In administrative law cases, it is always necessary to ask «what the appropriate standard of review is for this question decided by this decision maker» (at para. 71, emphasis original): «
The contextual standard of review analysis ensures that legislative intent is respected and the rule of law is protected when courts review decisions of administrative actors» (at para. 89).
They are careful to distance themselves from a full return to the pragmatic and functional approach by stating that a full
contextual standard of review analysis need not be conducted in every single case, however there isn't much context left unturned in their analysis here regarding this question and this decision maker, and for the most part Justices Côté and Brown only pay lip service to the Dunsmuir approach.
Not exact matches
My
analysis in this post is organized under the following themes: (1) the presumption
of deference; (2) the statutory right
of appeal; (3) relative expertise; and (4) the
contextual or factored
standard of review analysis.
Correctness was the appropriate
standard based on a
contextual approach: «An approach to the
standard of review analysis that relies exclusively on categories and eschews any role for context risks introducing the vice
of formalism into the law
of judicial
review...» (at para. 70).