Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gq7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T03:02:58.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Law Reform Commission of Canada and Lawyers' Approaches to Public Administration: A Review Essay

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2014

W. Wesley Pue
W. Wesley Pue
Affiliation:
Department of Law, Carleton University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Articles/Note critiques
Information
Canadian Journal of Law and Society / La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société , Volume 2 , 1987 , pp. 165 - 175
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Law and Society Association 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Arthurs, H.W., “Rethinking Administrative Law: A Slightly Dicey Business,” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 17, no. 1 (1979), 2Google Scholar.

2. Ibid., 1.

3. Law Reform Commission of Canada, The Legal Status of the Federal Administration, Working Paper 40 (Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1985)Google Scholar. (Principal Consultant: Daniel Mockle.)

4. Law Reform Commission of Canada, Report on Independent Administrative Agencies: A Framework for Decision Making, Report 26 (Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1985)Google Scholar.

5. The Legal Status of the Federal Administration, 86.

6. Ibid., 87.

7. Ibid., 69.

8. Ibid., 70.

9. Ibid., 71.

10. Ibid., 74.

11. Ibid., 76.

12. Ibid., 76.

13. Ibid., 77.

14. Ibid., 81.

15. Ibid., 87.

16. Ibid., 88.

17. Ibid., 88 (emphasis in original).

18. See, for example, Miliband, Ralph, “Political Action, Determinism and Contingency,” in Miliband, Ralph, Class Power and State Power (London: Verso Editions and NLB, 1983), 131–153Google Scholar.

19. The Legal Status of the Federal Administration, 2.

20. Ibid., 3.

21. Ibid., 33-34 (emphasis added).

22. Ibid., 10.

23. Ibid., 71.

24. Ibid., 53.

25. Ibid., 78.

26. Ibid., 53.

27. Ibid., 52.

28. Ibid., 3 (emphasis added).

29. See Stevens, Robert, Law School (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1983)Google Scholar.

30. See Sugarman, David, “Legal Theory, the Common Law Mind and the Making of the Textbook Tradition,” in Twining, W. (ed.), Legal Theory and Common Law (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986), 26–61Google Scholar.

31. See Schlegel, A., “American Legal Realism and Empirical Social Science: From the Yale Experience,” Buffalo Law Review 28 (1979), 459Google Scholar; Schlegel, A., “American Legal Realism and Empirical Social Science: The Singular Case of Underhill Moore,” Buffalo Law Review 29 (1980), 195Google Scholar.

32. Lasswell, and McDougal, , “Legal Education and Public Policy: Professional Training in the Public Interest,” Yale Law Journal 52 (1943), 203CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33. It has now become fashionable for Law Reviews to offer symposium issues on “critical legal scholarship.” See Stanford Law Review 6, no. 4Google Scholar; Cardozo Law Review, 1985; American University Law Review 34, no. 4 (1985)Google Scholar. See also Hunt, Alan, “Critical Legal Studies: A Bibliography,” Modern Law Review 47, 369Google Scholar.

34. Law and Learning (Ottawa: S.S.H.R.C., 1982)Google Scholar. See the review of Veitch, Edward, “Our Capacity for Legal Research,” U.N.B.L.J. 32 (1983), 253Google Scholar and the critical comments of Ron P. Saunders in a book review published in Ottawa Law Review 16 (1984), 218Google Scholar.

35. A brief review of such developments is to be found in Pue, W. Wesley, “Socio-Legal Scholarship in Canada: The Jurisprudence Centre Working Papers, 1985” Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 5 (1985), 430Google Scholar. For a summary of British developments see Hunt, Alan, “The Case for Critical Legal Education,” The Law Teacher 20, 10–20Google Scholar.

36. The Legal Status of the Federal Administration, 53. An intellectual debt of gratitude would seem at this point to be owed to Reich, Charles, “The New Property,” Yale Law Journal 73 (1964), 778CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37. See Sargent, N.C., “Legal Individualism and Corporate Accountability: The Limits of the Criminal Law's Response to Corporate Crime,” Proceedings of the 1986 Annual Meeting of the Canadian Law and Society Association, June 5, 1986, Winnipeg, Manitoba (Toronto: York University Law Libraries, 1986)Google Scholar. (Microfilm.)

38. See Calvert, John, Government, Limited (Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, 1984)Google Scholar; Marchak, Patricia, “Canadian Political Economy,” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 22 (1985), 673CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39. Schrecker, Ted, “Corporate Power: The Challenge to Legal and Political Theory,” Working Paper 2, Jurisprudence Centre, Department of Law, Carleton University, OttawaGoogle Scholar.

40. Schrecker, T. F., Political Economy of Environmental Hazards (Ottawa: Law Reform Commission of Canada, 1984)Google Scholar. Reviewed in Alberta Law Review 23 (1985), 399Google Scholar.

41. Ibid., 73. “The freedom to get rich” is from Geis, G. & Monahan, J., “The Social Ecology of Violence,” in Lickona, T. (ed.), Moral Development and Behavior (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1976), note 335, 354–355Google Scholar.

42. For a critical discussion of cost-benefit analysis as applied to environmental hazard see Schrecker, T.F., Political Economy of Environmental Hazards, Study Paper, Law Reform Commission of Canada, 1984, at 46–54Google Scholar. On fault-based tort systems see Posner, R.A., “A Theory of Negligence,” Journal of Legal Studies 1 (1972), 29–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Posner, R.A., “Strict Liability: A Comment,” Journal of Legal Studies 2 (1973), 205–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

43. See Mitchell, Chester, “The Mispursuit of Happiness: Divorcing Normative Legal Theory from Utilitarianism,” Working Paper 1, Jurisprudence Centre, Department of Law, Carleton University, OttawaGoogle Scholar. This is discussed in my “Socio-legal Scholarship in Canada: The Jurisprudence Centre Working Papers, 1985,” Windsor Year-book of Access to Justice.

44. The Legal Status of the Federal Administration, 86.

45. Ibid., 85.

46. Ibid., 85.

47. Report on Independent Administrative Agencies: A Framework for Decision Making, 8-9.

48. Simple theories of state-wide value consensus as a foundation of law are now more or less uniformly rejected. See, for example, Goode, M.R., “Law Reform Commission of Canada—Political Ideology of Criminal Process Reform,” Canadian Bar Review (1976), 653–674Google Scholar; Charles Reasons and Rich, Robert, The Sociology of Law: A Conflict Perspective (Toronto: Butterworths, 1978)Google Scholar; Mark Liddle, review of The Canadian Legal System, by Gall, Gerald L., Canadian Criminology Forum 4 (1982), 166Google Scholar.

49. Report on Independent Administrative Agencies, 11.

50. Though not entirely. See Ibid., 53.

51. The Legal Status of the Federal Administration, 4.

52. This latter is mostly in the form of an articulation of “natural justice” requirements. See Ibid., 47-72.

53. Political Economy of Environmental Hazards, 76.

54. Ibid., 76.

55. Ibid., 77.

56. Report on Independent Administrative Agencies, 18.

57. Ibid., 19.

58. Ibid., 70-71.

59. Compare Ibid., 47-72, with Pue, W. Wesley, Natural Justice in Canada (Vancouver: Butterworths (Western Canada) Ltd., 1981), 93–125Google Scholar.

60. See, for example, Ganz, G., Administrative Procedures (London: Sweet & Maxwell Ltd., 1974), 1Google Scholar.

61. See, for example, Jones, David P. and S. de Villars, Anne, Principles of Administrative Law (Toronto: Carswell, 1985), 426Google Scholar. This book is discussed in Pue, W. Wesley, “The Treatise Tradition Continues: Principles of Administrative Law,” Canadian Journal of Law and Society 1 (1986)Google Scholar.

62. Report on Independent Administrative Agencies, 41.

63. Ibid., 42.

64. Harris, Phil, “Approaches to the Teaching of Law Through Social Science Perspectives,” Working Paper 3, Jurisprudence Centre, Department of Law, Carleton University, Ottawa.Google Scholar