Does “Canada” have a – ie., one – administrative justice system?

In a multi-jurisdictional country like Canada, it is clearly not accurate to speak, as I do in the title to the book, and elsewhere in the book,  of a Canadian administrative justice system – there are many such “systems”.   The reader will be glad to hear that I did not ignore this problem.  Unfortunately, my treatment of it ended up being buried in an end-note, whereas I should have included it in the main text.  The end-note – note 3 at page 291 – reads as follows:

Convenience dictates that one speaks as though in Canada we had only one administrative justice system, but, of course, each province and territory – and municipality – has its own, and there is also a federal system. With the exception of Quebec, however, these systems are virtually identical in their conception and administration, and for convenience I will continue to talk about a system with the expectation that readers will extrapolate the analysis to the particular system with which they are most familiar. In doing so, I adopt the practice uniformly found in Canadian administrative justice literature.

This instance of having to look for an important thing in the end-notes reflects a more general problem.  When I wrote my book manuscript I was working on the assumption  that the notes would appear as footnotes but it turned out that the publisher’s policy ruled out footnotes in favour of end-notes.   Without the immediacy of reference that one gets in a footnote, I have found a number of instances where it is clear, on reflection, that I ought to have included in the main text what  now appears as an end-note.

SRE

(1604)

This entry was posted in Unjust by Design Postscripts. Bookmark the permalink.

Submit a comment: