Login

I’m trying to understand the practical difference between a policy directive from a cabinet minister and the actual law passed by the legislature. My local council cited a ministerial order when denying a permit, but the relevant statute seems to leave more room for discretion. Has anyone else run into this gap between what a department says and what the written law appears to allow?

I’m in a small city planning office. We denied a permit once and the file said a ministerial directive required us to treat it as ineligible. The statute left room for discretion, so it felt like a rule from above rather than a straight legal limit.

As a city councillor, I saw the same tension up close. Official guidance was treated as binding in practice, even when the written law would have let us weigh the specifics.

A neighbor challenged a permit after that denial. We looked for the exact statutory basis and the records kept pointing to policy rather than law; the mismatch left the outcome hard to defend.

From a lawyer I know: orders and directives aren’t the law; they have to fit inside the statute's grant, otherwise they risk being ultra vires.

I wonder if the real bottleneck is the process itself; departments use internal memos and checklists, and the written text and how staff reads it often diverge.

We filed a formal request for reasons, compared it to the statute, and then refiled with changes. The outcome changed only after we addressed the statutory basis rather than the policy gloss.

Do you think the core problem is the gap between policy and law, or is it more about how decisions get recorded and communicated?

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me