This current blog was opened in February 2019, and contains all materials and comments posted since that date. In the “blog, archived”, visitors will find all Ellis’s posts between February 28, 2013 and November 27, 2017, the latter date marking the beginning of a 15-month lapse in Ellis’s attention to this site – a lapse for which he apologizes.
If you want to look for a specific topic, you can select a category from the sidebar or use the search function to explore topics in-depth. The search function will search in both the current blog and the archived blog, as well as across all pages in the site.
Administrative Justice – Back to the Future
Looking back on the 2008 UofT Symposium on the Future of Administrative Justice and comparing the hopeful presentations and discussions at that Symposium, as they appear in Lorne Sossin’s detailed Report, with the “Future” as we are now seeing it in Ontario, cannot help but leave one discouraged and angry.
Tribunal Decision-Making – Why are Oral Hearings so Efficacious?
Oral hearings work better not because sad stories undermine an adjudicator’s objectivity but because oral hearings always produce more information.
TRIBUNAL DECISION-MAKING – THE INFLUENCE OF ORAL HEARINGS ON OUTCOMES
What is the effect of oral hearings on outcomes? Here is a re-post of a reference to a UK study in which the very same case was heard by multiple tribunal panels, half with the advantage of an oral hearing and half without The study’s conclusion is startling.
Emasculation of Tribunals Ontario Response to Comment re possible increase in number of jr applications
In response to a viewer’s question, the author considers the impact of the governments appointment/reappointment policies on a number of issues in light of Vavilov, including the standard of review issue. Reasonableness, he suggests, is not a given.
The Emasculation of Tribunals Ontario Cases in point and a Projection
Since June 2018, the Ford Government has emasculated the tribunals within the Tribunals Ontario structure. Here’s the story.
Patronagizing the administrative justice system? Are year-or-less appointments part of a plan?
Reasons to think recourse to one-year or less appointments may be a Ford Government strategy for patronagizing the administrative justice system.
Premonitory Stats Postscript: “Vacancies” Assumption in Question
This postscript to the Nov 27, Premonitory Stats post identifies the possibility that the “vacancies” number in the original post may not be reliable – possible need to add an unknown number of “abandoned” positions.
ONTARIO’S ADJUDICATIVE TRIBUNALS APPOINTMENTS/REAPPOINTMENTS PREMONITORY STATS
A November 23 study of PAS stats on adjudicative tribunal appointments shows that the government has prepared for a large reduction in the number of adjudicators in Ontario’s adjudicative tribunals
Competition Out, Patronage In – Ford’s new system for appointing Ontario Provincial Court Judges
The Ontario AG has announced changes to the appointments process for Provincial Court Judges that are calculated to patronagize the process.
Adjudicative Tribunals – Is the Unjust Budgets Constitutional Argument Still Valid?
The validity of the Unjust Budgets article has renewed relevance in light of the BC Court of Appeal decision in Walter v. BC
Administrative Justice in the Ford Era – the Crisis Continues.
On February 1, 2019, Ellis post a blog alerting readers to the damage the Ford government was doing to Ontario’s adjudicative tribunals. Here is an update.
Administrative Justice Reform – 10,000 hits
Administrative Justice Reform A Milestone Moment – 10,000 hits
UNJUST BUDGETS – Constitutionally Valid?
Are there any rule-of-law limits to the level of funding an executive branch may provide for an adjudicative tribunal? Here is an article on that subject, originally posted on this site on March 15, 2013.
What the Harris Government did to the administrative justice system
In assessing the dangers to the Ontario administrative Justice system under the Ford government, it is instructive to remember what happened to the system under the Harris government.
September 18 meeting – Clarification
Lest there be any misunderstanding, this author’s advocacy for a class action based on claims for damages for breach of contract by adjudicators whose expected reappointments were refused is not principally motivated by a concern for the personal interests … September 18 meeting – Clarification Read More »