|
Judicial Review - SOR - The 'Reasonableness' Test (5). Yatar v. TD Insurance Meloche Monnex
In Yatar v. TD Insurance Meloche Monnex (SCC, 2024) the Supreme Court of Canada resolved issues regarding joint JR/appeal procedure, which arose where appeals were limited to 'questions of law' but the appellant still sought to challenge issues of fact or mixed fact and law [which a judicial review (JR) could conceivably have jurisdiction over]. In such cases the issue arose as to the role of the court's JR discretion, and - if applied to hear the JR - what standard of review applied.
Here the SCC revisits Vavilov JR 'reasonableness':[71] Per Vavilov, two types of flaws can render a decision unreasonable: first, a “failure of rationality internal to the reasoning process”, and second, “when a decision is in some respect untenable in light of the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on it” (para. 101). The LAT adjudicator’s reconsideration decision should be “approached as an organic whole, without a line-by-line treasure hunt for error” (Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 30 v. Irving Pulp & Paper, Ltd., 2013 SCC 34, [2013] 2 S.C.R. 458, at para. 54).
|
