|
JR - SOR - Remedies. Pepa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
In Pepa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) (SCC, 2025) the Supreme Court of Canada considers JR remedies:[121] ... In Vavilov, this Court held that, “where a decision reviewed by applying the reasonableness standard cannot be upheld, it will most often be appropriate to remit the matter to the decision maker to have it reconsider the decision, this time with the benefit of the court’s reasons” (para. 141). However, a court may decline to remit a matter to the decision maker “where it becomes evident to the court, in the course of its review, that a particular outcome is inevitable and that remitting the case would therefore serve no useful purpose” (para. 142). When the decision at issue involves statutory interpretation, “it may sometimes become clear in the course of reviewing a decision that the interplay of text, context and purpose leaves room for a single reasonable interpretation of the statutory provision, or aspect of the statutory provision, that is at issue” (para. 124). When it is clear that there is only one reasonable interpretation, the reviewing court should make a pronouncement on that interpretation rather than remitting the matter pro forma for reconsideration.
|
