Administrative Law Notes for IV.1-11: Standards of Review IV.1: General Principles FN1. C.U.P.E., Local 963 v. New Brunswick Liquor Corp. (1979), [1979] 2 S.C.R. 227 (S.C.C.); Syndicat national des employés de la commission scolaire régionale de l'outaouais v. U.E.S., local 298 (1988), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1048 (S.C.C.); Pezim v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Brokers) (1994), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 557 (S.C.C.); Canada (Director of Investigation & Research) v. Southam Inc. (1997), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748 (S.C.C.); Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration) (1998), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982 (S.C.C.); additional reasons at (1998), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222 (S.C.C.); C.U.P.E. v. Ontario (Minister of Labour) (2003), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 539 (S.C.C.); Q. v. College of Physicians & Surgeons (British Columbia) (2003), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226 (S.C.C.); Ryan v. Law Society (New Brunswick) (2003), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 247 (S.C.C.); New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir (2008), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190 (S.C.C.); Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) (2009), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339 (S.C.C.); Jones & de Villars, Principles of Administrative Law, 5th ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 2009), chap. 12 (historical development of the principles governing standards of review). FN2. New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir (2008), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190 (S.C.C.); Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) (2009), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339 (S.C.C.); Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) (2002), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3 (S.C.C.); Q. v. College of Physicians & Surgeons (British Columbia) (2003), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226 (S.C.C.); Ryan v. Law Society (New Brunswick) (2003), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 247 (S.C.C.); Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration) (1998), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982 (S.C.C.); additional reasons at (1998), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222 (S.C.C.). FN3. Voice Construction Ltd. v. Construction & General Workers' Union, Local 92 (2004), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 609 (S.C.C.). FN4. Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration) (1998), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982 (S.C.C.); additional reasons at (1998), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222 (S.C.C.). IV.2: Two Standards of Review: Reasonableness and Correctness FN1. New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir (2008), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190 (S.C.C.); see also Jones & de Villars, Principles of Administrative Law, 5th ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 2009),
chap. 12 (historical development of the principles governing standards of review); see also 404 (statutorily defined standards of review which may include a third standard of patent unreasonableness). FN2. Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) (2009), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339 (S.C.C.); Mills v. Ontario (Workplace Safety & Insurance Appeals Tribunal) (2008), 2008 ONCA 436 (Ont. C.A.); I.A.M. & A.W., Local 99 v. Finning International Inc. (2008), 2008 ABCA 400 (Alta. C.A.); leave to appeal refused (2009), 2009 CarswellAlta 563 (S.C.C.); Jones & de Villars, Principles of Administrative Law, 5th ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 2009), chap. 12 (historical development of the principles governing standards of review and the meaning of reasonableness). FN3. New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir (2008), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190 (S.C.C.); Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) (2009), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339 (S.C.C.); Petro-Canada v. British Columbia (Workers' Compensation Board) (2009), 2009 BCCA 396 (B.C. C.A.) (court reviewing on reasonableness standard should focus on result, not reasons for result); Burke v. N.A.P.E. (2010), 2010 NLCA 12 (N.L. C.A.) (for decision to be reasonable, delegate must respond to essential arguments); Leon's Furniture Ltd. v. Alberta (Information & Privacy Commissioner) (2011), 22 Admin. L.R. (5th) 11 (Alta. C.A.); leave to appeal refused (2011), 2011 CarswellAlta 1938 (S.C.C.) (court distinguishing between objective standard of reasonableness set out in statute and Dunsmuir standard); Catalyst Paper Corp. v. North Cowichan (District) (2012), 2012 CarswellBC 17 (S.C.C.); Doré c. Québec (Tribunal des professions) (2012), 2012 CarswellQue 2048 (S.C.C.) (court addressing how to reconcile concept of reasonableness with the concept of "reasonable limits" under s. 1 of Charter); Halifax (Regional Municipality) v. Canada (Public Works & Government Services) (2012), 2012 CarswellNat 1826 (S.C.C.); Irving Pulp & Paper Ltd. v. CEP, Local 30 (2013), 2013 CarswellNB 275 (S.C.C.) (illustrating what is reasonable to one judge may not be reasonable to another). FN4. Németh c. Canada (Ministre de la Justice) (2010), [2010] 3 S.C.R. 281 (S.C.C.). FN5. See, for example, Administrative Tribunals Act, S.B.C. 2004, c. 45, ss. 58, 59; Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 45.8 [en. 2006, c. 30, s. 5; am. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 35(3)]; Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) (2009), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339 (S.C.C.) (discussing s. 18.1 Federal Courts Act); Manz v. British Columbia (Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal) (2009), 82 Admin. L.R. (4th) 185 (B.C. C.A.); Victoria Times Colonist Group Inc. v. C.E.P., Local 25-G (2009), 2009 BCCA 229 (B.C. C.A.); Asquini v. British Columbia (Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal) (2009), 82 Admin. L.R. (4th) 127 (B.C. S.C. [In Chambers]); Tallarico v. British Columbia (Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal) (2009), 82 Admin. L.R.
(4th) 161 (B.C. S.C.); Buttar v. British Columbia (Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal) (2009), 2009 BCSC 1228 (B.C. S.C.); Doughty v. Whitworth Holdings Ltd. (2008), 2008 BCSC 801 (B.C. S.C.); McGrath v. British Columbia (Ministry of Children & Family Development) (2009), 2009 BCSC 180 (B.C. S.C.); Jensen v. British Columbia (Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal) (2010), 16 Admin. L.R. (5th) 76 (B.C. S.C.); affirmed (2011), 23 Admin. L.R. (5th) 200 (B.C. C.A.); Djakovic v. British Columbia (Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal) (2010), 12 Admin. L.R. (5th) 280 (B.C. S.C.); British Columbia (Workers' Compensation Board) v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal) (2011), 2011 CarswellBC 2702 (S.C.C.); U.S.W. v. Auyeung (2011), 2011 CarswellBC 3531 (B.C. C.A.) (court discussing effect that Dunsmuir has on standard of patently unreasonableness); Downs Construction Ltd. v. British Columbia (Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal) (2011), 2011 CarswellBC 2165 (B.C. S.C. [In Chambers]); reversed on other grounds (2012), 2012 CarswellBC 3044 (B.C. C.A.); Franzke v. British Columbia (Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal) (2011), 2011 CarswellBC 2191 (B.C. S.C.); Jones & de Villars, Principles of Administrative Law, 5th ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 2009), chap. 12 (concept of patent unreasonableness). FN6. New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir (2008), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190 (S.C.C.); Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) (2009), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339 (S.C.C.); Nabors Canada LP v. Alberta (Workers' Compensation Board Appeals Commission) (2006), 50 Admin. L.R. (4th) 290 (Alta. C.A.); leave to appeal refused (2007), 2007 CarswellAlta 834 (S.C.C.); Foster v. Alberta (Transportation & Safety Board) (2006), 53 Admin. L.R. (4th) 137 (Alta. C.A.); Chauvet v. Alberta (Workers' Compensation Board Appeals Commission) (2007), 55 Admin. L.R. (4th) 117 (Alta. C.A.); White v. Alberta (Workers' Compensation Board Appeals Commission) (2006), 41 Admin. L.R. (4th) 141 (Alta. Q.B.); Pincher Creek (Town) v. Alberta (Municipal Government Board) (2006), 2006 CarswellAlta 2092 (Alta. Q.B.); affirmed (2007), 2007 ABCA 360 (Alta. C.A.); Sparks v. British Columbia (Ministry of Public Safety & Solicitor General) (2009), 2009 BCCA 374 (B.C. C.A.). FN7. Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration) (1998), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982 (S.C.C.); additional reasons at (1998), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222 (S.C.C.); New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir (2008), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190 (S.C.C.); Kerry (Canada) Inc. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Financial Services) (2009), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 678 (S.C.C.); Coffey v. College of Licensed Practical Nurses (Manitoba) (2008), 2008 MBCA 33 (Man. C.A.); leave to appeal refused (2008), 2008 CarswellMan 488 (S.C.C.); Flora v. Ontario Health Insurance Plan (2008), 76 Admin. L.R. (4th) 132 (Ont. C.A.); Igbinosun v. Law Society of Upper Canada (2008), 83 Admin. L.R. (4th) 106 (Ont. Div. Ct.); affirmed (2009), 93 Admin. L.R. (4th) 249 (Ont. C.A.); Law Society of Upper Canada v. Evans (2008), 83 Admin. L.R. (4th) 86 (Ont. Div. Ct.).
FN8. Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration) (1998), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982 (S.C.C.); additional reasons at (1998), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222 (S.C.C.); New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir (2008), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190 (S.C.C.); Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) (2009), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339 (S.C.C.); see also 415-444. FN9. C.U.P.E. v. Ontario (Minister of Labour) (2003), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 539 (S.C.C.). FN10. Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration) (1998), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982 (S.C.C.); additional reasons at (1998), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222 (S.C.C.); Paul v. British Columbia (Forest Appeals Commission) (2003), [2003] 2 S.C.R. 585 (S.C.C.); Martin v. Nova Scotia (Workers' Compensation Board) (2003), [2003] 2 S.C.R. 504 (S.C.C.); New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir (2008), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190 (S.C.C.); Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) (2009), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339 (S.C.C.); Proprio Direct inc. c. Pigeon (2008), [2008] 2 S.C.R. 195 (S.C.C.); United States v. Lake (2008), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 761 (S.C.C.); Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony v. Alberta (2009), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 567 (S.C.C.); R. v. Conway (2010), [2010] 1 S.C.R. 765 (S.C.C.) (correctness presumably applying where Charter issue raised, although court not discussing standard of review); Northrop Grumman Overseas Services Corp. v. Canada (Department of Public Works & Government Services) (2009), [2009] 3 S.C.R. 309 (S.C.C.); Plourde c. Québec (Commission des relations du travail) (2009), [2009] 3 S.C.R. 465 (S.C.C.); MiningWatch Canada v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries & Oceans) (2010), [2010] 1 S.C.R. 6 (S.C.C.); United Taxi Drivers' Fellowship of Southern Alberta v. Calgary (City) (2004), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 485 (S.C.C.); M.A.H.C.P. v. Nor-Man Regional Health Authority Inc. (2011), 2011 CarswellMan 606 (S.C.C.); reversing (2010), 2010 CarswellMan 217 (Man. C.A.) (requirements for estoppel in labour relations matter not fitting into the category of question of "general law" that is of central importance to legal system and outside the adjudicator's specialized area of expertise); Halifax (Regional Municipality) v. Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission) (2012), 2012 CarswellNS 124 (S.C.C.) (court narrowing concept of "preliminary or collateral" questions of law which engage the correctness standard); Calgary Fire Fighters Assns. v. Calgary (City) (2011), 2011 CarswellAlta 590 (Alta. C.A.); A.T.A. v. Alberta (Information & Privacy Commissioner) (2011), 2011 CarswellAlta 2068 (S.C.C.); but see Investment Dealers Assn. of Canada v. Taub (2009), 2009 ONCA 628 (Ont. C.A.); Hibernia Management & Development Co. v. Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board (2008), 84 Admin. L.R. (4th) 241 (N.L. C.A.); leave to appeal refused (2009), 2009 CarswellNfld 45 (S.C.C.) (reasonableness may be proper standard on questions of law); Amherst (Town) v. Nova Scotia (Superintendent of Pensions) (2008), 91 Admin. L.R. (4th) 256 (N.S. C.A.). FN11. Lévis (Ville) c. Côté (2007), [2007] 1 S.C.R. 591 (S.C.C.); VIA Rail Canada Inc. v. Canadian Transportation Agency (2007), [2007] 1 S.C.R. 650 (S.C.C.); Halifax (Regional Municipality) v.
Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission) (2012), 2012 CarswellNS 124 (S.C.C.) (court narrowing concept of "preliminary or collateral" questions of law which engage the correctness standard); M.A.H.C.P. v. Nor-Man Regional Health Authority Inc. (2011), 2011 CarswellMan 606 (S.C.C.); reversing (2010), 2010 CarswellMan 217 (Man. C.A.) (requirements for estoppel in labour relations matter not fitting into the category of question of "general law" that is of central importance to legal system and outside adjudicator's specialized area of expertise); Canada (Attorney General) v. Mowat (2011), 2011 CarswellNat 4190 (S.C.C.) (question being one of true jurisdiction if it requires tribunal to explicitly determine whether its statutory grant of power gives it authority to decide matter). FN12. Cuddy Chicks Ltd. v. Ontario (Labour Relations Board) (1991), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 5 (S.C.C.); Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration) (1998), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982 (S.C.C.); additional reasons at (1998), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222 (S.C.C.); Paul v. British Columbia (Forest Appeals Commission) (2003), [2003] 2 S.C.R. 585 (S.C.C.); Martin v. Nova Scotia (Workers' Compensation Board) (2003), [2003] 2 S.C.R. 504 (S.C.C.); New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir (2008), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190 (S.C.C.); Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) (2009), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339 (S.C.C.); Alliance Pipeline Ltd. v. Smith (2011), [2011] 1 S.C.R. 160 (S.C.C.); Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony v. Alberta (2009), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 567 (S.C.C.); R. v. Conway (2010), [2010] 1 S.C.R. 765 (S.C.C.) (correctness presumably applying where Charter issue raised, although court not discussing standard of review); Halifax (Regional Municipality) v. Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission) (2012), 2012 CarswellNS 124 (S.C.C.) (court narrowing concept of "preliminary or collateral" questions of law which engage the correctness standard); Calgary Fire Fighters Assns. v. Calgary (City) (2011), 2011 CarswellAlta 590 (Alta. C.A.); Nunavut v. Nunavut Employees Union (2011), 2011 CarswellNun 22 (Nun. C.J.); A.T.A. v. Alberta (Information & Privacy Commissioner) (2011), 2011 CarswellAlta 2068 (S.C.C.); but see Consolidated Fastfrate Inc. v. Western Canada Council of Teamsters (2009), [2009] 3 S.C.R. 407 (S.C.C.) (correctness not always being proper standard in constitutional cases; not being proper where constitutional analysis capable of being separated from factual findings); United States v. Lake (2008), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 761 (S.C.C.) (reasonableness being proper standard even though Charter issues raised); M.A.H.C.P. v. Nor-Man Regional Health Authority Inc. (2011), 2011 CarswellMan 606 (S.C.C.); reversing (2010), 2010 CarswellMan 217 (Man. C.A.) (requirements for estoppel in labour relations matter not fitting into the category of question of "general law" that is of central importance to legal system and outside the adjudicator's specialized area of expertise); Doré c. Québec (Tribunal des professions) (2012), 2012 CarswellQue 2048 (S.C.C.) (court distinguishing between cases involving issue of whether law violates Charter and cases involving issue of whether decision violates Charter); AUPE v. Alberta (2011), 2011 CarswellAlta 2029 (Alta. Q.B.); affirmed (2013),
2013 CarswellAlta 991 (Alta. C.A.); leave to appeal refused (2013), 2013 CarswellAlta 2291 (S.C.C.); Tursunbayev v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety & Emergency Preparedness) (2012), 2012 CarswellNat 1327 (F.C.) (reasonableness standard applying even though s. 7 Charter interests being implicated). FN13. Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration) (1998), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982 (S.C.C.); additional reasons at (1998), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222 (S.C.C.); New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir (2008), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190 (S.C.C.); Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) (2009), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339 (S.C.C.); British Columbia (Workers' Compensation Board) v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal) (2011), 2011 CarswellBC 2702 (S.C.C.); Halifax (Regional Municipality) v. Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission) (2012), 2012 CarswellNS 124 (S.C.C.) (Commission's decision to appoint board of inquiry being discretionary in nature); Halifax (Regional Municipality) v. Canada (Public Works & Government Services) (2012), 2012 CarswellNat 1826 (S.C.C.); Catalyst Paper Corp. v. North Cowichan (District) (2012), 2012 CarswellBC 17 (S.C.C.); Doré c. Québec (Tribunal des professions) (2012), 2012 CarswellQue 2048 (S.C.C.); UFCW-Can, Local 401 v. Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) (2012), [2012] 6 W.W.R. 211 (Alta. C.A.); leave to appeal allowed (2012), 2012 CarswellAlta 1769 (S.C.C.); Alberta (Minister of Education) v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (2012), 2012 CarswellNat 2419 (S.C.C.); Kane v. Canada (Deputy Head - Service Canada) (2012), 2012 CarswellNat 4550 (S.C.C.); AUPE v. Alberta (2011), 2011 CarswellAlta 2029 (Alta. Q.B.); affirmed (2013), 2013 CarswellAlta 991 (Alta. C.A.); Irving Pulp & Paper Ltd. v. CEP, Local 30 (2013), 2013 CarswellNB 275 (S.C.C.); but see M.A.H.C.P. v. Nor-Man Regional Health Authority Inc. (2011), 2011 CarswellMan 606 (S.C.C.); reversing (2010), 2010 CarswellMan 217 (Man. C.A.) (requirements for estoppel in labour relations matter attracting reasonableness standard). FN14. New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir (2008), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190 (S.C.C.); Alliance Pipeline Ltd. v. Smith (2011), [2011] 1 S.C.R. 160 (S.C.C.); Celgene Corp. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2011), [2011] 1 S.C.R. 3 (S.C.C.); Proprio Direct inc. c. Pigeon (2008), [2008] 2 S.C.R. 195 (S.C.C.); Kerry (Canada) Inc. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Financial Services) (2009), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 678 (S.C.C.) (where question involves interpretation of enabling statute, correctness being proper standard only in exceptional circumstances); Leon's Furniture Ltd. v. Alberta (Information & Privacy Commissioner) (2011), 22 Admin. L.R. (5th) 11 (Alta. C.A.); leave to appeal refused (2011), 2011 CarswellAlta 1938 (S.C.C.); Hopewell Development (Leduc) Inc., Re (2011), 17 Admin. L.R. (5th) 119 (Alta. C.A.); Canada (Attorney General) v. Mowat (2011), 2011 CarswellNat 4190 (S.C.C.); A.T.A. v. Alberta (Information & Privacy Commissioner) (2011), 2011 CarswellAlta 2068 (S.C.C.); U.S.W. v. Auyeung (2011), 2011 CarswellBC 3531 (B.C. C.A.);
UBCJA, Local 1985 v. Saskatchewan (Labour Relations Board) (2011), 2011 CarswellSask 712 (Sask. Q.B.); additional reasons at (2013), 2013 CarswellSask 384 (Sask. Q.B.); Global Crédit & collection inc. c. Québec (Commission des relations du travail) (2011), 2011 CarswellQue 13627 (Que. C.A.); Kelly v. Alberta (Energy Resources Conservation Board) (2012), 2012 CarswellAlta 93 (Alta. C.A.); Entertainment Software Assn. v. Society of Composers, Authors & Music Publishers of Canada (2012), 2012 CarswellNat 2376 (S.C.C.); Edmonton School District No. 7 v. ATA (2013), 2013 CarswellAlta 592 (Alta. C.A.); Irving Pulp & Paper Ltd. v. CEP, Local 30 (2013), 2013 CarswellNB 275 (S.C.C.); but see Shaw Cablesystems G.P. v. Society of Composers, Authors & Music Publishers of Canada (2012), 2012 CarswellNat 2378 (S.C.C.) (court applying correctness standard because under statutory scheme court having jurisdiction with respect to same legal issues); Georgia Strait Alliance v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries & Oceans) (2012), 2012 CarswellNat 262 (F.C.A.) (court distinguishing between adjudicative statutory delegates and non-adjudicative delegates); Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) v. Dhillon (2012), 2012 CarswellNat 1904 (F.C.). FN15. Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration) (1998), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982 (S.C.C.); additional reasons at (1998), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222 (S.C.C.); Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) (2009), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339 (S.C.C.) (reasonableness may be appropriate even where court reviewing question of law); Pezim v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Brokers) (1994), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 557 (S.C.C.); Western Forest Products Inc. v. Hayes Forest Services Ltd. (2009), 92 Admin. L.R. (4th) 19 (B.C. C.A.); Investment Dealers Assn. of Canada v. Taub (2009), 2009 ONCA 628 (Ont. C.A.); Hibernia Management & Development Co. v. Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board (2008), 84 Admin. L.R. (4th) 241 (N.L. C.A.); leave to appeal refused (2009), 2009 CarswellNfld 45 (S.C.C.) (reasonableness may be proper standard on questions of law); M.A.H.C.P. v. Nor-Man Regional Health Authority Inc. (2011), 2011 CarswellMan 606 (S.C.C.); reversing (2010), 2010 CarswellMan 217 (Man. C.A.) (requirements for estoppel in labour relations matter not fitting into the category of question of "general law" that is of central importance to legal system and outside the adjudicator's specialized area of expertise). FN16. U.N.A., Local 301 v. Capital Health Authority (University of Alberta) (2009), 94 Admin. L.R. (4th) 165 (Alta. C.A.); Guinn v. Manitoba (2009), 98 Admin. L.R. (4th) 68 (Man. C.A.); Maritime Paper Products Ltd. v. C.E.P., Local 1520 (2009), 2009 NSCA 60 (N.S. C.A.); Simard c. Québec (Juge de la Cour du Québec) (2009), 96 Admin. L.R. (4th) 96 (Que. C.A.); leave to appeal refused (2009), 2009 CarswellQue 8916 (S.C.C.); Investment Dealers Assn. of Canada v. Taub (2009), 2009 ONCA 628 (Ont. C.A.); Burke v. N.A.P.E. (2010), 2010 NLCA 12 (N.L. C.A.) (for decision to be reasonable, delegate must respond to essential arguments); NAPE v. Newfoundland and
Labrador Health Boards Assn. (2010), 11 Admin. L.R. (5th) 142 (N.L. T.D.); reversed in part on other grounds (2012), 2012 CarswellNfld 477 (N.L. C.A.). IV.4: Distinction Between the Standard to be Applied by the Delegate at First Instance and the Standard of Review to be Applied by the Courts FN1. Q. v. College of Physicians & Surgeons (British Columbia) (2003), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226 (S.C.C.); Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) (2002), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3 (S.C.C.); see also C. (R.) v. McDougall (2008), 2008 CarswellBC 2041 (S.C.C.) (there being only one standard of proof in civil matters: "on the balance of probabilities"). IV.5: Standard to be applied by Higher Court to Lower Court s Choice of Standard FN1. Q. v. College of Physicians & Surgeons (British Columbia) (2003), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226 (S.C.C.); Alberta (Minister of Municipal Affairs) v. Alberta (Municipal Government Board) (2002), 45 Admin. L.R. (3d) 1 (Alta. C.A.); leave to appeal refused (2003), 314 N.R. 208 (note) (S.C.C.); additional reasons at (2003), 6 Admin. L.R. (4th) 221 (Alta. C.A.); C.U.P.E. v. Ontario (Minister of Labour) (2003), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 539 (S.C.C.); Henthorne v. British Columbia Ferry Services Inc. (2011), 2011 CarswellBC 3118 (B.C. C.A.); Leon's Furniture Ltd. v. Alberta (Information & Privacy Commissioner) (2011), 2011 CarswellAlta 453 (Alta. C.A.); leave to appeal refused (2011), 2011 CarswellAlta 1938 (S.C.C.); Pridgen v. University of Calgary (2012), 2012 CarswellAlta 797 (Alta. C.A.); Lebon v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety & Emergency Preparedness) (2012), 2012 CarswellNat 2416 (F.C.A.). IV.6: Different Judges May Select Different Standards or Apply Same Standard Differently FN1. Voice Construction Ltd. v. Construction & General Workers' Union, Local 92 (2004), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 609 (S.C.C.); Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Financial Services) (2004), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 152 (S.C.C.); A.U.P.E. v. Lethbridge Community College (2004), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 727 (S.C.C.); Barrie Public Utilities v. Canadian Cable Television Assn. (2003), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 476 (S.C.C.); Lévis (Ville) c. Côté (2007), [2007] 1 S.C.R. 591 (S.C.C.); VIA Rail Canada Inc. v. Canadian Transportation Agency (2007), [2007] 1 S.C.R. 650 (S.C.C.); New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir (2008), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190 (S.C.C.); Celgene Corp. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2011), 2011 CarswellNat 34 (S.C.C.).
FN2. Chieu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) (2002), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 84 (S.C.C.); Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration) (1998), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982 (S.C.C.); additional reasons at (1998), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222 (S.C.C.); MacDonell c. Québec (Commission d'accès à l'information) (2002), [2002] 3 S.C.R. 661 (S.C.C.); C.U.P.E. v. Ontario (Minister of Labour) (2003), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 539 (S.C.C.); Barrie Public Utilities v. Canadian Cable Television Assn. (2003), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 476 (S.C.C.); Starson v. Swayze (2003), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 722 (S.C.C.); Irving Pulp & Paper Ltd. v. CEP, Local 30 (2013), 2013 CarswellNB 275 (S.C.C.). IV.7: Different Standards of Review May Apply to Different Issues FN1. Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration) (1998), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982 (S.C.C.); additional reasons at (1998), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222 (S.C.C.); Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) (1999), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817 (S.C.C.); Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) (2002), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3 (S.C.C.); MacDonell c. Québec (Commission d'accès à l'information) (2002), [2002] 3 S.C.R. 661 (S.C.C.); Barrie Public Utilities v. Canadian Cable Television Assn. (2003), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 476 (S.C.C.); C.U.P.E. v. Ontario (Minister of Labour) (2003), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 539 (S.C.C.); Toronto (City) v. C.U.P.E., Local 79 (2003), [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77 (S.C.C.); Lévis (Ville) c. Côté (2007), [2007] 1 S.C.R. 591 (S.C.C.); VIA Rail Canada Inc. v. Canadian Transportation Agency (2007), [2007] 1 S.C.R. 650 (S.C.C.); University of British Columbia v. University of British Columbia Faculty Assn. (2007), 59 Admin. L.R. (4th) 245 (B.C. C.A.); leave to appeal refused (2007), 2007 CarswellBC 2577 (S.C.C.). IV.8: The Application of the Standard of Review Analysis to Discretionary Decisions FN1. Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) (1999), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817 (S.C.C.) (pragmatic and functional approach being required to determine standard of review for reviewing exercise of discretionary decisions); C.U.P.E. v. Ontario (Minister of Labour) (2003), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 539 (S.C.C.); Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) (2002), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3 (S.C.C.); Centre hospitalier Mont-Sinaï c. Québec (Ministre de la Santé & des Services sociaux) (2001), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 281 (S.C.C.); Chieu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) (2002), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 84 (S.C.C.); Moreau-Bérubé c. Nouveau-Brunswick (2002), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 249 (S.C.C.); British Columbia (Workers' Compensation Board) v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal) (2011), 2011 CarswellBC 2702 (S.C.C.); Halifax (Regional Municipality) v. Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission) (2012), 2012 CarswellNS 124 (S.C.C.) (commission's decision to appoint board of inquiry being discretionary in nature); Halifax (Regional
Municipality) v. Canada (Public Works & Government Services) (2012), 2012 CarswellNat 1826 (S.C.C.); S.T.T.P. c. Société canadienne des postes (2012), 2012 CarswellNat 208 (F.C.). IV.9: The Standard May Change Over Time FN1. Ivanhoe inc. c. Travailleurs & travailleuses unis de l'alimentation & du commerce, section 500 (2001), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 565 (S.C.C.). IV.10: Standards of Review and Administrative Appellate Bodies FN1. Plimmer v. Calgary (City) Chief of Police (2004), 2004 ABCA 175 (Alta. C.A.); Nelson v. Assn. of Registered Nurses (Alberta) (2005), 2005 ABCA 229 (Alta. C.A.); Litchfield v. College of Physicians & Surgeons (Alberta) (2008), 2008 ABCA 164 (Alta. C.A.); Newton v. Criminal Trial Lawyers' Assn. (2010), 14 Admin. L.R. (5th) 181 (Alta. C.A.); Eltom v. Alberta (Law Enforcement Review Board) (2011), 2011 ABCA 260 (Alta. C.A.); Barreau (Québec) c. Québec (Tribunal des professions) (2011), 2011 QCCA 1498 (Que. C.A.); leave to appeal refused (2012), 2012 CarswellQue 1921 (S.C.C.); Pelech v. Alberta (Law Enforcement Review Board) (2010), 13 Admin. L.R. (5th) 189 (Alta. C.A.); Simard c. Richard (2010), 14 Admin. L.R. (5th) 289 (Que. S.C.); leave to appeal refused (2010), 2010 CarswellQue 13770 (Que. C.A.); Simard c. Québec (Juge de la Cour du Québec) (2009), 2009 QCCA 1345 (Que. C.A.); Sussman v. College of Psychologists (Alberta) (2010), 16 Admin. L.R. (5th) 211 (Alta. C.A.). FN2. Newton v. Criminal Trial Lawyers' Assn. (2010), 14 Admin. L.R. (5th) 181 (Alta. C.A.); Pelech v. Alberta (Law Enforcement Review Board) (2010), 13 Admin. L.R. (5th) 189 (Alta. C.A.); Eltom v. Alberta (Law Enforcement Review Board) (2011), 2011 ABCA 260 (Alta. C.A.); Osteria de Medici Restaurant Ltd. v. Yaworski (2009), 3 Admin. L.R. (5th) 9 (Alta. Q.B.); Sussman v. College of Psychologists (Alberta) (2010), 16 Admin. L.R. (5th) 211 (Alta. C.A.). FN3. Newton v. Criminal Trial Lawyers' Assn. (2010), 14 Admin. L.R. (5th) 181 (Alta. C.A.); Pelech v. Alberta (Law Enforcement Review Board) (2010), 13 Admin. L.R. (5th) 189 (Alta. C.A.); Eltom v. Alberta (Law Enforcement Review Board) (2011), 2011 ABCA 260 (Alta. C.A.); Sussman v. College of Psychologists (Alberta) (2010), 16 Admin. L.R. (5th) 211 (Alta. C.A.). FN4. Halifax (Regional Municipality) v. Anglican Diocesan Centre Corp. (2010), 7 Admin. L.R. (5th) 239 (N.S. C.A.); Creelman v. Truro (Town) (2010), 2010 NSCA 27 (N.S. C.A.); KPMG inc. c. Montréal (Ville) (2010), 2010 QCCA 68 (Que. C.A.); Brian Neil Friesen Dental Corp. v. Manitoba (Director of Companies Office) (2011), 2011 CarswellMan 50 (Man. C.A.). IV.11: The Distinction Between the Standard of Review and the Content of the Duty of Fairness
FN1. Moreau-Bérubé c. Nouveau-Brunswick (2002), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 249 (S.C.C.) (standard of review analysis not being required in determining whether there had been a breach of procedural fairness); C.U.P.E. v. Ontario (Minister of Labour) (2003), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 539 (S.C.C.); Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) (1999), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817 (S.C.C.); British Columbia (Securities Commission) v. Pacific International Securities Inc. (2002), 2002 BCCA 421 (B.C. C.A.); Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner v. MacDonald (2009), 3 Admin. L.R. (5th) 278 (Ont. C.A.) (standard of review analysis not being required where allegation of unfair procedure); Bowater Mersey Paper Co. v. C.E.P., Local 141 (2010), 3 Admin. L.R. (5th) 261 (N.S. C.A.) (standard of review analysis not being required where allegation of unfair procedure); Homburg Canada Inc. v. Nova Scotia (Utility & Review Board) (2010), 5 Admin. L.R. (5th) 266 (N.S. C.A.) (standard of review analysis not being triggered by allegation of breach of procedural fairness); see also I.B.E.W., Local 894 v. Ellis-Don Ltd. (2001), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 221 (S.C.C.) (dissenting judgment; standard of review for issues of procedural fairness being correctness); Boardwalk Reit LLP v. Edmonton (City) (2008), 75 Admin. L.R. (4th) 19 (Alta. C.A.); reconsideration refused (2008), 2008 CarswellAlta 1084 (Alta. C.A.); leave to appeal refused (2008), 2008 CarswellAlta 2026 (S.C.C.); Western Forest Products Inc. v. Hayes Forest Services Ltd. (2009), 92 Admin. L.R. (4th) 19 (B.C. C.A.); but see Sketchley v. Canada (Attorney General) (2005), 44 Admin. L.R. (4th) 4 (F.C.A.). FN2. R. v. M. (R.E.) (2008), [2008] 3 S.C.R. 3 (S.C.C.); Burke v. N.A.P.E. (2010), 2010 NLCA 12 (N.L. C.A.); Leon's Furniture Ltd. v. Alberta (Information & Privacy Commissioner) (2011), 22 Admin. L.R. (5th) 11 (Alta. C.A.); leave to appeal refused (2011), 2011 CarswellAlta 1938 (S.C.C.); BTC Properties II Ltd. v. Calgary (City) (2010), 19 Admin. L.R. (5th) 283 (Alta. Q.B.); affirmed (2012), 2012 CarswellAlta 16 (Alta. C.A.); Spinks v. Alberta (Law Enforcement Review Board) (2011), 23 Admin. L.R. (5th) 1 (Alta. C.A.) (court rejecting deferential approach to assessing adequacy of reasons); Sussman v. College of Psychologists (Alberta) (2010), 16 Admin. L.R. (5th) 211 (Alta. C.A.); Clifford v. Ontario (Attorney General) (2009), 93 Admin. L.R. (4th) 131 (Ont. C.A.); leave to appeal refused (2010), 2010 CarswellOnt 439 (S.C.C.); N.L.N.U. v. Newfoundland & Labrador (Treasury Board) (2010), 2010 NLCA 13 (N.L. C.A.); affirmed (2011), 2011 CarswellNfld 414 (S.C.C.); Petro-Canada v. British Columbia (Workers' Compensation Board) (2009), 2009 BCCA 396 (B.C. C.A.); but see N.L.N.U. v. Newfoundland & Labrador (Treasury Board) (2011), 2011 CarswellNfld 414 (S.C.C.) (inadequacy of delegate's reasons not being stand-alone ground for judicial review); BTC Properties II Ltd. v. Calgary (City) (2012), 2012 CarswellAlta 16 (Alta. C.A.); Cameron Corp. v. Edmonton (Subdivision & Development Appeal Board) (2011), 2011 CarswellAlta 2162 (Alta. C.A.); affirmed (2012), 2012 ABCA 254 (Alta. C.A.).