman to investigate the WSIB’s  systemic denial of chronic mental stress injury claims. The grounds for this petition was the WSIB’s persistence in continuing to apply statutory prohibitions of View Post

 View Post