ABOUT THIS EPISODE
Can Parliament prevent courts from reviewing the decisions of administrative tribunals?
In this episode, we discuss the Supreme Court of Canada’s landmark decision in Democracy Watch v. Canada (Attorney General), 2026 SCC 28. The case arose after Democracy Watch sought judicial review of the Ethics Commissioner’s finding that former prime minister Justin Trudeau had not violated the Conflict of Interest Act in relation to the WE Charity controversy. The Court unanimously ruled that Parliament cannot prevent courts from reviewing whether administrative decision-makers have acted lawfully.
We examine what the decision says about the constitutional foundations of administrative law. We also discuss what the ruling could mean for privative clauses, reasonableness review, and future challenges to federal administrative decisions in the immigration context.
Live audience questions answered include what the case could mean for mandamus applications involving delays caused by Ministerial Instructions, and concerns about the apparent growing lack of public confidence in the courts.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
