NCA Study Guide 2026

Under Vavilov, a decision that ignores or misreads clear statutory language will typically be unreasonable. The reasonableness framework asks whether the decision is justified in light of the legal and factual constraints—clear statutory text is a key constraint.

Judicial review of provincial administrative tribunal decisions is sought in the provincial superior court (e.g., Divisional Court in Ontario, Court of King's Bench in Alberta). Federal administrative decisions are reviewed in the Federal Court under the Federal Courts Act.

Rule 3.4 of the LSO Rules prohibits acting when there is a conflict of interest unless there is no substantial risk that representation would be adversely affected. Where interests are directly adverse (litigation), dual representation is prohibited even with consent. In other situations, informed consent in writing may allow it if the lawyer can competently serve both.

The Canadian stare decisis hierarchy: the SCC binds all Canadian courts. Provincial Courts of Appeal bind all lower courts in the same province. Trial courts must follow Courts of Appeal from other provinces as highly persuasive but not binding. Horizontal stare decisis (courts bound by their own prior decisions) applies with some flexibility at the appellate level.

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.

A factum (plural: facta) is the written advocacy document submitted to Canadian appellate courts. It contains: a statement of facts, issues in dispute, the applicable law and argument, and the requested relief. Rules of court prescribe its format, page limits, and content.