http://faculty.law.ubc.ca/edinger/files/100/Edinger%20Law%20100%20Case%20Book%
202011%202012.pdf
http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/category/1l/constitutional-law/canadian-constitutionallaw/ - I thin this is for the podcast
https://www.scribd.com/doc/115828774/NCA-Administrative-Law-Notes
Part of the problem is that a lot of you are overthinking Admin. If
you look carefully at the sampleexam, you'll notice something that is
very apparent in the actual exams administered - that is, there
arethree fact patterns and one focuses on procedural administrative
law, another on substantiveadministrative law, and a third that will
likely include something about bias, charter challenge, or otherwise
similar content.Once you are able to identify procedural vs.
substantive problems, the rest is easy. When analyzing a procedural
question, look at the Baker elements and carefully read the Judge's
analysis. Most problems will result in the victim having right to some
procedural fairness.When looking at the substantive elements, organize
your thoughts carefully - does the person haveany right to due process
at all? If so, what level? And after determining what level, focus on
how that person's rights should be applied to the fact pattern. There
will always be a bit about bias or a charter argument. Find it and use
the text book to find out what type of bias it was, speak clearly
andconcisely about whether an argument exists, and make a confident
conclusion about it.There is a lot of fluff in the text books intended
to take up your time. Once you learn what theexaminers are looking
for, you can focus on that and ignore the rest of the nonsense. You
will realizethat your exam will consist about 80% of the Baker and
Dunsmuir elements, and the cases that led upto, or were decided, on
the basis of this case law.Canadian law is somewhat archaic in that
many of the textbooks and reading materials are publishedevery few
years, which is in contrast to American authorities which are
published yearly or twiceyearly. This means that a lot of things to do
with two standards of reasonableness (hint -only 1 nowexists) are
still in the texts and this causes some confusion. Don't waste your
time with trying toexplain to the examiner the difference; rather,
focus on the IRAC method religiously. I cannot stressorganization and
writing style. You could have a strong grasp on the case-law, but if
you cannot argueyour position with confidence, you'll fail. I would
bet that writing style and organization are the deal breakers with NCA
examiners, as your first impression is the only one you'll make. If
your English isweak or you are unable to put your thoughts on paper
properly, spend a lot of time taking the practiceexams and reviewing
the outlines so you know exactly how your answer will flow.Lastly,
walk into the test knowing that there are only a few ways that a
question can be asked when itcomes to admin law. There will always be
a person or entity who was denied a certain benefit or right.There
will always be a question on procedural and a question on substantive
law.The fact pattern will always be fashioned in a way that it is
difficult to determine whether standardof review is correctness or
reasonableness because it could go either way, so look closely for
astatement or fact that sways you to the correct SoR (remember,
choosing the wrong SoR can fail you).And also remember, there will be
a question which asks you whether a person or entity has any rightsin
law to some type of bias/constitutional challenge.
Learn the different types of bias and apply itcorrectly, and learn the
jurisdictional limitations that tribunals must abide by when
hearingconstitutional challenges.
Hope that helps. Once you guys stop over-thinking admin law and start
focusing on the actualelements of the subject, you'll realize that
it's an area of Canadian law that is well developed andrelatively easy
to conquer. When I was studying for it, I was overwhelmed because I
could notseparate procedure and substantive law properly, but with
some time and resources I was able tofigure it out quite well. Steven:
The syllabus is extremely frustrating because it does not provide
students with any structure.My suggestion would be to break down your
outlines into two major categories: Procedural andSubstantive.For each
category, ask yourselves (a) whether any procedural/substantive rights
exist; (b) at whatlevel? and (c) and whether the victim received
enough process or whether more should have beengiven. Again, HEAVILY
rely on the Baker analysis for matters of procedural fairness, even
step-by-step as outlined by Justice L'Heureux-Dubé, whose analysis is
extremely easy to follow. One easyway to identify procedural fairness
problem is where there is no "finality" to the issue.
Proceduralquestions mostly center around matters of how a certain
thing was done, such as how someone wasfired, how a benefit was
revoked, or along those lines. Procedural questions usually look at
whether a particular person received enough opportunity to challenge a
decision or whether the decision was based on sufficient research and
opportunity for the victim to be heard, etc.In contrast, substantive
questions mainly involve a final decision by a tribunal, and the party
involvedis looking to have that overturned by a court. First, ask
whether there is any basis for review at all:that is, are there any
mistakes in fact or law that are egregious enough for court
intervention? If so,what standard of review? Look to the Dunsmuir and
supporting cases to determine this.Finally, will the court overturn
the decision at all? Analyze the case-law and determine whether
theerror was big enough to warrant court intervention. Most
substantive issues will be a standard of reasonableness, because most
of them are typically errors of fact or mixed fact and law. You
willknow when a correctness standard applies when you see matters of
law that are highly important tothe legal system as a whole or involve
a constitutional question (which is rare.) If anyone has anyspecific
questions about admin, let me know. I'm no expert, but I did put a
great deal of effort intolearning it at the expense of my other exams,
and I'm happy to share my experiences.
Introduction
Primary questions:(a) The circumstances under which governmental
decision-makers are subject to an obligation of procedural fairness
to those affected by their decisions, and, where applicable, the
content of thatobligation.(b) The extent to which the substantive
decisions of assigned decision-makers are subject to meritsscrutiny by
the courts in the name of jurisdiction or other principles of
substantive review such aserror of law, error of fact, and abuse of
discretion, and especially the standard of review thatreviewing courts
bring to bear in exercising that constitutionally guaranteed
capacity.(c) The remedial framework within which the superior courts,
both federally and provincially,exercise their review powers.(d) The
bases upon which the courts will not only exercise direct powers of
review but also providemonetary compensation for wrongful
administrative acti