|
JR - SOR - 'Reasonableness Review' - General. Goovaerts (Litigation Guardian of) v. Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund
In Goovaerts (Litigation Guardian of) v. Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court allowed a SABS dual appeal-JR, this brought against a LAT "determination of attendant care benefits ('ACBs')".
Here the court sets out in salutory fashion JR function and process:Application for Judicial Review
[21] The applicable standard of review is reasonableness: Vavilov, at para. 23. The onus is on the applicant to demonstrate that the decision is unreasonable. Any shortcoming must be more than merely superficial or peripheral to the merits of the decision: Vavilov, at para. 100. Deference is to be afforded to the decision maker: Vavilov, at para. 85. A reasonable decision is one that is transparent, intelligible and justified in light of the evidentiary record: Vavilov, at paras. 15, 126. It is not the role of the reviewing court to re-weigh or reassess the evidence considered by the decision maker: Vavilov, at para. 125.
[22] A reasonableness review is not a “rubber-stamping” process or a means of sheltering administrative decision makers from accountability. It remains a robust form of review: Vavilov, at para. 13. When engaging in a reasonableness review, the reviewing court is to consider whether the decision made, including the rationale for the decision and outcome, are reasonable: Vavilov, at paras. 83-84. Two fundamental flaws can render a decision unreasonable. The first is where the decision is not based on internally coherent reasoning. The second is where the decision is not justified or is untenable in light of the legal and factual constraints that bear on the decision: Vavilov, at para. 101.
[23] The general constraints will differ depending on the context. Generally, a reviewing court will consider the governing statutory scheme, other relevant statutory or common law, the principles of statutory interpretation, the evidence before the decision maker and facts of which it may take reasonable notice, the submissions of the parties, the past practices and decisions of the administrative body, and the potential impact of the decision on the individual to whom it applies: Vavilov, at para. 106.
[24] The decision maker’s reasons must account for the central issues and concerns raised by the parties. The failure to meaningfully grapple with key issues or central arguments raised by the parties may call into question whether the decision maker was alive or sensitive to the matters at issue: Vavilov, at paras. 127-128.
[25] While administrative decision makers are not bound by stare decisis, those affected by administrative decisions are entitled to expect that like cases will generally be treated alike. Where a decision maker departs from longstanding practices or established internal authority, it bears the justificatory burden of explaining such departure in its reasons. If such a departure is not justified, the decision is unreasonable: Vavilov, at paras. 129, 131. . Canada (Attorney General) v. Canadian Civil Liberties Association
In Canada (Attorney General) v. Canadian Civil Liberties Association (Fed CA, 2026) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed a federal AG JR, this brought against "the Federal Court’s finding that the declaration of a public order emergency was unreasonable and that some provisions of the Regulations and of the Economic Order violated the Charter", here where the emergency order was made under the federal Emergencies Act.
Here the court offers another characterization of Vavilov's 'reasonableness review':[158] When applying the reasonableness standard, a reviewing court must start with a posture of judicial restraint and deference for the legislature’s choice to delegate decision making authority. A reviewing court must take a "“reasons first”" approach that evaluates the administrative decision-maker’s justification for its decision: Vavilov at para. 84; Mason v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 SCC 21 [Mason] at para. 8. In other words, a reviewing court must show respectful attention to the decision-maker’s reasons, seeking to understand the reasoning process followed to arrive at the conclusion (Vavilov at para. 84). Stated differently, a reviewing court "“must focus on the decision the administrative decision maker actually made, including the justification offered for it, and not on the conclusion the court itself would have reached in the administrative decision maker’s place”" (Vavilov at para. 15).
[159] As to what it means for a decision to be reasonable, the Supreme Court in Vavilov made it clear that it requires consideration of both the outcome of the decision and the reasoning process that led to the outcome. In a nutshell, a reasonable decision is one "“that is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker”" (Vavilov at para. 85). Among the legal and factual considerations that can constrain an administrative decision-maker, the governing statutory scheme will usually be the most salient aspect of the legal context relevant to a particular decision (Vavilov at para. 108).
[160] Context is also relevant. As the Supreme Court has stated in a number of cases, "“reasonableness is a single standard that takes its colour from the context”": see, for example, Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Khosa, 2009 SCC 12 at para. 59, and the cases cited at para. 89 in Vavilov. The Supreme Court has clarified, however, that reasonableness remains a single standard. Despite the diversity of decisions in terms of complexity and importance, "“elements of a decision’s context do not modulate the standard or the degree of scrutiny by the reviewing court”". Context will only constrain what is reasonable for an administrative decision-maker to decide in their specific case.
|
