Topic:"Standard Of Review" in M08888

Between: The Attorney General of Nova Scotia, representing Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of the Province of Nova Scotia Appellant (Cross-respondent) v. S&D Smith Central Supplies Limited Respondent (Cross-appellant) v. Nova Scotia Uti...

AI summary S&D Smith Central Supplies Limited challenged the expropriation of its land for highway reconfiguration, claiming compensation under the Expropriation Act. The Board awarded compensation, including for 'disturbance' to its business. The case involves the standard of review for expropriation decisions and compensation claims.

What Issues are Appealable? - [41] The reviewing court's "first order of business" is to determine what grounds of appeal are permitted by the legislation. Next is the selection of a standard of review to the appealable grounds. Canada (Ci...

AI summary The reviewing court first determines appealable grounds under the legislation, citing cases like Khosa and Teal Cedar. The Board's authority is governed by the Utility and Review Board Act and other statutes like the Expropriation Act.

Standard of Review - [48] If the ground is appealable, what is the standard of review? - [49] On paper, the parties were ad idem that the standard was reasonableness: - The Province's appellant's factum: - 17. The Appellant submits that th...

AI summary The parties agree the standard of review for appealable grounds is reasonableness. The Province's appellant and Central's respondent both affirm this in their factums, with the latter's submission aligning with the former's position on the issue.

(3) Contextual Analysis - [32] The Court of Appeal also conducted a review of the relevant contextual factors to support the conclusion that the standard of review is correctness. The presumption of reasonableness may be rebutted if the co...

AI summary The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal reviewed contextual factors to determine the standard of review, relying on precedents like Saguenay and Rogers Communications Inc. v. Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada . It upheld the presumption of reasonableness for tribunals, noting expertise is institutional, not individual, and no unusual statutory language rebutted the presumption.

[227] As this Court said in Adekayode (quoted above, para. 45): - [42] … if there is some evidence, then the tribunal's factual findings and inferences are not appealable under the statute, nor are assessments of credibility, meaning the s...

AI summary The court reaffirms that factual findings and credibility assessments by tribunals are not appealable under the UARB Act. It emphasizes that the Board's determination of Central's future loss estimates lacking evidentiary support was reasonable. The cross-appeal is dismissed as the Board properly applied admissible evidence.

STANDARD OF REVIEW [248] In my view, the standard of review is correctness not reasonableness. - [249] It is not necessary that I write a treatise on this subject, because even if the standard of review is reasonableness, the Board made an...

AI summary The court holds that the standard of review is 'correctness' not 'reasonableness,' emphasizing legislative intent under the Expropriation Act. It criticizes the Board for ordering compensation for damages not caused by expropriation, citing historical jurisprudence and statutory procedures governing compensation determinations.

Appeal - 30 (1) An appeal lies to the Appeal Division of the Supreme Court from an order of the Board upon any question as to its jurisdiction or upon any question of law, upon filing with the Court a notice of appeal within thirty days af...

AI summary The text outlines the appeal process from the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (UARB) to the Supreme Court, emphasizing the standard of review. It references the Expropriation Act and the Utility and Review Board Act, stating that factual findings are subject to 'patent unreasonableness' review, while legal/jurisdictional questions are reviewed for 'correctness.'

icipality was required to withhold approval until the Authority decided which lands to expropriate. - [311] The award of disturbance damages was reversed on appeal to the Divisional Court and the Ontario Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court...

AI summary The Supreme Court reinstated the Board's award of disturbance damages, endorsing the correctness standard of review despite differing statutory provisions. The decision referenced the Privy Council's ruling in Director of Buildings and Lands v. Shun Fung Ironworks Ltd. , affirming that disturbance damages are recoverable even pre-expropriation. Prior courts had reversed the award, but the Supreme Court's reinstatement emphasized the expropriation process's legal framework.

DATE FILED: March 9, 2020 Page 11 of 21 1 and adequate service is maintained. The exercise of any such authority must then also be 6 review that has historically been applied by the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal to decisions of the 7 Board i...

AI summary The text discusses the interpretation of legislation by the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board, emphasizing that the Board should correctly interpret its jurisdiction regardless of the standard of review. It references the Supreme Court's recent changes in the law and mentions the relevance of the Public Utilities Act.

( Vavilov ) [Tab 4] and the legal analysis and case law provided by E1 to support its submissions regarding the standard of review is incorrect. Paragraph 37 of the decision in Vavilov makes clear that where there is a statutory right to a...

AI summary The text challenges E1's legal analysis regarding the standard of review under the Utility and Review Board Act, citing Vavilov and Housen v. Nikolaisen . It argues that E1 incorrectly interprets legislative intent from Hansard excerpts about Bill 49, claiming the Board's jurisdiction does not extend to environmental protections despite DSM's ancillary environmental implications.

on appeal from the court of appeal for alberta Administrative law — Boards and tribunals — Regu‑ latory boards — Jurisdiction — Doctrine of jurisdiction by necessary implication — Natural gas public utility applying to Alberta Energy and U...

AI summary The case involves an appeal from the Alberta Court of Appeal regarding the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board's jurisdiction to allocate proceeds from a natural gas utility's asset sale to protect public interest. Key legislation includes the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board Act, Public Utilities Board Act, and Gas Utilities Act. The Board approved the sale with a condition to allocate proceeds to ratepaying customers, raising questions about its jurisdiction and the reasonableness of the decision.

2.2 Standard of Review As this appeal stems from an administrative body's decision, it is necessary to determine the appropriate level of deference which must be shown to the body. Wittmann J.A., writing for the Court of Appeal, concluded...

AI summary The appeal concerns the standard of review for an administrative body's decision. Wittmann J.A. and ATCO agree that jurisdictional issues require a standard of correctness, not deference. The Court of Appeal confirmed that the Commission lacked authority to allocate sale proceeds to customers, requiring allocation per line 11 of the distribution table.

2.2 Norme de contrôle Une décision administrative étant à l'origine du présent pourvoi, il faut déterminer le degré de déférence auquel a droit l'organisme qui l'a rendue. S'exprimant au nom de la Cour d'appel, le juge Wittmann a conclu qu...

AI summary The text discusses the standard of review for an administrative decision by the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (AEUB), emphasizing the application of the 'decision correct' standard. It references Supreme Court of Canada cases ( Pushpanathan and United Taxi Drivers ) and analyzes AEUBA section 26(1), which limits appeals to questions of jurisdiction or law. The analysis stresses the need to evaluate all four factors from Pushpanathan before concluding on the standard of review.

law, policy justifications and the practice of other boards, as well as the details of the particular allocation in this case. The issue here is most likely characterized as one of mixed fact and law. In light of the four factors, I conclu...

AI summary The analysis examines the standard of review for allocating utility asset sale proceeds, focusing on jurisdiction and legal interpretation under the Gas Utilities Act (GUA) and Alberta Energy and Utilities Board Act (AEUBA). The Court of Appeal emphasizes that the inquiry into the Board's power involves legal jurisdiction, requiring a correctness standard of review.

C. Standard of Review The Court's modern approach to this vexed question was recently set out by McLachlin C.J. in Dr. Q v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia , [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226, 2003 SCC 19, at para. 26: In the prag...

AI summary The text discusses the standard of review in regulatory proceedings, emphasizing judicial deference to tribunals like the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (AEUB) due to their expertise in gas utilities. It references the Supreme Court of Canada's approach, focusing on legislative intent, privative clauses, and the nature of questions (law vs. fact). The AEUBA's section 15(3)(d) is cited, granting broad discretion to impose public interest conditions.

C. La norme de contrôle L'approche actuelle de notre Cour à l'égard de cette question épineuse a récemment été précisée par la juge en chef McLachlin dans l'arrêt Dr Q c. College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia , [2003] 1 R....

AI summary The text discusses the standard of review for regulatory decisions, referencing the Supreme Court of Canada's Dr Q case. It emphasizes deference to the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board's expertise in gas utility matters, noting that appeals are limited to questions of law or jurisdiction. The analysis highlights the Commission's discretionary authority in public interest decisions.

he Registrar to interpret s. 3(2)(a) of the Citizenship Act as applying to children of individuals who have not been granted diplomatic privileges and immunities at the time of the children's birth. More generally, this appeal and its comp...

AI summary The appeal seeks clarification on interpreting the Citizenship Act regarding children of non-diplomatically privileged individuals. It highlights issues with the standard of review framework for administrative decisions, citing Dunsmuir and Bell Canada v. Canada (2019 SCC 66). The text argues the current framework is overly complex, undermining judicial review coherence and access to justice.

and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, Respecting Bill C-20, An Act respecting citizenship , No. 34, 1st Sess., 30th Parl., February 24, 1976, 34:23. - Coady, Jonathan M. "The Time Has Com...

AI summary The text lists legal references and academic works on administrative law, judicial review, and constitutional principles, including articles by scholars like Paul Daly and Thomas Cromwell, and legislative materials such as Bill C-20. These sources discuss standards of review, deference, and legal precedent in Canadian administrative law.

he number, diversity and importance of the matters that come before such delegates has made administrative decision making one of the principal manifestations of state power in the lives of Canadians. - [5] Given the ubiquity and practical...

AI summary The Supreme Court of Canada emphasizes the need for clarity in judicial review standards following the Dunsmuir case, noting unresolved issues despite previous guidance. The Court appointed amici curiae and allowed extensive submissions from interveners to address these challenges.

II. Determining the Applicable Standard of Review [16] In the following sections, we set out a revised framework for determining the standard of review a court should apply when the merits of an administrative decision are challenged. It s...

AI summary The text outlines a revised framework presuming 'reasonableness' as the default standard of review for court challenges to administrative decisions, establishing a starting point for judicial scrutiny of such decisions.

A. Presumption That Reasonableness Is the Applicable Standard [23] Where a court reviews the merits of an administrative decision (i.e., judicial review of an administrative decisions other than a review related to a breach of natural just...

AI summary The text establishes that when reviewing administrative decisions (excluding breaches of natural justice/procedural fairness), the default standard of review is reasonableness, reflecting legislative intent unless the rule of law precludes it.

(2) Statutory Appeal Mechanisms [36] We have reaffirmed that, to the extent possible, the standard of review analysis requires courts to give effect to the legislature's institutional design choices to delegate authority through statute. I...

AI summary The text reaffirms that courts must respect legislative intent in statutory appeal mechanisms, performing an appellate function rather than applying reasonableness review. It cites Seneca College v. Bhadauria to emphasize that legislative provision of appeals signals judicial scrutiny, rebutting the presumption of deference. The Attorney General of Quebec argues that deference should not undermine the legislature's intended decision-making process.

C. The Applicable Standard Is Correctness Where Required by the Rule of Law - [53] In our view, respect for the rule of law requires courts to apply the standard of correctness for certain types of legal questions: constitutional questions...

AI summary The text asserts that courts must apply the correctness standard for constitutional questions, general legal principles of central importance, and jurisdictional disputes between administrative bodies. This ensures judicial consistency and finality, as per Dunsmuir , para. 58. Courts may either uphold or substitute administrative decisions under this standard.

(1) Constitutional Questions [55] Questions regarding the division of powers between Parliament and the provinces, the relationship between the legislature and the other branches of the state, the scope of Aboriginal and treaty rights unde...

AI summary The text emphasizes the necessity of applying the correctness standard in reviewing constitutional questions, citing cases like Dunsmuir and Westcoast Energy Inc. v. Canada (National Energy Board) . It asserts that legislatures cannot delegate unconstitutional powers and distinguishes between cases involving Charter rights and statutory violations.

[61] We would stress that the mere fact that a dispute is "of wider public concern" is not sufficient for a question to fall into this category — nor is the fact that the question, when framed in a general or abstract sense, touches on an...

AI summary The text clarifies that a legal question must not only be of public concern but must meet specific criteria to be deemed central to the legal system. It cites cases where such questions were not considered central, emphasizing that expertise in selecting review standards does not automatically categorize all questions as central.

the basis on which a decision was made. We agree with the observations of Rennie J. in Komolafe v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2013 FC 431, 16 Imm. L.R. (4th) 267, at para. 11: Newfoundland Nurses is not an open invi...

AI summary The text emphasizes that judicial review under the reasonableness standard should not involve speculating on findings or reasons not provided by the tribunal. It references Komolafe v. Canada and criticizes using Newfoundland Nurses to justify filling gaps in reasoning, stressing deference to decision-makers.

IV. Role of Prior Jurisprudence [143] Given that this appeal and its companion cases involve a recalibration of the governing approach to the choice of standard of review analysis and a clarification of the proper application of the reason...

AI summary This section discusses the role of prior jurisprudence in administrative law, emphasizing the recalibration of the standard of review analysis and the clarification of the reasonableness standard. It stresses the importance of applying the new framework while acknowledging the continued relevance of past precedents, though some cases may have less applicability under the new approach.

y, who conducts spy operations, cannot claim Canadian citizenship by birth in Canada but children of those who enter unlawfully for the very same purpose, become Canadian citizens by birth": para. 25. - [163] Finally, the Federal Court was...

AI summary The Federal Court upheld the Registrar's conclusion that Mr. Vavilov's parents were in Canada for a Russian undercover operation at his birth, but the Federal Court of Appeal quashed this decision. The Court of Appeal rejected procedural fairness claims and affirmed the reasonableness standard of review for the Registrar's interpretation of the Citizenship Act.

(1) Standard of Review [169] Applying the standard of review analysis set out above leads to the conclusion that the standard to be applied in reviewing the merits of the Registrar's decision is reasonableness. [170] When a court reviews t...

AI summary The court applies the reasonableness standard of review to the Registrar's decision, noting it is a judicial review under the Citizenship Act, not an appeal, and no other standard was prescribed by Parliament. The decision lacks constitutional or jurisdictional issues, affirming reasonableness as the applicable standard.

reforming this generation's evolutionary approach to administrative law, the majority reverses it, taking it back to the formalistic judge-centred approach this Court has spent decades dismantling. [200] We support the majority's decision...

AI summary The text critiques a majority decision that reverts administrative law to a formalistic, judge-centric approach, eliminating contextual factors and 'true questions of jurisdiction.' While supporting the elimination of these elements, it argues the decision undermines decades of jurisprudence by expanding judicial substitution over administrative expertise, opposing the shift away from deference.

asons in National Corn Growers , Wilson J. noted that part of the process of moving away from Dicey's framework and towards a more sophisticated understanding of the role of administrative tribunals: . . . has involved a growing recognitio...

AI summary The text discusses the evolution of Canadian administrative law, emphasizing the recognition of administrative tribunals' expertise in specialized areas like labor relations and telecommunications. Courts increasingly defer to tribunals' decisions due to their specialized knowledge, as highlighted in cases like United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Southam Inc. , where expertise was deemed the most critical factor in standard of review analysis.

d to maintain collective bargaining. Considerable sensitivity and unique expertise on the part of Board members is all the more required if the twin purposes of the legislation are to be met. [p. 236] [235] Over time, specialized expertise...

AI summary The text emphasizes the necessity of specialized expertise in administrative decision-making to fulfill legislative intent, citing judicial precedents and legal scholarship. It underscores that expertise grants administrative bodies an 'interpretative upper hand' on legal questions, supported by cases like McLean and Doré v. Barreau du Québec .

ough he was born in Canada, his parents were "other representative[s] or employee[s] in Canada of a foreign government" within the meaning of s. 3(2)(a) of the Citizenship Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29. - [315] The first issue is the applicab...

AI summary The case examines the application of the 'reasonableness' standard of review under the Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29, to Mr. Vavilov's citizenship status. His parents fraudulently obtained Canadian passports, later became U.S. citizens, and were involved in espionage activities. The Registrar's interpretation of s. 3(2)(a) (foreign government representatives) is challenged, with the court finding Mr. Vavilov met the burden to show the decision was unreasonable.

2. Standard of review - [32] Different standards of review apply to different aspects of this application. The appropriate standard of review will be discussed in its specific context. - 3. Did the Commissioner lose jurisdiction by failing...

AI summary The document discusses whether the Commissioner lost jurisdiction by failing to meet PIPA or FOIP timelines. It concludes jurisdiction was not lost, emphasizing that jurisdictional issues can still be addressed even if not raised initially, though fact-finding may be required. The Commissioner argues against re-examining the timeliness issue due to procedural and evidentiary concerns.

(i) Standard of review - reasonableness [51] I do not accept the applicants' argument that the Commissioner's decision on the jurisdiction issue in question here must be correct. For some issues relating to jurisdiction correctness is obvi...

AI summary The court rejects the applicants' claim that the Commissioner's jurisdiction decision must be correct, citing the Supreme Court of Canada's Dunsmuir ruling (para. 59) which holds that jurisdictional authority questions require a correctness standard, not reasonableness.

a) Standard of review - [62] The standard of review for the Commissioner's decision on the authority for the collection of personal information in the circumstances here is the standard of correctness. - [63] The Commissioner is, of course...

AI summary The court applies the standard of correctness to the Commissioner's decision on personal information collection under Edmonton's licensing bylaw, as the Commissioner lacks expertise in municipal law. The Commissioner's ruling that uploading data to an electronic database is unauthorized is deemed incorrect.

a) What is the standard of review for this decision? - [72] The standard of review of the Commissioner's decision that the personal information in the BWI database was in the custody and control of the City of Edmonton is a standard of cor...

AI summary The court applies a standard of correctness to the Commissioner's decision regarding the City of Edmonton's custody of BWI database information. It deems the Commissioner's determination incorrect, emphasizing municipal law's role in defining police force oversight and data control, referencing the Police Act and democratic deference principles.

Standard of Review In response to NS Power's argument regarding standard of review, EfficiencyOne submits that the suggested interpretation is not only reasonable, but is the only possible correct interpretation of the NSUARB's powers unde...

AI summary EfficiencyOne argues that the NSUARB has broad discretion under PUA sections 79L(8) and (9) to consider factors beyond affordability when evaluating DSM activities. They assert the legislation explicitly authorizes the NSUARB to weigh various considerations in approving efficiency programs, rejecting NS Power's narrower interpretation.