Anonymous

Difference between revisions of "Introduction to Public Complaints (5:I)"

From Clicklaw Wikibooks
no edit summary
Line 80: Line 80:
In general, only the parties who had standing before the tribunal or who are directly affected by the tribunal’s decision may apply for judicial review.
In general, only the parties who had standing before the tribunal or who are directly affected by the tribunal’s decision may apply for judicial review.


===== (4) Time Limits =====


The time limit to apply to the Federal Court for judicial review under section 18.1 of the ''Federal Courts Act'' is '''30 days''', although it can  be extended by the Federal Court (s 18.2(2)). However, other federal legislation may direct different timelines. For example, for decisions made pursuant to the ''Immigration and Refugee Protection Act'', SC 2001, c 27, appellants must look to both that statute and the ''Federal Courts Act''.
For provincial tribunals, applicants must refer to the ''Administrative Tribunals Act'' [''ATA''], SBC 2004, c 45, and the specific statute  governing the tribunal; '''60 days''' is the default (''ATA'' s 57). Limitation periods may be extended pursuant to section 11 of the ''JRPA'', unless another enactment provides otherwise or the delay will result in substantial prejudice or hardship to another person affected.
===== (5) Stay of Orders or Proceedings =====
While an application for judicial review is pending, existing orders from a tribunal must be obeyed, and the tribunal has discretion to  continue with the proceedings. However, an applicant can ask the court to stay the tribunal’s order or to prohibit the proceedings from  continuing. For an accessible explanation of how to do this, refer to this booklet (at Appendix sections C-E):
David Mossop, Kendra Milne & Jess Hadley, ''Representing Yourself in a Judicial Review'', 2d ed (Vancouver: Community Legal Assistance Society,  2010), online: <clasbc.net/publications>.
===== (6) Evidence =====
The primary evidence for judicial review is the tribunal’s record of the hearing. Generally, the court does not allow new evidence to be introduced at a judicial review hearing.
===== (7) Filing Fees and Indigency Applications =====
Applicants who cannot afford the filing fees for judicial review may apply for an indigency order pursuant to Rule 20-5 in Appendix C, Schedule 1 of the BC Supreme Court Civil Rules. Indigency status affords the applicant relief from all court fees and is available to those with low  income and limited earning potential. Note that the process for indigency applications is complicated. For more exhaustive details on the process, please refer to this booklet (at sections 4(E) and 5):
David Mossop, Kendra Milne & Jess Hadley, ''Representing Yourself in a Judicial Review'', 2d ed (Vancouver: Community Legal Assistance Society,  2010), online: <clasbc.net/publications>. 
==== c) Scope of Judicial Review ====
Assuming a party can resort to the courts to review the decision of a tribunal, there are limitations as to the scope of judicial review.
===== (1) Substantive Errors =====
An administrative body has only as much power as its governing statute grants to it. This grant of authority is limited in both the context and the manner in which it can be applied. If an administrative decision-maker exceeds his or her authority, the court can step in to provide a remedy.
====== (a) Errors of Fact ======
Findings of fact are generally reviewable only if they are not supported on the evidence. The deference granted by the court to a tribunal’s  findings of fact in judicial review is akin to the deference an appeal court shows to a trial court’s findings of fact. Nevertheless, the  legislature is presumed not to have intended to give an administrative body the authority to act arbitrarily or capriciously. If the tribunal makes a finding of fact that cannot reasonably be drawn from the evidence, then it is exceeding the authority granted to it, and its decision can be set aside by the court.
(b)Errors of Law Substantive law reviewable by the courts can be divided into two areas: statutory interpretation related to the powers of a tribunal, and interpretation related to other broader questions of law. A  tribunal  can  be  overruled  if  it  is  acting  without  authority.  A tribunal  must  generally  act  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the legislation  that  created  it.  Similarly,  a  tribunal  must  not misinterpret  the rules  that  govern  the  way it exercises  authority, since these rules represent a precondition to the exercise of that authority.  The  mandate  of  a  tribunal  is  defined  in  large  part  by the  intention  of  the  legislature.  If in  the course  of exercising its authority  a  tribunal  misinterprets  its  mandate,  a  court  maydeclare the tribunal’ s decision void upon judicial review.  Similarly,  a  tribunal  can  be  overruled  if  it  applies  the  law incorrectly  in  other  contexts.  The  enabling  statute  creating  a given  tribunal  cannot  grant  it  the  authority  to  act  illegally  or  to change the law. (c)Standards of Review Different standards of review may be imposed depending on the issue that is under review and the nature of the tribunal. The law relating  to  standards  of  review  is  quite  complicated;  thus,  for  a more detailed discussion of the issues pertaining to the standards of  review,  one  should  refer  to Dunsmuir, above.  See  also  the ATA for statutorily prescribed standards of review applicable to certain provincial tribunals. Generally,  for  questions  of  law  that  go  beyond  the  tribunal’ s specialized  area  of  expertise,  the  standard  of  review  will  be correctness— i.e., the tribunal must get the law right.
next p5-4
next p5-4