Sentences with phrase «reasonableness of an administrative decision»

It is easier to accept that reasonableness is the go - to standard of review and to refocus on the task of assessing the reasonableness of an administrative decision.

Not exact matches

Specifically, the deferential review of reasonableness will follow where an administrative decision - maker interprets its own home statute.

This point goes to a tension in Doré between the duty of administrative decision - makers to consider Charter values and the role of a reviewing court which has to assess the reasonableness of the resulting decision and whether a proportionate balance was reached.

Their reformulated reasonableness standard retains key features of its predecessors: (i) applicability to questions that lend themselves to more than one answer; and (ii) judicial review limited to an assessment of the administrative decision - maker's reasons on the basis of its justification, transparency, and legitimacy.

The majority opinion justifies the need to merge reasonableness simpliciter with patent unreasonableness on now familiar grounds that: (i) the two standards are impossible to distinguish in application, despite good intentions in selecting a «middle ground» standard where pragmatic factors point both for and against judicial deference; and (ii) patent unreasonableness contemplates judicial endorsement of an «unreasonable» administrative decision.

These findings on standard of review are not only consistent with the overall trend in existing jurisprudence concerning the judicial review of FOIP decisions, but are also consistent with the trend towards reasonableness as the standard of review generally in substantive judicial review of statutory interpretation by administrative decision - makers.

A standard of reasonableness was applied to the Board's decision, which makes sense given the tendency to treat administrative applications of legal concepts (such as undertakings) with deference (at para. 21).

Abstract In a nutshell, the majority of the Court in Meadows v. Minister for Justice held that proportionality would be relevant in determining the reasonableness or unreasonableness of an administrative decision affecting rights.

Yes, this looks a lot like the Pushpanathan list of factors, [14] but the difference is that these factors are being considered not to decide on the standard of review — correctness, reasonableness and patent unreasonableness — but rather to determine the extent to which the court should defer to an administrative decision in the context of a particular case and a particular question — that is, the range of options that are legally open to the decision maker.

Although, as Dyzenhaus has argued, a justification - based approach to reasonableness is not necessarily more intrusive than the traditional Wednesbury approach, the effect of Li seems to have been to increase judicial scrutiny of administrative decisions in at least some cases.

So we've suffered through categorizations into jurisdictional error and non-jurisdictional error, legislative, administrative, quasi-judicial and judicial decisions, categories of correctness, reasonableness and patent unreasonableness and, now, categories of correctness and reasonableness.

and the Court's unanimous decision in Doré v. Barreau du Québec, 2012 SCC 12, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 395, which held that administrative decisions were not subject to the Oakes test at all, further that discretionary, individualized decisions (although not decisions as to the constitutionality of a law) were to be reviewed for their compliance with «Charter values» on a standard of reasonableness, not correctness.

[86] The recent decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada in Agraira v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 SCC 36 (CanLII) at para. 50 (Agraira) and McLean v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), 2013 SCC 67 (CanLII) at paras. 20 - 21 and 33 (McLean) stand for the proposition that the presumption of reasonableness set out in Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. Alberta Teacher's Association, 2011 SCC 61 (CanLII), [2011] 3 S.C.R. 654 at para. 39 extends to any administrative decision maker (including a ministerial decision maker) interpreting his or her home statute.

However, because Ktunaxa Nation is a judicial review of an administrative decision, the justificatory analysis occurs under an administrative law approach under the Doré framework where the standard of review is reasonableness.

The question to be decided was whether the administrative decision of the CLP was consistent with the duty to accommodate a disability under the Charter and subject to the reasonableness standard: did the CLP's decision balance the right protected by the Charter and the objectives sought under the AIAOD?