Lorne M. Sossin and Gerard Kennedy, Boundaries of Judicial Review : The Law of Justiciability in Canada, 3rd ed., Toronto, Thomson Reuters, 2024, 575 p., ISBN 978-1-0382-0557-5.

Choosing a topic for a thesis is not an easy task. From a methodological point of view, it means separating what is part of the research from what is not in order to set the project’s boundaries. In this regard, graduate students are not so different from common law judges. Before they examine the legal issues at stake, they must first delimit the scope. This is especially true when it comes to the law of judicial review. A judge reviewing state action is bound by certain rules that address the court’s institutional capacity and legitimacy. The doctrine of justiciability refers to this set of rules that define the boundaries of judicial review. On this point, judges and lawyers can benefit from the guidance of an excellent book written by Justice Lorne M. Sossin and Professor Gerard Kennedy and titled Boundaries of Judicial Review : The Law of Justiciability in Canada. It is no coincidence that several courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada, have cited the first version of this book published in 1999 on multiple occasions. Subsequent editions issued in 2012 and 2024 have continued to be used by courts in recent years, which is indicative of a growing interest within Canada’s legal community. Just like judges, graduate students and scholars aiming to clarify the boundaries of their research will find useful information in this book. While I was writing the introduction of my master thesis back in 2022, my supervisor, Professor Antoine Pellerin, drew my attention to Lorne M. Sossin’s academic writing. I had an interest on access to justice and the separation of powers, but my understanding of these concepts was quite limited at this stage of my research. I was amazed by the diversity of Justice Sossin’s publications and naturally came across his Boundaries of Judicial Review : The Law of Justiciability in Canada. Professor Pellerin had pointed out the lack of recent studies on this fundamental concept in Quebec. During an undergraduate administrative law course, he drew my attention to the difference between the words used in the new Code of Civil Procedure adopted by Quebec’s National Assembly in 2016 and those used by the Supreme Court of Canada in its 2012 Downtown Eastside decision. Based on Justice Sossin’s book, I decided to examine this issue in greater depth by focusing on the sources of the standing rule in Quebec in both civil law and common law traditions. Two years later, I was pleased to learn that a third edition of the book had been published by Justice Sossin along with Professor Gerard Kennedy, whose important contributions to public law and civil procedure have long been recognized in Canada and elsewhere. I was pleasantly surprised by the presence of a whole new section on the standing rule in Quebec, addressing a conflict between the reasons provided by the Supreme Court of Canada in its Downtown Eastside decision and section 85 of the new Code of Civil Procedure (pp. 30–48). The authors observe that “the common law test for standing was interpreted as an extension of Quebec law, rather than a replacement of it” (p. 47). In fact, earlier case law “seems to suggest that Quebec courts will seek to resolve any inconsistencies between Quebec civil law and public law principles on standing as developed in the Supreme Court in favour of the latter” (pp. 47 and 48). What is impressive with this new contribution is the treatment given to French-language sources, providing multiple analyses based on decisions rendered by Quebec courts. This openness to French case law is greatly welcomed, knowing that many …