Been spending the last 24 hours absorbing #Vavilov. Never been so pleasantly surprised by @SCC_eng. Multi-part blog post, “20 Things to Be Grateful for as Admin Law Enters the 2020s”, is coming. More detail will be there, but to preview, those 20 things are…

1) Compromise among an ideologically diverse group of judges is still possible, and can lead to a workable framework in a frought area of law ( @pauldalyesq has already made this point very well) #Vavilov

2) The #Vavilov framework, as @cforcese has noted, is SO MUCH more teachable than Dunsmuir/its progeny. Still figuring out how to do it, and will start with procedural fairness in new year, but ideas already percolating in promising ways.

3) This teachability is partially because the category of “true” jurisdictional questions is no more. This is slightly theoretically unsatisfying, but also an instance where pragmatism is justly ruling the day.

4) A principled approach to overruling, as I noted yesterday: stare decisis is a very important doctrine, but when adhering to the doctrine cuts against the doctrine’s purpose, something has gone awry. #Vavilov recognizes that.

5) On the note of purpose, the reason that courts can review despite a privative clause is to protect the rule of law. This has been known in Canadian admin law since Roncarelli but is now taking an appropriately starring role again post- #Vavilov.

6) But as @Honickman has noted, purpose is still primarily found in text, and text should be the starting point of (almost all) legal analysis. #Vavilov recognizes this.

7) But textual purposivism should not been conflated with strict constructualism – as the discussion of the merits of #Vavilov illustrates. Clauses of statutory subsections should not be read in isolation.

8) #A2J can be facilitated by either reasonableness of correctness review depending on the circumstances. Assuming it is always one or the other is a mistake. The majority recognizes this.

9) Sometimes #A2J/stare decisis mandate following a theoretically suboptimal precedent. I’m not sure the CUPE “standard of review” framework is helpful/necessary. But completely eliminating it likely would have created chaos (thoughts, @lauren_wihak ?)

10) The conflation of statutory appeals and judicial reviews is thankfully no more. This always seemed wrong in principle and of dubious practical value, as I've noted in lamenting Pezim as one of my least favourite SCC decisions last Christmas ( @DoubleAspect).

11) On a note of another of my least favourite @SCC_eng decisions, Doré appears to be on its dying days?

12) But my views about when disputes within an administrator re the substantive law’s meaning should lead to correctness review ( http://www.ruleoflaw.ca/wilson-v-aecl-a-missed-opportunity-to-protect-the-rule-of-law-in-administrative-law/) have likely been nuanced. It is good to learn something. #Vavilov

13) “How Reasonableness is to be Applied” is frequently forgotten in #adminlaw. So good to have guidance on this issue in #Vavilov.

14) In this vein, the @SCC_eng deserves particular praise for listening to academic and lower court criticism of Newfoundland Nurses, and confining the most alarming interpretations of that precedent (see @alyssa_tomkins, @cforcese).

15) But benign interpretations of Newfoundland Nurses still stand, with all judges in #Vavilov recognizing that the extent (if any) of reasons required will vary in light of the decision under review.

16) The sky is not falling, unlike the minority fears. The overwhelming majority of #adminlaw decisions will be reviewed on a reasonableness standard and be functionally unreviewable. As it should be. But #Vavilov recognizes that can be taken to counterproductive extreme.

17) Nor is the #Vavilov majority recognizing that “expertise” is not a legal reason, in and of itself, for de jure deference, except insofar as said deference is prescribed in a statute, incompatible with de facto respect to a decision-maker.

18) #Vavilov appears to be an instance where the understanding of the relationship between courts and legislatures is theoretically sound, but also recognizes pragmatic realities of how the these institutions operate.

19) #Vavilov may be the beginning of the rehabilitation of the reputation of the great jurist AV Dicey, who, despite his flaws, has become a bogeyman in certain circles.

20) And Alex Vavilov is a Canadian citizen. The stakes of #Vavilov are a reminder that real people are affected by administrative decisions, and admin law should recognize that. Kudos to @MollyMReynolds, @thechaiyun, et al for pointing that out...

These will be expanded upon shortly. But thanks to everyone for commenting, incl @mary1liston, @pauldalyesq, @MarkPMancini, @Honickman, @thechaiyun , @cforcese, @PaulErikVeel, @AaronDantowitz, @amarkhoday and many many more. #Vavilov #adminlaw #cdnlaw.