Administrative Law Flashcards

An applicant for judicial review argues that a tribunal's decision is reasonable but that the tribunal breached procedural fairness. How should the court approach this?

Answer: Procedural fairness is reviewed on its own framework (correctness), separate from the merits review under Vavilov

Post-Vavilov, procedural fairness remains a stand-alone ground reviewed on a correctness-like standard—courts ask whether the process was fair, without deference. This is entirely separate from the Vavilov reasonableness framework applicable to the merits.

The Administrative Procedures and Jurisdiction Act (Alberta) or equivalent provincial statutes impose procedural requirements on administrative tribunals. If a tribunal's enabling statute conflicts with such a general administrative procedures statute, which prevails?

Answer: The specific enabling statute prevails as the more specific legislation

The principle of lex specialis (specific legislation prevails over general legislation) means the tribunal's enabling statute governs its procedures when it conflicts with a general administrative procedures statute. The general statute fills gaps not addressed by the enabling statute.

What is the primary purpose of the 'record' on judicial review, and what does it typically include?

Answer: It is the documentary basis for reviewing the tribunal's decision, including evidence, submissions, and the decision itself

Judicial review proceeds on the record of the proceedings below, not on fresh evidence. The record includes the evidence before the tribunal, the parties' submissions, and the decision. Courts do not hold trials on judicial review; they review what was before the decision-maker.

A statute grants a minister discretion to grant exemptions from a regulation 'in the public interest.' The minister refuses an exemption without considering relevant factors identified in the legislative history. What administrative law doctrine is engaged?

Answer: Consideration of irrelevant factors or failure to consider relevant ones, making the decision unreasonable

A decision-maker must take into account all relevant factors and exclude irrelevant ones. Failing to consider relevant factors (such as those embedded in the statute's purpose or legislative history) renders the decision unreasonable under Vavilov.

Standing to seek judicial review in Canada is governed by which principle?

Answer: Public interest standing may be granted where there is a serious legal issue, the applicant has a genuine interest, and there is no other reasonable means to bring the issue before the court

Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada [1992] and Downtown Eastside Sex Workers v. Canada [2012] established the public interest standing test: (1) serious justiciable issue; (2) real stake or genuine interest; (3) proposed suit is a reasonable and effective means to bring the issue to court.

Which Canadian case established that administrative decision-makers interpreting their own constituent statutes are entitled to reasonableness review rather than correctness?

Answer: Both A and C, which jointly established this principle

Both Dunsmuir [2008] and Vavilov [2019] established this principle, though Vavilov refined and strengthened it. Dunsmuir created the modern framework with a presumption of reasonableness for tribunals interpreting their home statute; Vavilov consolidated and clarified it.