<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" media="screen" href="/~files/feed-premium.xsl"?>
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:feedpress="https://feed.press/xmlns" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" xmlns:podcast="https://podcastindex.org/namespace/1.0" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <feedpress:locale>en</feedpress:locale>
    <atom:link rel="hub" href="https://feedpress.superfeedr.com/"/>
    <title>Paul Daly</title>
    <atom:link href="https://feedpress.me/administrativelawmatters" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <link>https://www.administrativelawmatters.com</link>
    <description>Administrative Law Matters</description>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2026 11:43:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <language>en-US</language>
    <sy:updatePeriod>
hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
    <sy:updateFrequency>
1</sy:updateFrequency>
    <generator>ForceRouge0.9.85</generator>
    
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Reconsideration and Judicial Review: Association québécoise des consommateurs industriels d&#8217;électricité (AQCIE) c. Hydro-Québec, 2026 QCCA 1154]]></title>
      <link>https://feedpress.me/link/23684/17492049/reconsideration-and-judicial-review-association-quebecoise-des-consommateurs-industriels-delectricite-aqcie-c-hydro-quebec-2026-qcca-1154</link>
      <comments>https://www.administrativelawmatters.com/blog/2026/10/08/reconsideration-and-judicial-review-association-quebecoise-des-consommateurs-industriels-delectricite-aqcie-c-hydro-quebec-2026-qcca-1154/#respond</comments>
      <dc:creator><![CDATA[Paul Daly]]></dc:creator>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2026 11:43:04 +0000</pubDate>
      <category><![CDATA[Comments]]></category>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://pauldaly.openum.ca/?p=7048</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[In previous posts here and here, I have discussed the functus officio principle and statutory reconsideration authority. Here I discuss a recent case with a mix of both Now consider one further difficulty. Where an administrative decision-maker has reconsidered (Decision 2) its original decision (Decision 1), and an applicant seeks judicial review, what should the [&#8230;]<img src="https://feedpress.me/link/23684/17492049.gif" height="1" width="1"/>]]></description>
      <wfw:commentRss>https://www.administrativelawmatters.com/blog/2026/10/08/reconsideration-and-judicial-review-association-quebecoise-des-consommateurs-industriels-delectricite-aqcie-c-hydro-quebec-2026-qcca-1154/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
      <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Functus Officio and Reconsideration in the Administrative State: Statutory Powers]]></title>
      <link>https://feedpress.me/link/23684/17491251/functus-officio-and-reconsideration-in-the-administrative-state-statutory-powers</link>
      <comments>https://www.administrativelawmatters.com/blog/2026/10/07/functus-officio-and-reconsideration-in-the-administrative-state-statutory-powers/#respond</comments>
      <dc:creator><![CDATA[Paul Daly]]></dc:creator>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2026 13:56:55 +0000</pubDate>
      <category><![CDATA[Comments]]></category>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://pauldaly.openum.ca/?p=7069</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[Here is the second part of my series on functus officio and reconsideration (see also here) Another layer of complexity is added by the fact that many statutes explicitly provide for reconsideration, often using different language, and sometimes giving the reconsideration authority to a member or panel that did not sit on the initial application. [&#8230;]<img src="https://feedpress.me/link/23684/17491251.gif" height="1" width="1"/>]]></description>
      <wfw:commentRss>https://www.administrativelawmatters.com/blog/2026/10/07/functus-officio-and-reconsideration-in-the-administrative-state-statutory-powers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
      <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Mandatory and Directory Considerations: O&#8217;Donnell v Dublin City Council, [2026] IESC 36 and Akbars Restaurant (Middlesborough) Limited v Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2026] UKSC 26]]></title>
      <link>https://feedpress.me/link/23684/17490349/mandatory-and-directory-considerations-odonnell-v-dublin-city-council-2026-iesc-36-and-akbars-restaurant-middlesborough-limited-v-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-2026-uksc-26</link>
      <comments>https://www.administrativelawmatters.com/blog/2026/10/06/mandatory-and-directory-considerations-odonnell-v-dublin-city-council-2026-iesc-36-and-akbars-restaurant-middlesborough-limited-v-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-2026-uksc-26/#respond</comments>
      <dc:creator><![CDATA[Paul Daly]]></dc:creator>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2026 11:45:03 +0000</pubDate>
      <category><![CDATA[Comments]]></category>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://pauldaly.openum.ca/?p=7078</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[One of my favourite topics for dinner parties &#8212; which may be why I receive so few dinner party invitations &#8212; is the distinction between mandatory and directory considerations. Difficulties arise because while legislation often stipulates that certain formal and procedural requirements must be observed before an administrative decision is arrived at, it rarely states [&#8230;]<img src="https://feedpress.me/link/23684/17490349.gif" height="1" width="1"/>]]></description>
      <wfw:commentRss>https://www.administrativelawmatters.com/blog/2026/10/06/mandatory-and-directory-considerations-odonnell-v-dublin-city-council-2026-iesc-36-and-akbars-restaurant-middlesborough-limited-v-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-2026-uksc-26/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
      <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Reasonableness Review and Objective Constraints: Construction and General Workers Union Local 180 v KDM Constructors LP, 2026 SKCA 75 and Law Society of Ontario v. AA, 2026 ONCA 47]]></title>
      <link>https://feedpress.me/link/23684/17489688/reasonableness-review-and-objective-constraints-construction-and-general-workers-union-local-180-v-kdm-constructors-lp-2026-skca-75-and-law-society-of-ontario-v-aa-2026-onca-47</link>
      <comments>https://www.administrativelawmatters.com/blog/2026/10/05/reasonableness-review-and-objective-constraints-construction-and-general-workers-union-local-180-v-kdm-constructors-lp-2026-skca-75-and-law-society-of-ontario-v-aa-2026-onca-47/#respond</comments>
      <dc:creator><![CDATA[Paul Daly]]></dc:creator>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2026 17:32:13 +0000</pubDate>
      <category><![CDATA[Comments]]></category>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://pauldaly.openum.ca/?p=7074</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[In my paper celebrating Vavilov&#8217;s fifth anniversary, I argued that the legal and factual constraints central to the application of the reasonableness standard of review have an objective character: it is up to reviewing courts to determine whether, in any given case, a particular legal or factual consideration constrains an administrative decision-maker. If the decision-maker has given [&#8230;]<img src="https://feedpress.me/link/23684/17489688.gif" height="1" width="1"/>]]></description>
      <wfw:commentRss>https://www.administrativelawmatters.com/blog/2026/10/05/reasonableness-review-and-objective-constraints-construction-and-general-workers-union-local-180-v-kdm-constructors-lp-2026-skca-75-and-law-society-of-ontario-v-aa-2026-onca-47/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
      <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Functus Officio and Reconsideration in the Administrative State: Common Law Principles]]></title>
      <link>https://feedpress.me/link/23684/17486332/functus-officio-and-reconsideration-in-the-administrative-state-common-law-principles</link>
      <comments>https://www.administrativelawmatters.com/blog/2026/10/04/functus-officio-and-reconsideration-in-the-administrative-state-common-law-principles/#comments</comments>
      <dc:creator><![CDATA[Paul Daly]]></dc:creator>
      <pubDate>Sun, 04 Oct 2026 12:46:58 +0000</pubDate>
      <category><![CDATA[Comments]]></category>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://pauldaly.openum.ca/?p=7067</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[This is going to be the first of three posts. I thought this would be a case note on a recent decision but it turns out there is quite a bit of throat clearing to do before I get there: Traditionally, the functus officio rule applies to administrative tribunals. Once a decision-maker has made a [&#8230;]<img src="https://feedpress.me/link/23684/17486332.gif" height="1" width="1"/>]]></description>
      <wfw:commentRss>https://www.administrativelawmatters.com/blog/2026/10/04/functus-officio-and-reconsideration-in-the-administrative-state-common-law-principles/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
      <slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Remoulding Administrative Law]]></title>
      <link>https://feedpress.me/link/23684/17484994/remoulding-administrative-law</link>
      <comments>https://www.administrativelawmatters.com/blog/2026/10/04/remoulding-administrative-law/#respond</comments>
      <dc:creator><![CDATA[Paul Daly]]></dc:creator>
      <pubDate>Sun, 04 Oct 2026 01:10:58 +0000</pubDate>
      <category><![CDATA[Comments]]></category>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://pauldaly.openum.ca/?p=7072</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[I have posted my paper &#8220;Remoulding Administrative Law&#8221; in honour of Justice Gerard Hogan of the Irish Supreme Court to SSRN: This is an essay celebrating the contributions of Justice Gerard Hogan of the Irish Supreme Court to the development of the law of judicial review. Comparing his early academic writings in the 1980s with [&#8230;]<img src="https://feedpress.me/link/23684/17484994.gif" height="1" width="1"/>]]></description>
      <wfw:commentRss>https://www.administrativelawmatters.com/blog/2026/10/04/remoulding-administrative-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
      <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Rights and Values in the Administrative Decision-making Process: Northern Ireland, New Zealand and New Brunswick]]></title>
      <link>https://feedpress.me/link/23684/17483986/rights-and-values-in-the-administrative-decision-making-process-northern-ireland-new-zealand-and-new-brunswick</link>
      <comments>https://www.administrativelawmatters.com/blog/2026/10/02/rights-and-values-in-the-administrative-decision-making-process-northern-ireland-new-zealand-and-new-brunswick/#respond</comments>
      <dc:creator><![CDATA[Paul Daly]]></dc:creator>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Oct 2026 11:39:56 +0000</pubDate>
      <category><![CDATA[Comments]]></category>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://pauldaly.openum.ca/?p=7041</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[I have written extensively on Charter values in Canadian administrative law, most recently extolling the virtues of Campbell J&#8217;s decision in Eveley (see here). In this post, I will describe a recent decision from New Brunswick that is soon going to be the subject of an appeal in the Supreme Court of Canada but first note decisions in other [&#8230;]<img src="https://feedpress.me/link/23684/17483986.gif" height="1" width="1"/>]]></description>
      <wfw:commentRss>https://www.administrativelawmatters.com/blog/2026/10/02/rights-and-values-in-the-administrative-decision-making-process-northern-ireland-new-zealand-and-new-brunswick/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
      <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[UNDRIP and Regulation]]></title>
      <link>https://feedpress.me/link/23684/17481301/undrip-and-regulation</link>
      <comments>https://www.administrativelawmatters.com/blog/2026/09/30/undrip-and-regulation/#respond</comments>
      <dc:creator><![CDATA[Paul Daly]]></dc:creator>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2026 14:00:32 +0000</pubDate>
      <category><![CDATA[Comments]]></category>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://pauldaly.openum.ca/?p=7043</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[It is the National Day of Truth and Reconciliation in Canada. Blogging has been slow recently (though it should pick up soon enough), but I do like to mark September 30 by referring to legal issues relating to reconciliation. This year, I would like to draw your attention to a dissenting opinion by Commissioner Anderson [&#8230;]<img src="https://feedpress.me/link/23684/17481301.gif" height="1" width="1"/>]]></description>
      <wfw:commentRss>https://www.administrativelawmatters.com/blog/2026/09/30/undrip-and-regulation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
      <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Instruct, But Verify: AI and Workers&#8217; Compensation]]></title>
      <link>https://feedpress.me/link/23684/17437309/instruct-but-verify-ai-and-workers-compensation</link>
      <dc:creator><![CDATA[Paul Daly]]></dc:creator>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Sep 2026 16:04:39 +0000</pubDate>
      <category><![CDATA[Comments]]></category>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://pauldaly.openum.ca/?p=7034</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[This is the text of my speaking remarks to the 42nd Annual Workers&#8217; Compensation Boards Conference in Quebec City last week. With thanks to Claude for helping to turn my dictated notes into the readable document you are about to review! I would like to begin with two vignettes, separated by about four years. Around [&#8230;]<img src="https://feedpress.me/link/23684/17437309.gif" height="1" width="1"/>]]></description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Time Limits in Judicial Review: Robertson v. Rural Municipality of Murray Harbour, 2025 PESC 60]]></title>
      <link>https://feedpress.me/link/23684/17435776/time-limits-in-judicial-review-robertson-v-rural-municipality-of-murray-harbour-2025-pesc-60</link>
      <comments>https://www.administrativelawmatters.com/blog/2026/08/31/time-limits-in-judicial-review-robertson-v-rural-municipality-of-murray-harbour-2025-pesc-60/#comments</comments>
      <dc:creator><![CDATA[Paul Daly]]></dc:creator>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2026 18:52:03 +0000</pubDate>
      <category><![CDATA[Comments]]></category>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://pauldaly.openum.ca/?p=7030</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[Judicial review applications have to be brought in a timely manner. As Lord Diplock explained, “public authorities and third parties should not be kept in suspense as to the legal validity [of a decision] for any longer period than is absolutely necessary in fairness to the person affected by the decision” (O’Reilly v Mackman [1983] [&#8230;]<img src="https://feedpress.me/link/23684/17435776.gif" height="1" width="1"/>]]></description>
      <wfw:commentRss>https://www.administrativelawmatters.com/blog/2026/08/31/time-limits-in-judicial-review-robertson-v-rural-municipality-of-murray-harbour-2025-pesc-60/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
      <slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
