Part III discusses the practical implications of this. Part II discusses the palpable and overriding error standard that now applies to findings of fact made by administrators whose decisions are subject to a statutory appeal. Part I of this article introduces the Vavilov framework for standard of review, and particularly how it addresses statutory appeals. It is this specific area – where the availability of judicial review seems to have been constrained by Vavilov – that we explore in this article. What has been absent from most commentaries on Vavilov is the impact on findings of fact subject to statutory appeals: such findings are now to be reviewed on a standard of palpable and overriding error. One of those areas where correctness review now applies is when an administrative decision is subject to a statutory appeal on a question of law. This is certainly the case more frequently, as there is now greater necessity for administrators to justify their reasons and correctness review now applies more broadly. Much of the praise appears to be premised on the notion that judicial review is less illusory. Despite detractors, Vavilov appears to have been quite well received, providing clarity in what was an unwieldy area of law. Decades of case law was synthesized – or overturned, depending on one’s point of view – as a new framework was promulgated for substantive review of administrative decisions. The Supreme Court of Canada’s December 2019 decision in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov was a game-changer in Canadian administrative law.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |