Administrative law — Judicial review — Standard of review
Citizenship — Canadian citizens
(0:00:11) Joint Reasons for Judgment: Wagner C.J. and Moldaver, Gascon, Côté, Brown, Rowe and Martin JJ.
(0:00:19) Preamble – 1
(0:01:59) I. Need for Clarification and Simplification of the Law of Judicial Review – 4
(0:09:23) II. Determining the Applicable Standard of Review – 16
(0:14:30) A. Presumption That Reasonableness Is the Applicable Standard – 23
(0:21:59) B. Derogation From the Presumption of Reasonableness Review on the Basis of Legislative Intent – 33
(0:22:52) (1) Legislated Standards of Review – 34
(0:23:48) (2) Statutory Appeal Mechanisms – 36
(0:37:12) C. The Applicable Standard Is Correctness Where Required by the Rule of Law – 53
(0:38:10) (1) Constitutional Questions – 55
(0:39:55) (2) General Questions of Law of Central Importance to the Legal System as a Whole – 58
(0:43:23) (3) Questions Regarding the Jurisdictional Boundaries Between Two or More Administrative Bodies – 63
(0:45:18) D. A Note Regarding Jurisdictional Questions – 65
(0:49:43) E. Other Circumstances Requiring a Derogation From the Presumption of Reasonableness Review – 69
(0:54:19) III. Performing Reasonableness Review – 73
(0:55:27) A. Procedural Fairness and Substantive Review – 76
(0:59:05) B. Reasonableness Review Is Concerned With the Decision-making Process and Its Outcomes – 82
(1:03:09) C. Reasonableness Is a Single Standard That Accounts for Context – 88
(1:05:00) D. Formal Reasons for a Decision Should Be Read in Light of the Record and With Due Sensitivity to the Administrative Setting in Which They Were Given – 91
(1:12:07) E. A Reasonable Decision Is One That Is Both Based on an Internally Coherent Reasoning and Justified in Light of the Legal and Factual Constraints That Bear on the Decision – 99
(1:13:54) (1) A Reasonable Decision Is Based on an Internally Coherent Reasoning – 102
(1:15:43) (2) A Reasonable Decision Is Justified in Light of the Legal and Factual Constraints That Bear on the Decision – 105
(1:17:22) (a) Governing Statutory Scheme – 108
(1:20:45) (b) Other Statutory or Common Law – 111
(1:23:58) (c) Principles of Statutory Interpretation – 115
(1:30:21) (d) Evidence Before the Decision Maker – 125
(1:31:43) (e) Submissions of the Parties – 127
(1:33:01) (f) Past Practices and Past Decisions – 129
(1:36:35) (g) Impact of the Decision on the Affected Individual – 133
(1:38:15) F. Review in the Absence of Reasons – 136
(1:40:36) G. A Note on Remedial Discretion – 139
(1:43:10) IV. Role of Prior Jurisprudence – 143
(1:45:25) V. Mr. Vavilov's Application for Judicial Review – 146
(1:46:15) A. Facts – 147
(1:50:17) B. Procedural History – 152
(2:00:45) C. Analysis – 169
(2:00:46) (1) Standard of Review – 169
(2:02:08) (2) Review for Reasonableness – 171
(2:03:52) (a) Section 3(2) of the Citizenship Act – 174
(2:06:47) (b) The Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act and the Treaties It Implements – 177
(2:13:55) (c) Jurisprudence Interpreting Section 3(2) of the Citizenship Act – 183
(2:19:42) (d) Possible Consequences of the Registrar’s Interpretation – 189
(2:23:47) D. Conclusion – 194
(2:26:27) E. Disposition – 197
(2:26:32) Joint Concurring Reasons: Abella and Karakatsanis JJ.
