Canadian courts have sometimes described undeferential reasonableness review as “disguised correctness”, cases in which a court says it is applying a reasonableness standard but in fact performs its own analysis of the law and the facts to reach an independent conclusion that it labels ‘reasonable’ or ‘unreasonable’. Here are some examples of judicial uses of […] Read more

Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse c. Côté, 2015 QCCA 1544 is an instructive case on the role of the principles of statutory interpretation in unreasonableness analysis — and, moreover, a decision which also caused me to make a further update to this post. Here, the parents of an […] Read more

As I have previously explained, I think it is wrong to measure administrative interpretations of law by reference to the principles of statutory interpretation. Sure, administrative decision-makers should be required to read statutory provisions intelligently and explain their conclusions in terms of statutory language and objectives, but they should not be required to master these […] Read more

By now, it is a familiar story. The standard of review is reasonableness. An exhaustive review of the relevant statutory language and factual matrices follows. And then there is a brief conclusion: the decision is reasonable or unreasonable.At the risk of beating a horse whose death certificate is now turning yellow and fraying at the […] Read more

The President of France, M. Hollande, has recently suggested that where the administration fails to reply to individual decisions silence should be taken as indicating consent: “dans de nombreux domaines, le silence de l’administration vaut décision d’acceptation et non plus décision de rejet”. The reasoning is obvious: citizens deserve responses from the machinery of the state; […] Read more

Quick and brutal. The webcast of the hearing in Canada (Attorney General) v. Kane, 2012 SCC 64, was barely up on the Supreme Court’s website before the appeal was allowed. Only 17 days elapsed between the hearing on November 6 and this morning’s per curiam opinion.Evans J.A. delivered a complex judgment in the Court of […] Read more

The Supreme Court of Canada took the (in my view) reasonable step in Newfoundland Nurses, 2011 SCC 62 of separating procedural review for failure to provide reasons from substantive review for reasonableness. One concern that might be voiced in response is that rolling a procedural right to reasons into substantive review may give too much […] Read more

Justice Stratas voiced some interesting thoughts on the meaning of reasonableness and context in Canada (Attorney General) v. Abraham, 2012 FCA 266: [44]           For example, where the decision-maker is considering a discretionary matter that is based primarily on factual and policy matters having very little legal content, the range of possible, acceptable […] Read more

The applicant in Francis v. Canada (Immigration and Citizenship), 2012 FC 1141 was concerned that she had not got a fair shake before the Refugee Protection Division, on the basis of comments made by the decision-maker in previous academic writings. He had suggested that the refugee protection system gave rise to anomalies, and cited the […] Read more

In passing in its otherwise unremarkable decision in Pastore v. Aviva Canada Inc., 2012 ONCA 642, the Ontario Court of Appeal had something interesting to say about reasonableness. Feldman J.A. (with whom Rosenberg J.A. and Swinton J. agreed) commented as follows: [59]      Again, applying the Dunsmuir test for reasonableness, the delegate engaged in a […] Read more