APPEAL from Dunsmuir v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of New Brunswick, as represented by the Board of Management, 2006 NBCA 27 (23 March 2006), affirming New Brunswick v. Dunsmuir, 2005 NBQB 270 (4 August 2005), quashing a preliminary ruling and quashing in part an award made by an adjudicator.
Ruling
Appeal Dismissed
Holding
Correctness and reasonableness should be the only two standards of judicial review with respect to decision-making. The correctness standard will apply with respect of jurisdictional and some other questions of law, and the reasonableness standard is concerned mostly with the existence of justification, transparency, and intelligibility within the decision‑making process and with whether the decision falls within a range of possible acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and the law. If the question is one of fact, discretion, or policy or the legal issue is intertwined with and cannot be readily separated from the factual issue, deference by the court will usually apply automatically with respect to the decision made.
David Dunsmuir was hired by the Department of Justice of the Province of New Brunswick as of February 25, 2002. His work was unsatisfactory to his employer and he received multiple written notices to this effect. Ultimately, his employer decided to terminate his employment as of December 31, 2004. On August 19, 2004, Dunsmuir was informed in a letter that his employment was being terminated. As his employment was not being terminated "for cause," Dunsmuir was granted several months of paid leave with which to find a new job.
Dunsmuir grieved his dismissal in a letter sent to the Deputy Minister on September 1, 2004. When his grievance was denied, he gave notice that he would refer the grievance to adjudication. An adjudicator was selected by the agreement of both parties. The adjudicator held that Dunsmuir had been denied procedural fairness in the manner of his dismissal and that the dismissal was thus void ab initio. The adjudicator ordered Dunsmuir to be reinstated as of August 19, 2004. On judicial review to the Court of Queen's Bench, the decision was overturned.[2] That decision eventually reached the Supreme Court of Canada.
History
Trial Court
The trial court took an application for judicial review and decided that the correct standard of review was correctness against the adjudicator's decision because the adjudicator did not have jurisdiction to inquire. The court decided that Dunsmuir received procedural fairness because of the hearing before the adjudicator and maintained the eight-month decision.
Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal decided that reasonableness was the correct standard and that the adjudicator was unreasonable because the employer dismissed the employee at pleasure, and the common law rules did not require any more procedural fairness than Dunsmuir had received.
The Court emphasized the use of precedent to simplify the issue of standard of review. Firstly, courts must ascertain whether the jurisprudence has already determined in a satisfactory manner the degree of deference to be accorded with regard to a particular category of question. Secondly, if the first inquiry proves unfruitful, courts must proceed to an analysis of the factors making it possible to identify the proper standard of review:[3]
[50] As important as it is that courts have a proper understanding of reasonableness review as a deferential standard, it is also without question that the standard of correctness must be maintained in respect of jurisdictional and some other questions of law. This promotes just decisions and avoids inconsistent and unauthorized application of law. When applying the correctness standard, a reviewing court will not show deference to the decision maker’s reasoning process; it will rather undertake its own analysis of the question. The analysis will bring the court to decide whether it agrees with the determination of the decision maker; if not, the court will substitute its own view and provide the correct answer. From the outset, the court must ask whether the tribunal’s decision was correct.
[51] Having dealt with the nature of the standards of review, we now turn our attention to the method for selecting the appropriate standard in individual cases. As we will now demonstrate, questions of fact, discretion and policy as well as questions where the legal issues cannot be easily separated from the factual issues generally attract a standard of reasonableness while many legal issues attract a standard of correctness. Some legal issues, however, attract the more deferential standard of reasonableness.
...
[55] A consideration of the following factors will lead to the conclusion that the decision maker should be given deference and a reasonableness test applied:
— A privative clause: this is a statutory direction from Parliament or a legislature indicating the need for deference.
— A discrete and special administrative regime in which the decision maker has special expertise (labour relations for instance).
— The nature of the question of law. A question of law that is of "central importance to the legal system . . . and outside the . . . specialized area of expertise" of the administrative decision maker will always attract a correctness standard (Toronto (City) v. C.U.P.E., at para. 62). On the other hand, a question of law that does not rise to this level may be compatible with a reasonableness standard where the two above factors so indicate.
[56] If these factors, considered together, point to a standard of reasonableness, the decision maker’s decision must be approached with deference in the sense of respect discussed earlier in these reasons. There is nothing unprincipled in the fact that some questions of law will be decided on the basis of reasonableness. It simply means giving the adjudicator’s decision appropriate deference in deciding whether a decision should be upheld, bearing in mind the factors indicated.
The following matters were identified as being subject to the correctness standard:[4]
constitutional questions regarding the division of powers between Parliament and the provinces
determinations of true questions of jurisdiction or vires
the question at issue is one of general law "that is both of central importance to the legal system as a whole and outside the adjudicator’s specialized area of expertise"
questions regarding the jurisdictional lines between two or more competing specialized tribunals
Application to facts
When the new analytical framework was applied to the facts of Dunsmuir, the Court determined that the reasonableness standard was the correct approach on which to judge the administrative decision in question. In that regard, the Court ruled that the decision failed to meet that standard and was therefore unreasonable.[5]
Impact
The ruling has consolidated the law relating to standards of judicial review in Canada and has effectively required a full standard of review analysis to be performed in all current disputes arising from administrative decisions.[6]Dunsmuir does not stand for the proposition that the "adequacy" of reasons is a stand‑alone basis for quashing a decision or as advocating that a reviewing court undertake two discrete analyses: one for the reasons and a separate one for the result. It is a more organic exercise; the reasons must be read together with the outcome and serve the purpose of showing whether the result falls within a range of possible outcomes.[7]
Dunsmuir teaches that judicial review should be less concerned with the formulation of different standards of review and more focussed on substance, particularly on the nature of the issue that was before the administrative tribunal under review.
However, Dunsmuir will not overrule specific requirements that are given in a statutory framework; therefore, the duty of procedural fairness will continue to apply in such cases.[9]
The presumption of reasonableness in administrative review suggested by Binnie J in Dunsmuir did not find majority support at the time but has since been accepted by the Supreme Court in other cases.[10] That presumption of reasonableness has since led to a more deferent view being taken by courts in Canada in reviewing administrative decisions.[11]
In addition, the ruling has effectively ensured that most forms of public employment are best viewed through the lens of private employment law principles, irrespective of whether the affected person may be categorized as a public office holder. Therefore, appeals on grounds of procedural fairness will be available only to a few categories of public employment, and reinstatement procedures will occur even less frequently.[12]
In Canadian and New Zealand law, fundamental justice is the fairness underlying the administration of justice and its operation. The principles of fundamental justice are specific legal principles that command "significant societal consensus" as "fundamental to the way in which the legal system ought fairly to operate", per R v Malmo-Levine. These principles may stipulate basic procedural rights afforded to anyone facing an adjudicative process or procedure that affects fundamental rights and freedoms, and certain substantive standards related to the rule of law that regulate the actions of the state.
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 law, the standard of review is the amount of deference given by one court in reviewing a decision of a lower court or tribunal. A low standard of review means that the decision under review will be varied or overturned if the reviewing court considers there is any error at all in the lower court's decision. A high standard of review means that deference is accorded to the decision under review, so that it will not be disturbed just because the reviewing court might have decided the matter differently; it will be varied only if the higher court considers the decision to have obvious error. The standard of review may be set by statute or precedent. In the United States, "standard of review" also has a separate meaning concerning the level of deference the judiciary gives to Congress when ruling on the constitutionality of legislation.
Suresh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the areas of constitutional law and administrative law. The Court held that, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in most circumstances the government cannot deport someone to a country where they risk being tortured, but refugee claimants can be deported to their homelands if they are a serious security risk to Canadians.
Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 SCR 817 is a leading Canadian administrative law decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court provided guidance on the standard of judicial review of administrative decisions. The issue was what standard of procedural fairness should be applied when considering the judicial review of the waiver of the requirement that applications for permanent residence be filed from abroad. The case also clarified the need for written reasons in some administrative decisions.
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 addresses the actions and operations of governments and governmental agencies in Canada. That is, the law concerns the manner in which courts can review the decisions of administrative decision makers such as a board, tribunal, commission, agency, or Crown minister, while exercising ministerial discretion.
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.
Canada v Southam Inc, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on judicial review. In this case the Court first set out the standard of review of "reasonableness simpliciter", which directs the court to only review decisions that are "not supported by any reasons that can stand up to a somewhat probing examination".
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.
Canada v. Khosa, 2009 SCC 12, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision in Canadian administrative law.
Congrégation des témoins de Jéhovah de St-Jérôme-Lafontaine v Lafontaine , 2004 SCC 48, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision in Canadian administrative law. The case applied the Baker framework for analysing the duty of fairness owed by an administrative decision-maker to a zoning request made to a municipality and found that the municipal government owed a duty of procedural fairness to the applicant in the way that it assessed and responded to their rezoning application.
Wednesbury unreasonableness is a ground of judicial review in Singapore administrative law. A governmental decision that is Wednesbury-unreasonable may be quashed by the High Court. This type of unreasonableness of public body decisions was laid down in the English case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation (1947), where it was said that a public authority acts unreasonably when a decision it makes is "so absurd that no sensible person could ever dream that it lay within the powers of the authority".
Doré v Barreau du Québec is an administrative law decision by the Supreme Court of Canada regarding how to apply the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to adjudicative decisions, as opposed to statutory law. The Court found that the test in R. v. Oakes does not apply to administrative law decisions, although there is "conceptual harmony" between the review for reasonableness and the Oakes framework. Instead, the question is whether the administrative decision is reasonable, in that it reflects a proportionate balancing of the Charter rights and values at play. In addition to the parties, the Court heard from the following intervenors: the Federation of Law Societies of Canada, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and the Young Bar Association of Montreal.
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.
In Canada, judicial review is the process that allows courts to supervise administrative tribunals' exercise of their statutory powers. Judicial review of administrative action is only available for decisions made by a governmental or quasi-governmental authority. The process allows individuals to challenge state actions, and ensures that decisions made by administrative tribunals follow the rule of law. The practice is meant to ensure that powers delegated by government to boards and tribunals are not abused, and offers legal recourse when that power is misused, or the law is misapplied. Judicial review is meant to be 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 established a presumption that reasonableness is the applicable standard of review of administrative decisions in all cases. The case concerned the review of the Canadian Registrar of Citizenship's decision to cancel Alexander Vavilov's citizenship certificate on the basis of his parents' identity as covert Russian agents, based on an interpretation of s. 3(2)(a) of the Citizenship Act. The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the Federal Court of Appeal's decision to quash the Canadian Registrar of Citizenship's decision, on the basis that it was unreasonable.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
