5,109
edits
Difference between revisions of "Review of Administrative Decisions for Public Complaints (5:III)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Review of Administrative Decisions for Public Complaints (5:III) (view source)
Revision as of 17:52, 16 August 2021
, 17:52, 16 August 2021→(c) Standards of Review
| Line 113: | Line 113: | ||
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. | ||
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. | 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. | ||
As of May 2021, a recent BCCA decision ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2021/2021bcca152/2021bcca152.html?autocompleteStr=2021%20BCCA%20152&autocompletePos=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''. | As of May 2021, a recent BCCA decision ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2021/2021bcca152/2021bcca152.html?autocompleteStr=2021%20BCCA%20152&autocompletePos=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''. | ||
| Line 121: | Line 121: | ||
Nevertheless, the BCCA decision in ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2021/2021bcca108/2021bcca108.html?autocompleteStr=2021%20bcca%20108&autocompletePos=1 lululemon athletica canada inc v Industrial Color Productions Inc]'', 2021 BCCA 108 on February 23, 2021 held that the standard of review for commercial arbitration in this case has not been settled at the appellate level despite the ''Vavilov'' decision. | Nevertheless, the BCCA decision in ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2021/2021bcca108/2021bcca108.html?autocompleteStr=2021%20bcca%20108&autocompletePos=1 lululemon athletica canada inc v Industrial Color Productions Inc]'', 2021 BCCA 108 on February 23, 2021 held that the standard of review for commercial arbitration in this case has not been settled at the appellate level despite the ''Vavilov'' decision. | ||
Therefore, recent decisions by the BCCA seem to suggest that the standard of reasonableness from ''Vavilov'' and the standard of patent reasonableness from the ''Administrative Tribunals Act'' are separate. The standard that applies on judicial review seems to depend on the tribunal and issues involved. | Therefore, recent decisions by the BCCA seem to suggest that the standard of reasonableness from ''Vavilov'' and the standard of patent reasonableness from the ''Administrative Tribunals Act'' are separate. The standard that applies on judicial review seems to depend on the tribunal and issues involved. | ||
===== (2) Procedural Fairness ===== | ===== (2) Procedural Fairness ===== | ||