5,109
edits
Difference between revisions of "Review of Administrative Decisions for Public Complaints (5:III)"
From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Review of Administrative Decisions for Public Complaints (5:III) (view source)
Revision as of 23:16, 22 August 2022
, 23:16, 22 August 2022→(c) Standards of Review
| Line 115: | Line 115: | ||
Likewise, for questions of fact, and for exercises of discretion (e.g., with respect to the appropriate remedy), the court will usually show deference to the judgment of the administrative decision-maker who saw the evidence first-hand. A court does not usually review a tribunal’s discretionary decisions unless its discretion was not exercised in good faith, was exercised for an improper purpose, was based on irrelevant considerations, or was otherwise unreasonable. The ''Vavilov'' case is now the leading authority on how courts should apply the reasonableness review, and the principles to follow when determining if a decision is unreasonable. | Likewise, for questions of fact, and for exercises of discretion (e.g., with respect to the appropriate remedy), the court will usually show deference to the judgment of the administrative decision-maker who saw the evidence first-hand. A court does not usually review a tribunal’s discretionary decisions unless its discretion was not exercised in good faith, was exercised for an improper purpose, was based on irrelevant considerations, or was otherwise unreasonable. The ''Vavilov'' case is now the leading authority on how courts should apply the reasonableness review, and the principles to follow when determining if a decision is unreasonable. | ||
As of May 2021, a recent BCCA decision [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2021/2021bcca152/2021bcca152.html?resultIndex=1 ''Red Chris Development Co v United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, Local 1-1937''], 2021 BCCA 152 | As of May 2021, a recent BCCA decision [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2021/2021bcca152/2021bcca152.html?resultIndex=1 ''Red Chris Development Co v United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, Local 1-1937''], 2021 BCCA 152 on April 15, 2021 noted that the standard of patent unreasonableness applies to tribunals governed by the ''Administrative Tribunals Act'' despite common law developments post-''Vavilov''. | ||
In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2022/2022bcca147/2022bcca147.html?autocompleteStr=Beach%20Place%20Ventures%20Ltd.%20v.%20Employment%20Standards%20Tribunal%2C%202022%20BCCA%20147&autocompletePos=1 ''Beach Place Ventures Ltd. v. Employment Standards Tribunal''] (CanLII) 2022 BCCA 147, at para 16 Justice Voith states that “the statutory standard of patent unreasonableness set out in s. 58 of the ''ATA'' is unaffected by the common law standard of reasonableness articulated in ''Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov'', 2019 SCC 65.” | In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2022/2022bcca147/2022bcca147.html?autocompleteStr=Beach%20Place%20Ventures%20Ltd.%20v.%20Employment%20Standards%20Tribunal%2C%202022%20BCCA%20147&autocompletePos=1 ''Beach Place Ventures Ltd. v. Employment Standards Tribunal''] (CanLII) 2022 BCCA 147, at para 16 Justice Voith states that “the statutory standard of patent unreasonableness set out in s. 58 of the ''ATA'' is unaffected by the common law standard of reasonableness articulated in ''Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov'', 2019 SCC 65.” | ||
