E-13-(i)Book of Authorities
20 passages
on) v. Vavilov 2019 SCC 65 File No.: 37748. 2018: December 4, 5, 6; 2019: December 19. Present: Wagner C.J. and Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Gascon, Côté, Brown, Rowe and Martin JJ. ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL Administrat...
AI summary The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) case 2019 SCC 65 examines whether the Registrar of Citizenship's decision to cancel a Canadian-born individual's citizenship certificate, due to his parents being Russian spies, was reasonable under the Citizenship Act. The case involves interpreting statutory exceptions to Canadian citizenship rules and the reasonableness of administrative decisions.
Audrey Boctor , as amici curiae , and Olga Redko and Edward Béchard Torres . The following is the judgment delivered by THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MOLDAVER, GASCON, CÔTÉ, BROWN, ROWE AND MARTIN JJ. — - [1] This appeal and its companion cases (s...
AI summary The Supreme Court of Canada reevaluates judicial review standards and reasonableness review in administrative law, emphasizing the rule of law and legislative intent. The cases Bell Canada v. Canada (Attorney General) and Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick are referenced, with a focus on developing a culture of justification in administrative decisions.
e the legitimacy and authority of administrative decision makers within their proper spheres and adopt an appropriate posture of respect. On the other hand, administrative decision makers must adopt a culture of justification and demonstra...
AI summary The text emphasizes the need for administrative decision-makers to justify their actions in terms of rationality and fairness. It highlights the role of courts in conducting reasonableness reviews, focusing on the rationale behind decisions rather than substituting their own conclusions. References to legal scholarship underscore the importance of transparency and justification in administrative law.
hould apply when the merits of an administrative decision are challenged. It starts with a presumption that reasonableness is the applicable standard whenever a court reviews administrative decisions. - [17] The presumption of reasonablene...
AI summary The text outlines the presumption of reasonableness as the standard for reviewing administrative decisions, with exceptions when legislative intent or constitutional questions require a different standard. It references legal precedents and emphasizes the shift away from contextual inquiries in determining review standards.
rationales may all be reasons for a legislature to delegate decision-making authority, a reviewing court need not evaluate which of these rationales apply in the case of a particular decision maker in order to determine the standard of rev...
AI summary The text argues that the presumption of reasonableness review applies when a legislature delegates authority to administrative decision-makers, citing cases like Khosa, Edmonton East, and CHRC. This presumption respects legislative supremacy and institutional design, ensuring judicial deference to administrative decisions.
that statutory rights of appeal must now either play no role in administrative law or be accepted as directing a departure from the default position of reasonableness review. The latter must prevail. - [48] Our colleagues agree that the ti...
AI summary The text discusses the shift from the contextual approach in Dunsmuir to a presumption of reasonableness review in administrative law, emphasizing the need to rebalance the standard of review framework. It argues that legislative intent must be considered within this new framework while maintaining equilibrium between administrative decision-makers and courts.
(2) General Questions of Law of Central Importance to the Legal System as a Whole [58] In Dunsmuir , a majority of the Court held that, in addition to constitutional questions, general questions of law which are "both of central importance...
AI summary The text discusses the application of the correctness standard for general legal questions of central importance, referencing Dunsmuir and Toronto (City) v. C.U.P.E., Local 79 . It emphasizes the rule of law requiring courts to have final authority on such questions, while noting that expertise evaluation is subsumed under the presumption of reasonableness review.
e.g., Green v. Law Society of Manitoba , 2017 SCC 20, [2017] 1 S.C.R. 360 ; West Fraser Mills Ltd. v. British Columbia (Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal) , 2018 SCC 22, [2018] 1 S.C.R. 635. [67] In CHRC , the majority, while noting th...
AI summary The text discusses jurisdictional questions in administrative law, referencing the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) and Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) cases. It argues that reasonableness review, rather than correctness review, adequately addresses concerns about delegated decision-makers overstepping their authority, eliminating the need for a separate jurisdictional category.
III. Performing Reasonableness Review - [73] This Court's administrative law jurisprudence has historically focused on the analytical framework used to determine the applicable standard of review, while providing relatively little guidance...
AI summary The court emphasizes that reasonableness review should focus on justification, methodological consistency, and respecting administrative expertise. It aligns with colleagues' approach, stressing judicial restraint and evaluating whether the applicant demonstrated unreasonableness, while acknowledging the distinct role of administrative decision-makers.
A. Procedural Fairness and Substantive Review [76] Before turning to a discussion of the proposed approach to reasonableness review, we pause to acknowledge that the requirements of the duty of procedural fairness in a given case — and in...
AI summary The text discusses the duty of procedural fairness in administrative law, emphasizing its variability and context-specific nature. It references cases like Baker v. Canada and Knight v. Indian Head School Division No. 19 , highlighting that written reasons are not always required for administrative decisions and that factors such as the decision's nature determine procedural requirements.
sion maker's strength within its particular and specialized domain. "Administrative justice" will not always look like "judicial justice", and reviewing courts must remain acutely aware of that fact. - [93] An administrative decision maker...
AI summary The text emphasizes that reasonableness review must account for administrative decision-makers' specialized expertise and contextual factors. Courts should consider the practical realities of administrative regimes and avoid dismissing decisions as unreasonable merely because they appear counterintuitive, provided the decision-maker's reasoning aligns with institutional knowledge and procedural context.
(1) A Reasonable Decision Is Based on an Internally Coherent Reasoning [102] To be reasonable, a decision must be based on reasoning that is both rational and logical. It follows that a failure in this respect may lead a reviewing court to...
AI summary The text outlines that a reasonable administrative decision must demonstrate internal coherence and logical reasoning. Reviewing courts must trace the decision-maker's rationale without encountering fatal logical flaws, citing cases like Irving Pulp & Paper and Wright v. Nova Scotia . Insufficient reasoning, logical fallacies, or irrational analysis invalidate decisions, emphasizing the necessity of a rational chain of analysis.
(2) A Reasonable Decision Is Justified in Light of the Legal and Factual Constraints That Bear on the Decision [105] In addition to the need for internally coherent reasoning, a decision, to be reasonable, must be justified in relation to...
AI summary The text emphasizes that administrative decisions must be reasonable, considering legal and factual constraints. It references cases like Dunsmuir, Catalyst, and Nor-Man Regional Health Authority, highlighting elements such as statutory schemes, evidence, past practices, and the impact on individuals as factors influencing reasonableness.
he decision maker can reasonably decide. An administrative body's decision may be unreasonable on the basis that the body failed to explain or justify a departure from a binding precedent in which the same provision had been interpreted. W...
AI summary Administrative bodies must consider binding legal precedents when interpreting statutory provisions; failing to do so may render decisions unreasonable. However, they may adapt common law principles to administrative contexts. Examples include immigration tribunals aligning with criminal law interpretations and the Nor-Man Regional Health Authority case, which illustrates flexibility in applying equitable doctrines.
y interpretation in a context in which the issue is before them at first instance or on appeal, and where they are expected to perform their own independent analysis and come to their own conclusions. - [116] Reasonableness review function...
AI summary The text discusses statutory interpretation principles, emphasizing reasonableness review over de novo analysis. Courts must consider the entire administrative decision, including reasons and outcomes, when applying reasonableness standards. The 'modern principle' of statutory interpretation requires reading statutes in context, aligning with legislative intent and the Act's purpose, as outlined in cases like Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. and Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex .
(g) Impact of the Decision on the Affected Individual - [133] It is well established that individuals are entitled to greater procedural protection when the decision in question involves the potential for significant personal impact or har...
AI summary The text emphasizes that individuals are entitled to greater procedural protections when decisions risk significant personal harm. Courts must ensure decisions are justified, particularly when they threaten life, liberty, or dignity. Administrative bodies must explain why their decisions align with legislative intent, especially in cases with severe consequences. The Immigration Appeal Division's consideration of foreign hardship in removal cases is cited as an example.
F. Review in the Absence of Reasons [136] Where the duty of procedural fairness or the legislative scheme mandates that reasons be given to the affected party but none have been given, this failure will generally require the decision to be...
AI summary The text discusses judicial review in the absence of reasons, emphasizing that decisions without reasons are often set aside, but courts can still assess reasonableness by examining the record. Cases like Catalyst and Roncarelli are cited to illustrate scenarios where rationale can be inferred or where lack of reasons leads to invalidation.
(2) Review for Reasonableness [171] The principal issue before this Court is whether it was reasonable for the Registrar to find that Mr. Vavilov's parents had been "other representative[s] or employee[s] in Canada of a foreign government"...
AI summary The court determined the Registrar's interpretation of s. 3(2)(a) of the Citizenship Act was unreasonable. The Registrar failed to consider the Act's text, related legislation, treaties, jurisprudence, and consequences. Mr. Vavilov's parents lacked diplomatic privileges, making the section inapplicable. The court rejected remitting the matter to the Registrar.
of appeal. In other words, the Court was well on its way to realizing Dunsmuir 's promise of a simplified analysis. Justice Gascon recognized as much last year in Canadian Human Rights Commission : This contextual approach should be applie...
AI summary The text discusses the standard of review in Canadian administrative law, emphasizing the presumption of reasonableness review and the limited use of contextual analysis. It critiques the reassignment of judicial roles and references cases like Alberta Teachers and Capilano , highlighting the tension between specialized expertise and statutory rights of appeal.
troduce incremental changes to our judicial review framework, while respecting its underlying principles and placing the ball in the legislatures' court to modify the standards of review if they wish. [283] To the extent that concerns were...
AI summary The text discusses maintaining judicial review principles while addressing concerns about administrative decision-making quality. It argues against judicial overreach via de novo reviews, emphasizing training for administrative actors instead. It warns against a checklist approach to reasonableness review, citing risks of excessive judicial scrutiny and delays.