When an important case is appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, interested observers focus their attention on the substantive principles that they hope the Court will articulate. Typically, some uncertainty in the law exists — after all, the case would not be worthy of the Supreme Court’s attention otherwise. But the confusion reigning in standard of review jurisprudence had reached a level where some people’s desire for certainty, especially in the mechanics of deference, broke free from any substantive substrate. Thumb’s second postulate, “An easily-understood, workable falsehood is more useful than a complex, incomprehensible truth”, held even more attraction than usual for some of my exasperated law students.
"Seven Out of Nine Legal Experts Agree: Expertise No Longer Matters (in the Same Way) After Vavilov!."
The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.