Administrative Law Flashcards

An applicant alleges that a tribunal's decision is unreasonable because the reasoning is internally incoherent. Under Vavilov, which aspect of reasonableness review does this engage?

Answer: The 'rationality' branch: whether the decision has logical coherence and internal consistency

Vavilov identifies two broad requirements for a reasonable decision: (1) it must be justified (adequate reasoning) and (2) the reasoning must be internally coherent and rational. An internally incoherent decision—one with logical contradictions—fails the coherence requirement.

The Federal Court grants judicial review and sets aside an immigration officer's decision. The applicant requests the Court to substitute its own decision granting permanent residence. Under the Federal Courts Act, when can the Court substitute its own decision rather than remitting?

Answer: Only when there is a single reasonable outcome on the record and remitting would be pointless

Section 18.1(3)(b) of the Federal Courts Act allows the Court to substitute its opinion for that of the tribunal when there is only one possible outcome—when the evidence admits of only one reasonable decision. Otherwise, the Court remits with directions.

Which of the following decisions would most likely attract correctness review under Vavilov?

Answer: A tribunal's ruling on whether a provision of its enabling statute is constitutionally valid

Constitutional questions—including the constitutional validity of a statutory provision—attract correctness review under Vavilov because there must be a consistent answer across all decision-makers. The other options involve the tribunal's expert application of its enabling statute, warranting reasonableness.

A provincial statute requires a nursing home operator to be given 30 days' notice before licence revocation and an opportunity to respond. The regulator revokes the licence on two days' notice due to an alleged emergency. What is the strongest ground for judicial review?

Answer: Breach of procedural fairness by failing to comply with the statutory procedure

Where a statute expressly prescribes procedural steps, failure to follow them is a breach of procedural fairness (and statutory authority). Even if an emergency might justify modified procedures, the regulator must establish that basis and provide some opportunity to respond.

In the context of administrative law, what is the significance of 'reasons that hold up to scrutiny' as discussed in Vavilov?

Answer: The adequacy of reasons is assessed based on whether they allow meaningful appellate review and show the decision was justified

Vavilov held that reasons must be read as a whole and in context. They are adequate if they allow the reviewing court to understand why the decision was made and whether it falls within the range of acceptable outcomes. Perfection is not required, but the decision must be transparent, intelligible, and justified.

What remedy is available at common law when a person is unlawfully detained by a government authority, including under an administrative order?

Answer: Habeas corpus

Habeas corpus ('produce the body') is the ancient writ compelling the authority detaining a person to produce the person before a court and justify the detention. It is protected as a constitutional right in Canada and cannot be abolished by statute.