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