The Supreme Court’s Decision in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65

The Supreme Court’s Decision in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65

In two recent decisions, the SCC has re-written the standard of review to be applied by courts when hearing appeals of administrative decisions. In Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, a Canadian born child of two Russian spies, was initially stripped of his citizenship by the Canadian Registrar of Citizenship. That decision was upheld by the Federal Court which deferred to Registrar but overturned by the Federal Court of Appeal using the reasonableness standard of review.  In Bell Canada v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 SCC 66, the CRTC ruled that Canadian Broadcasters could not substitute their Canadian feed (commercials) for the US feed. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed Bell and the National Football League’s appeal on basis CRTC was entitled to deference, a decision based upon the correctness standard of review.

In its lead decision, Vavilov, the SCC made reasonableness the presumptive standard for any judicial review of administrative decisions, save for two exceptions: (1) where legislative intent makes the review standard clear and (2) rule of law makes it clear correctness standard ought to be applied. As such, the expertise of the administrative body used to support judicial deference, is no longer part of the test. Instead, the courts must examine whether the administrative decision is reasonably justified (i) “based upon an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis” and, (ii) “in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker”.  In Vavilov, the SCC then applied the reasonableness standard, there being no exception, and found the Registrar did not justify their decision at law or in fact. Accordingly, it quashed the Registrar’s decision, restoring Vavilov’s citizenship.

In Bell, the SCC applied the correctness standard due to the specific appeal mechanisms found in the Broadcast Act (the first exception to the general presumption that the reasonableness standard should apply). It then conducted its own review of the CRTC’s  authority and, finding the CRTC did not have the requisite power to place such conditions upon specific programming, quashed the CRTC’s order.

The result of these two decisions is that the SCC has changed the standard of review of administrative decisions, instituting a presumptive reasonableness standard with only certain defined exceptions that would lead to the application of the correctness standard.

Insights & Commentary

A Great New Resource: Civil Procedure and Practice in Ontario - photo
  • Commentaries

A Great New Resource: Civil Procedure and Practice in Ontario

Stieber Berlach LLP is pleased to share an important new free textbook, Civil  Procedure and Practice in Ontario, which includes contributions from Katie Di Tomaso as an author of two chapters annotating sections 1-5 and 15-24 of the Limitations Act, 2002 and Christian Breukleman as an author of the chapter on Rule 29 of the Rules of Civil Procedure dealing with Third Party Claims. CPPO is … Continued

by

Human Rights Tribunal Finds “Good Faith” COVID-19 Restrictions Can Still Be Discriminatory, Sets Benchmark Monetary Award. - photo
  • Commentaries

Human Rights Tribunal Finds “Good Faith” COVID-19 Restrictions Can Still Be Discriminatory, Sets Benchmark Monetary Award.

JL v. Empower Simcoe 2021 HRTO 222 In a recent decision confirmed by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (the “HRTO”) May 7, 2021 (2021 HRTO 348), the HRTO has ruled that COVID-19 restrictions and protocols accepted to benefit the health of the public can still be discriminatory under the Ontario Human Rights Code (the “Code”).  Restrictions … Continued

by

Human Rights Tribunal Establishes Acceptable COVID-19 Accommodation Process and Requirements for Policies - photo
  • Commentaries

Human Rights Tribunal Establishes Acceptable COVID-19 Accommodation Process and Requirements for Policies

Rishi Sharma v. City of Toronto 2020 HRTO 949 In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, the HRTO evaluated municipal by-laws establishing mandatory masking.  In that process, it also outlined the expected process for requesting exceptions to these by-laws (“accommodation”) under the Ontario Human Rights Code (the “Code”). The Applicant, in this case, was a member of … Continued

by

Appeal Board Upholds Defence of Jurisdiction for Professionals in Non-Therapeutic Roles. - photo
  • Commentaries

Appeal Board Upholds Defence of Jurisdiction for Professionals in Non-Therapeutic Roles.

2021 CanLII 7968 (ON HPARB) The Ontario Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (“HPARB”) has upheld a rare defence and approach to defending professionals in matters before their professional colleges.  In a case successfully defended by Stieber Berlach at both the College of Nurses (“CNO”) and HPARB, this 2021 decision sustained the ability of the … Continued

by

Should MDS Inc. V. Factory Mutual Insurance Company (FM Global) Impact COVID-19 Business Interruption Claims? - photo
  • Commentaries

Should MDS Inc. V. Factory Mutual Insurance Company (FM Global) Impact COVID-19 Business Interruption Claims?

The novel coronavirus causing the COVID-19 infection is likely to impact insurers in several ways. In addition to an anticipated decrease in premium collection due to cancellation of policies, and a probable shrinking of investment returns, it is anticipated that there will be numerous claims that arise from the pandemic, including business interruption claims. The … Continued

by

No compensation without causation in a breach of fiduciary duty claim - photo
  • Commentaries

No compensation without causation in a breach of fiduciary duty claim

In the recently released decision, Stirrett v. Cheema, 2020 ONCA 288, the Court of Appeal opined on the role causation plays in awarding damages for a breach of fiduciary duty. The Court held that the trial judge had erred in awarding compensation for a breach of fiduciary duty when causation had not been proven. The Court … Continued

by

All News