Review of Administrative Decisions for Public Complaints (5:III): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Review of Administrative Decisions for Public Complaints (5:III) (view source)
Revision as of 01:43, 7 August 2020
, 7 August 2020→(1) Substantive Errors
Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
===== (1) Substantive Errors ===== | ===== (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 the exercise of authority can be applied. If an administrative decision-maker exceeds | 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 the exercise of authority can be applied. If an administrative decision-maker exceeds their authority, the court can step in to provide a remedy. | ||
====== (a) Errors of Fact ====== | ====== (a) Errors of Fact ====== | ||
Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
====== (c) Standards of Review ====== | ====== (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 | 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 and depends on which tribunal is involved. | ||
Recently, the Supreme Court of Canada in ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2019/2019scc65/2019scc65.html Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov]'', 2019 SCC 65 revised the rules for determining the standard of review. Generally, for all decisions, the presumed standard of review will now be '''reasonableness''', unless legislative intent or the rule of law may require a different standard of review. The court stated: | |||
''"The presumption of reasonableness review can be rebutted in two types of situations. The first is where the legislature has indicated that it intends a different standard or set of standards to apply. This will be the case where the legislature explicitly prescribes the applicable standard of review. It will also be the case where the legislature has provided a statutory appeal mechanism from an administrative decision to a court, thereby signalling the legislature’s intent that appellate standards apply when a court reviews the decision. The second situation in which the presumption of reasonableness review will be rebutted is where the rule of law requires that the standard of correctness be applied. This will be the case for certain categories of questions, namely constitutional questions, general questions of law of central importance to the legal system as a whole and questions related to the jurisdictional boundaries between two or more administrative bodies."'' | |||
If a tribunal is interpreting its own enabling statute or a closely related statute with which it has particular familiarity or expertise (e.g., the Workers’ Compensation Board applying the ''Workers Compensation Act''), then the court will generally show some deference to the tribunal’s interpretation. | |||
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. | |||
In British Columbia, the Administrative Tribunals Act sets a different standard of review, patently unreasonable, for Tribunals that are seen as “expert tribunals”. The largest of these tribunals being the Residential Tenancy Branch and the Worker’s Compensation Appeal Tribunal. In practice, there is often little difference between the patently unreasonable standard and a review on the reasonableness standard, as the Supreme Court of Canada noted in Dunsmuir that it would be illogical and potentially raise rule of law concerns to allow an irrational decision to stand because its irrationality was not “clear” or “obvious” enough. | |||
There is already conflict in the British Columbia courts on whether or not the ''Vavilov'' decision effectively merges these two standards, and it is likely to be addressed by the BC Court of Appeal in the near future, so a search for the most recent case on the standard of review in British Columbia is strongly recommended. | |||
==== d) Procedural Areas of Law ==== | ==== d) Procedural Areas of Law ==== |