Judgments v Reasons in Federal Court Refugee Claim Judicial Reviews: A Bad Precedent?

44:2 Dalhousie Law Journal (forthcoming)

Osgoode Legal Studies Research Paper

28 Pages Posted: 13 Sep 2021

See all articles by Sean Rehaag

Sean Rehaag

Centre for Refugee Studies, Refugee Law Lab & Osgoode Hall Law School, York University

Pierre-André Thériault

University of Toronto, Faculty of Law

Date Written: September 9, 2021

Abstract

This article offers an empirical examination of policies on the publication of refugee law decisions in Canada’s Federal Court. In 2015, the Court issued a notice describing the Court’s general practice of publishing written reasons in cases that the deciding judge considers as having precedential value and of issuing unpublished judgments in cases that the deciding judge does not view as precedential. In 2018, the Court reversed course and issued a new notice. This time, the Court indicated that all final decisions on the merits will be published.

Drawing on data obtained via automated data scraping processes from thousands of online court dockets and from published decisions in cases involving refugee judicial reviews, the article examines patterns in unpublished judgments and published written reasons. The article considers changes in the frequency of judgments versus reasons, as well as whether judges were more likely to issue judgments or reasons depending on the outcome of cases. It also explores differences in the frequency of judgments versus reasons across judges, including on the basis of gender. Finally, it looks at whether unreported judgments were cited in subsequent published decisions.

Based on this analysis, the authors conclude that the Court’s earlier policy of not publishing supposedly non-precedential decisions was not successful and that this policy should not be replicated by other courts. Instead, other courts should be encouraged to follow the Federal Court’s more recent practice in this area, which entails publishing all final decisions on the merits.

Keywords: Canada, Administrative Law, Refugee Law, Judicial Decision-Making, Judgments, Reasons, Empirical Legal Studies,

Suggested Citation

Rehaag, Sean and Thériault, Pierre-André, Judgments v Reasons in Federal Court Refugee Claim Judicial Reviews: A Bad Precedent? (September 9, 2021). 44:2 Dalhousie Law Journal (forthcoming), Osgoode Legal Studies Research Paper, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3920722

Sean Rehaag (Contact Author)

Centre for Refugee Studies, Refugee Law Lab & Osgoode Hall Law School, York University ( email )

4700 Keele Street
Toronto, Ontario M3J 1P3
Canada

HOME PAGE: http://www.osgoode.yorku.ca/rehaag-sean/

Pierre-André Thériault

University of Toronto, Faculty of Law ( email )

78 and 84 Queen's Park
Toronto, Ontario M5S 2C5
Canada

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
116
Abstract Views
572
Rank
463,149
PlumX Metrics