To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback.

DescriptionAdministrative law — Judicial review — Standard of review
Immigration — Judicial review — Inadmissibility and removal

(00:00:11) Reasons for Judgment: Jamal J. (Wagner C.J. and Karakatsanis, Rowe, Martin, Kasirer and O’Bonsawin JJ. concurring)
(00:00:20) I. Overview – 1
(00:08:27) II. Facts – 13
(00:08:28) A. Mr. Earl Mason – 13
(00:11:30) B. Mr. Seifeslam Dleiow – 17
(00:12:49) III. Decisions Below – 19
(00:12:51) A. Immigration Division Decision (Mr. Mason) – 19
(00:13:35) B. Immigration Appeal Division Decision (Mr. Mason) – 20
(00:14:17) C. Immigration Division Decision (Mr. Dleiow) – 21
(00:15:08) D. Federal Court Decision (Mr. Mason) – 22
(00:19:30) E. Federal Court Decision (Mr. Dleiow) – 27
(00:19:55) F. Federal Court of Appeal (Mr. Mason and Mr. Dleiow) (Stratas JA, Rennie and Mactavish JJA concurring) – 28
(00:23:45) IV. Issues – 34
(00:23:58) V. Analysis – 35
(00:24:21) A. The Standard of Review – 36
(00:26:41) (1) The Standard of Review Is Presumptively Reasonableness – 39
(00:29:47) (2) No Established Exception to the Presumption Applies – 45
(00:31:52) (3) The Certified Question Regime Under the IRPA Does Not Displace the Presumption – 48
(00:36:27) (4) Conclusion – 54
(00:36:43) B. Reasonableness Review – 55
(00:37:07) (1) Vavilov’s Guidance on Reasonableness Review of Administrative Decisions – 56
(00:37:26) (a) The Purpose of Reasonableness Review – Upholding the Rule of Law While According Deference – 57
(00:38:22) (b) A “Reasons First” Approach – 58
(00:42:46) (c) Indicators of Unreasonableness – 64
(00:43:18) (i) Failures of Rationality in the Reasoning Process – 65
(00:43:52) (ii) Failures of Justification in Light of the Legal and Factual Constraints – 66
(00:52:07) (2) Methodology of Reasonableness Review in the Courts Below – 78
(00:53:53) C. Were the Administrative Decisions Reasonable? – 80
(00:55:15) (1) The IAD’s Reasons in Mr. Mason’s Case – 83
(00:58:51) (2) Failures of Justification in the IAD’s Reasons – 84
(01:00:34) (a) Failure to Address Two Significant Points of Statutory Context – 86
(01:07:18) (b) Failure to Address Potentially Broad Consequences – 98
(01:12:19) (c) Failure to Address Constraints Imposed by International Law – 104
(01:25:51) D. Conclusion and Remedy – 118
(01:29:17) VI. Disposition – 123

(01:29:43) Concurring Reasons: Côté J.
(01:29:47) I. Introduction – 124
(01:32:26) II. Analysis – 128
(01:32:28) A. The Standard of Review for Certified Questions Under the IRPA Is Undecided Post‑Vavilov – 128
(01:32:34) (1) Pre‑Vavilov Jurisprudence – 128
(01:39:40) (2) Vavilov – 138
(01:43:50) B. Certified Questions Under the IRPA Should Be Recognized as a New Category of Correctness Review – 146
(01:43:56) (1) Legislative Intent – 146
(01:51:58) (2) The Rule of Law – 158
(01:52:14) (a) The Risk of Arbitrariness Is Unacceptable in This Context – 159
(01:58:20) (b) Consequences for the Justice System as a Whole or Other Institutions of Government – 169
(02:04:21) III. Application – 176
(02:10:49) IV. Conclusion – 187
(02:12:05) V. Disposition – 189