|
Judicial Review - SoR - Reasonableness and 'Reasons for Decision'. Petrykowski v. Federation of Law Societies of Canada
In Petrykowski v. Federation of Law Societies of Canada (Ont Divisional Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court dismissed a JR against the Federation of Law Societies of Canada ('FLSC'), here against a dismissal of an HRTO application involving a FLSC foreign (UK) law degree accreditation decision.
Here the court finds that a JR argument of 'inadequate reasons' "goes to" the main JR issue of reasonableness:[13] The Applicant further submits that the Decision is procedurally unfair because he should have been given a more thorough explanation for the outcome, emphasizing the importance of the Decision to him. The Applicant relies on Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653. The Applicant submits that the reasons for decision are inadequate to show a coherent and logical line of reasoning that accounted for the relevant factual and legal context.
[14] In this case, the reasons do not raise a concern about procedural fairness. To the extent that the Applicant argues that the reasons are inadequate, this goes to reasonableness. Further, as set out in Vavilov, at para. 304, the adequacy of reasons is not “a stand-alone basis for quashing a decision”. The reasons must “be read together with the outcome and serve the purpose of showing whether the result falls within a range of possible outcomes”. . Ottawa Airport Professional Aviation Fire Fighters Association v. Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport Authority
In Ottawa Airport Professional Aviation Fire Fighters Association v. Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport Authority (Div Court, 2022) the Divisional Court makes clear the relationship between 'reasons for decision' and the SOR of 'reasonableness':[13] In determining whether a decision of an administrative tribunal is reasonable, the reviewing court must start with the reasons provided. A decision is reasonable if there is a coherent and rational line of analysis, and the result is justified in light of the law and the evidence (Vavilov v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 SCC 65 at paras. 85, 86 and 99-100).
|
