Tranchemontagne and the Administration of Rights: Lessons from the Game of Jurisdiction

Abstract

This article demonstrates how the game of jurisdiction analogy, drawn from sociolegal studies, illuminates the ways in which administrative agencies with concurrent jurisdiction over rights claims actively narrow their own ability to resolve rights claims, even as they appear to outsiders to be the passive victims of jurisdiction. By analyzing the administrative aftermath that followed the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Tranchemontagne v Ontario, including the fate of human rights claims at the Social Benefits Tribunal, this article shows how administrative tribunals may resolve conflicting logics of efficiency and accessibility to ultimately undermine their concurrent jurisdiction over human rights claims, with dire consequences for social assistance recipients.