Advanced Administrative Law & Practice

Advancements made possible by artificial intelligence continue to be tempered by concerns around privacy and how unreliable the information provided by AI can be. In addition to hallucinations, AI can be used to create evidence (“deepfakes”) or improperly fill out forms. Nevertheless, AI can be seen as facilitating access to justice, both by reducing administrative demands on decision-makers and staff, and when it is used as a tool by litigants, especially those who self-represent. Balancing these advancements with appropriate caution is imperative, and this session will provide attendees with insights for the responsible use of AI.

In this session, topics of discussion include:

• Exploring how AI is or is not reducing administrative burdens
• Considering frontline uses of AI, e.g., AI-generated initial complaints or AI messages with registrars and case management officers
• Appreciating how well-developed internal AI policies can mitigate AI risks
• Determining whether existing governance structures are sufficient or whether dedicated AI oversight mechanisms are warranted
• Understanding organizational liability when the use of AI produces inaccurate or unintended outcomes
• Referring to policies such as the Federal Directive on Automated Decision-Making; AI Strategy for the Federal Public Service; and the federal government’s recently launched AI for All strategy
• Demystifying privacy and confidentiality when using AI: what happens to AI inputs, how is that information at risk, and how can it be protected?

CI is honoured to welcome Justice O’Bonsawin to the conference for a special fireside chat on administrative law principles.

An Abenaki member of the Odanak First Nation, Justice O’Bonsawin frequently speaks on Indigenous issues, as well as mental health, labour, and privacy law, and has written many publications that are relevant in the administrative law context, such as:

• A Difficult Road to Justice: The Relationship Between Mental Health and Access to Justice (2024)
• A Principled Approach: Applying Gladue Principles at the Ontario Review Board (2018)
• Mental Health Checklist: A Guide for Members of the Judiciary (2016)

Recent decisions of from the courts have emphasised statutory constraints as a primary limiting principle of Vavilovian reasonableness. Courts have been increasingly insistent on rigorous textual and contextual analysis, with increasing reliance on findings of only one reasonable interpretation. This session will explore several recent examples of where improper statutory interpretation that failed to meet this new emerging rigorous standard, led to unanticipated results, and what decision-makers and their counsel must now consider as a result.

Topics of discussion include:

• Appreciating the impact of improper statutory interpretation and how an OEB “opinion” was a judicially-reviewable decision in West Whitby Landowners Group Inc. v. Elexicon Energy Inc., 2025 ONCA 821
• Analyzing the role that statutory interpretation played in finding a Canadian Transportation Agency rate-setting decision unlawful in Canadian National Railway Company v. Canada (Transportation Agency), 2025 FCA 184
• Navigating the complexities of statutory interpretation in the municipal context, with a special look at Quebec’s unique approach: Ville de Québec v. Jardins de Vérone S.E.C., leave granted by the Supreme Court
  • Grappling with dynamic statutory interpretation
• Unpacking the latest guidance on how appeal courts review administrative decisions post-Auer in Canada v. Responsible Plastics Use Coalition et al., 2026 FCA 17
• Translating the takeaways from these cases into strategic guidance for decision-makers and the counsel who defend or challenge these types of decisions

Reducing backlogs and ensuring access to justice are, tritely, key goals of administrative bodies in Canada – but even those efforts must be compliant with statutory mandates, as the Ontario Divisional Court has recently directed. What does that mean for Tribunals and administrative bodies who are working to reduce backlogs? A special roundtable of speakers from administrative tribunals will unpack what that means in practice, and offer examples of efforts to reduce backlogs.

Questions and themes of discussion will include:

• Appreciating why delay at the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal and the External Review Committee of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were at issue in two recent court decisions: Bokhari v. Top Medical Transportation Services, 2026 ONSC 1073 and Benison v. Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee), 2026 FCA 53
  • What does it mean to enact efficiency measures that are compliant with statutory mandates?
• Procedure as both advancing and preventing access to justice: when are procedural mechanisms used as a barrier to access justice and when are they necessary to reduce backlogs?
• Appreciating the role of front line staff for education and managing evidence
  • What other tools can be used to manage an influx of applications (e.g., youtube videos, “how to” sheets, telephone hotlines, etc)
• Why is “hiring more adjudicators” not always the answer?
  • The advantages and risks of using discretion to decline hearings
  • The role of “amicus curiae” style support for vulnerable parties
• When is it expected or reasonable for the tribunal member to negotiate or mediate between parties?
  • When is ADR a better venue than a hearing room to ensure access to justice in a tribunal?

In Yatar (2024 SCC 8), the SCC clarified a key point in administrative law: judicial review is available on questions of fact or mixed fact and law, despite legislation granting limited statutory rights of appeal. How to interpret this point in the face of privative clauses limiting review rights was recently addressed by the SCC in the Democracy Watch appeal (2026 SCC 28) and will be addressed by the SCC in the pending appeal Canadian National Railway Company v. Alberta Pacific Forest Industries Inc. This session will guide litigators and decision-makers in understanding what the former, a landmark ruling, means for the future of privative clauses, including the anticipated outcome of the latter appeal.

Topics of discussion include:

• Analyzing the implications of the Democracy Watch decision for future availability of privative clauses
  • Anticipating potential legislative reactions to the ruling
  • Assessing what the ruling means for ongoing litigation involving privative clauses
• Understanding the facts and issues of the CNRC appeal
  • How s. 18.5 of the Federal Courts Act restricts judicial review and the implications for those aggrieved by an Agency decision
  • The Governor in Council’s role in reviewing a regulator’s reasons for compliance
• Assessing how courts are distinguishing between errors of law, fact, and jurisdiction under partial or full privative clauses
• Understanding what litigators and decision-makers need to consider differently when faced with a judicial review versus appeal

Since the SCC affirmed that Charter values must be considered even when not expressly raised by the parties (Commission scolaire francophone v NWT, 2023 SCC 31), uncertainty remains about how those values should be identified and analyzed. Moreover, whether administrative or constitutional law governs when the Charter is engaged is also uncertain, although the SCC is expected to clarify through two appeals: one involving provincial access to information and freedom of religion and a second involving search and seizure issues from an Ontario Securities Commission order requiring the disclosure of texts and social media posts. This session will offer insights for how ADMs should navigate the Charter and how counsel should approach the standard of review.

Topics of discussion will include:

• Reviewing the different standards of review for administrative decisions that engage a Charter right or value (Doré) and the standard of review used to ascertain whether the Charter was engaged (York Region)
  • Understanding when administrative decision makers should or must explicitly conduct a Charter rights or values analysis in written decisions
• Analyzing two recent Federal Court cases that have addressed the question of Charter values: Robinson v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 2092 and Mombourquette v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 2093
• Unpacking Vabuolas v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2025 BCCA 8, leave granted by the Supreme Court of Canada, and its treatment of Charter values and the appropriate standard of review
  • When the Charter is engaged, should the standard follow constitutional law principles or administrative law principles?
• Staying attentive to the SCC’s opportunity to clarify whether Charter values analysis is appropriate in the context of a s. 8 Charter challenge to the reasonableness of a regulatory investigative summons