Background
Dale Goldhawk was a host of CBC Radio's Cross Country Checkup and president of the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists (ACTRA). During the federal election, Goldhawk was an outspoken opponent of the North American Free Trade Agreement and free trade. He wrote an article in the union's newspaper that was highly critical of free trade. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) found his conduct unacceptable as he was both a host and president. The CBC asked that he chose either to leave one of his two positions. He chose to step down as president and remain a host.
The union filed a complaint against the CBC for interference with the administration of the union's business which was prohibited under the Canada Labour Code. The board considered the issue of whether Goldhawk's conduct was protected by the code. They found that it was and that the CBC violated the code. It was reasoned that the article was directed at the union and so was protected under the code.
The Federal Court of Appeal held that the standard of review was patent unreasonableness and found that on the facts the board decision was not patently unreasonable.
The issue before the Supreme Court was the decision of the board was a question of jurisdiction, which would set a standard of review of correctness, and whether a different standard of review should be applied to external statutes such as the Canada Labour Code.
Decision of the court
The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada (Labour Relations Board) focused on the applicable standard of judicial review. [2] The CBC challenged the Labour Relations Board’s finding, arguing that it had acted within its rights by requiring Goldhawk to choose between his CBC role and his union presidency. The central issue was whether the Labour Relations Board's interpretation of the Canada Labour Code constituted a jurisdictional question that required a standard of review of "correctness," as opposed to "patent unreasonableness."
The Supreme Court upheld the Board's decision, with Justice Iacobucci writing for the majority. The Court affirmed the "pragmatic and functional approach" to labor relations matters, determining that the standard of review should indeed be "patent unreasonableness" unless an administrative tribunal oversteps its jurisdiction. Since the Labour Relations Board’s interpretation remained within its jurisdictional boundaries and was not patently unreasonable, the appeal was dismissed. This decision reinforced the principle that administrative bodies could interpret legislation with deference, provided they stayed within jurisdictional limits
In Canadian law, patently unreasonable or the patent unreasonableness test was a standard of review used by a court when performing judicial review of administrative decisions. It was the highest of three standards of review: correctness, unreasonableness, and patent unreasonableness. Although the term "patent unreasonableness" lacked a precise definition in the common law, it was somewhere above unreasonableness, and consequently it was relatively difficult to show that a decision was patently unreasonable. A simple example of a patently unreasonable decision may be one that does not accord at all with the facts or law before it, or one that completely misstates a legal test.
In Canadian labour law, the Rand formula is a workplace compromise arising from jurisprudence struck between organized labour and employers that guarantees employers industrial stability by requiring all workers affected by a collective agreement to pay dues to the union by mandatory deduction in exchange for the union agreement to "work now, grieve later."
Canada v Paul L'Anglais Inc. et al. [1983] 1 S.C.R. 147 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada constitutional decision on the jurisdiction of the superior courts to hear constitutional arguments. The unanimous court found that courts of inherent jurisdiction such as the Quebec Superior Court had concurrent jurisdiction to hear constitutional cases.
Toronto Electric Commissioners v Snider is a Canadian constitutional decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council where the Council struck down the federal Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, precursor to the Canada Labour Code. The Court identified matters in relation to labour to be within the exclusive competence of the province in the property and civil rights power under section 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867. This decision is considered one of the high-water marks of the council's interpretation of the Constitution in favour of the provinces.
Canadian labour law is that body of law which regulates the rights, restrictions, and obligations of trade unions, workers, and employers in Canada.
Cuddy Chicks Ltd v Ontario (Labour Relations Board), [1991] 2 SCR 5 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the jurisdiction of tribunals to hear constitutional challenges of the tribunal's enabling statute.
Pushpanathan v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the standard of review in Canadian administrative law. The Court held that a decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board should be reviewed on the standard of "correctness."
Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 963 v New Brunswick Liquor Corp, [1979] 2 SCR 227 is a leading case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada. This case first developed the patent unreasonableness standard of review in Canadian administrative law.
Canadian administrative law is the body of law "that applies to all administrative decisions, whether issued by front-line officials, ministers, economic regulatory agencies, or administrative tribunals, with interpretations of law and exercises of discretion subject to the same. .. rules." Administrative law is concerned primarily with ensuring that administrative decision-makers remain within the boundaries of their authority and observe procedural fairness.
Dr Q v College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, 2003 SCC 19, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Canadian administrative law.
Union des Employes de Service, Local 298 v Bibeault, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1048 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on judicial review in Canadian administrative law. In this decision the court first described the "pragmatic and functional approach" to determining the standard of review for an administrative decision and provided reasons for its desirability.
Law Society of New Brunswick v Ryan, 2003 SCC 20 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on judicial review for professional disciplinary bodies in Canadian administrative law. The Court determined that decisions of professional disciplinary committees are reviewed on a standard of reasonableness simpliciter.
Toronto (City) Board of Education v Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, District 15, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 487 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on judicial review of administrative decisions. The Court held that the review of a just cause dismissal was patently unreasonable on the basis that the decision had no evidentiary basis.
National Corn Growers Assn v Canada (Import Tribunal), [1990] 2 SCR 1324 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on judicial review and statutory interpretation.
Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 SCR 190 was, prior to Canada v Vavilov, the leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the topic of substantive review and standards of review. Dunsmuir is notable for combining the reasonableness (simpliciter) and the patent unreasonableness standards of review into a single reasonableness standard.
Canadian Union of Public Employees v Ontario (Minister of Labour), 2003 SCC 29, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on arbitration and bias in administrative law. The court held that it was patently unreasonable for the Minister of Labour to appoint retired judges as arbitrators in labour disputes without considering their expertise in labour relations under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitrations Act.
Canadian National Railway Co v Canada (AG), 2014 SCC 40 is a significant case from the Supreme Court of Canada in the area of Canadian administrative law, focusing on whether the standard of review framework set out in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick applies to decisions of the Governor in Council of Canada (i.e., the Cabinet of Canada), and whether it has authority to vary or rescind an administrative tribunal decision on questions of law or jurisdiction.
NIL/TU,O Child and Family Services Society v BC Government and Service Employees' Union is a leading Supreme Court of Canada constitutional law case dealing with jurisdiction over labour relations in the context of federalism and Aboriginal rights.
In Canadian administrative law, judicial review is for courts to ensure "administrative decision-makers" stay within the boundaries of the law. It is meant to ensure that powers granted to government actors, administrative agencies, boards and tribunals are exercised consistently with the rule of law. Judicial review is intended as a last resort for those seeking to redress a decision of an administrative decision maker.
Canada v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that clarified the determination and application of standard of review in Canadian administrative law. Vavilov applies “a presumption that reasonableness is the applicable standard whenever a court reviews administrative decisions.”
