Rules, Principles, and the Reformation of Judicial Review

Abstract

This article analyzes two different approaches to judicial review: the model of rules (whereby the legal validity of an administrative decision hinges on its formal attributes) and the practice of principle (whereby the legal legitimacy of an administrative decision hinges on whether it has been rendered fairly and justified reasonably in light of its legal context). The author argues that the shift toward the practice of principle facilitates the type of complex and contextual normative assessments that are required to promote the rule of law across a broad range of administrative decision-making. However, the author finds that the Supreme Court, in recent cases, has favoured developing and clarifying a new model of rules which has inadvertently created “grey holes” of legality, which exacerbate the risk of arbitrary dismissal in the realm of public employment and stultifies the culture of justification where administrative decisions are subject to a statutory right of appeal.