|
JR - SOR - Reasonableness Review - Justification - Statutory Interpretation. Teper v. Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario
In Teper v. Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (Ont Divisional Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court dismissed an MFIPPA JR, here against an IPC ruling that "the records requested were not in the TDSB's care or control and that the TDSB [SS: 'Toronto District School Board'] conducted a reasonable search for any responsive records".
Here the court considers the JR SOR for statutory interpretation:[25] The issue of the interpretation and application of whether records are "in the custody or under the control of" an institution is a question of statutory interpretation. The court is to evaluate matters of statutory interpretation on a reasonableness standard: Vavilov, at para. 115. . Weiler v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal
In Weiler v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (Ont Divisional Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court dismissed a JR, here against a WSIAT-denied "claim for [SS: full] loss of earnings (“LOE”) benefits under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act".
Here the court comments on the JR SOR for issues of statutory interpretation:[38] A court reviewing a question of statutory interpretation in a judicial review must be careful to not “conduct a de novo interpretation nor attempt to determine a range of reasonable interpretations against which to compare the decision of the administrative decision maker.” Canada Post Corp. v. Canadian Union of Postal Workers, 2019 SCC 67, at para. 40. At paras 42-46 the court rules against the applicant.
. Auer v. Auer
In Auer v. Auer (SCC, 2024) the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed an appeal of a JR, here challenging the Federal Child Support Guidelines as ultra vires their Governor-in-Counsel-delegated Divorce Act authority.
The court considers JR 'reasonableness review', here on the constraining factor of 'statutory interpretation':(c) Principles of Statutory Interpretation
[64] Statutory delegates are empowered to interpret the scope of their authority when enacting subordinate legislation. Their interpretation must, however, be consistent with the text, context and purpose of the enabling statute (Vavilov, at paras. 120‑21; Keyes (2021), at p. 193). They must interpret the scope of their authority in accordance with the modern principle of statutory interpretation. The words of the enabling statute must be read “in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament” (Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), 1998 CanLII 837 (SCC), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27, at para. 21, citing E. A. Driedger, Construction of Statutes (2nd ed. 1983), at p. 87).
[65] In conducting a vires review, a court does not undertake a de novo analysis to determine the correct interpretation of the enabling statute and then ask whether, on that interpretation, the delegate had the authority to enact the subordinate legislation. Rather, the court ensures that the delegate’s exercise of authority falls within a reasonable interpretation of the enabling statute, having regard to the relevant constraints.
|
