Insights Header image
Insights Header image
Insights Header image

The Supreme Court of Canada Set To Reconsider Judicial Review

May 2018 Litigation Bulletin 1 read

The Supreme Court of Canada recently signaled that it intends to revisit standard of review. [1] The Supreme Court’s decision will have important implications on parties who find themselves appealing a tribunal or administrative decision.

In a rare move, the Supreme Court provided reasons when granting leave to hear the appeal in Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v. Vavilov.  The Supreme Court said that it would hear the appeal with two others. It then commented:

The Court is of the view that these appeals provide an opportunity to consider the nature and scope of judicial review of administrative action, as addressed in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190, 2008 SCC 9, and subsequent cases.

The Supreme Court’s reference to Dunsmuir[2] is a reference to a 2008 decision in which the Supreme Court sought to simplify the approach to reviewing administrative decisions. In Dunsmuir, the Supreme Court dictated that there be two standards of review – reasonableness and correctness. However, since that time, judges, practitioners and academics have noted that this more simplified approach has led to inconsistencies and confusion.[3] McMillan’s administrative law practitioners are following this case closely and will report back on the Supreme Court’s final decision and its implications for our clients.

by Jon Wypych and Adam Chisholm

[1] Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v. Vavilov, 2017 FCA 132, leave to appeal to S.C.C. granted, 37748 (May 10, 2018).
[2] 2008 SCC 9
[3] See eg. “The Canadian Law of Judicial Review: A Plea for Doctrinal Coherence and Consistency” (2016), 42 Queen’s L.J. 27.

A Cautionary Note

The foregoing provides only an overview and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are cautioned against making any decisions based on this material alone. Rather, specific legal advice should be obtained.

© McMillan LLP 2018

Insights (5 Posts)View More

Featured Insight

Do You See What I See? Fake AI Cases Can Result in Real Contempt

Reliance on an AI hallucinated case in submissions to the court can constitute a breach of professional obligations and may amount to contempt.

Read More
May 11, 2025
Featured Insight

Canada’s Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act: Where to next for companies?

Join subject matter experts from McMillan and Pillar Two for a webinar to support companies in addressing their forced labour, child labour and other modern slavery risks, and to support their reporting obligations under the Canadian Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act.

Details
Tuesday, May 20, 2025
Featured Insight

Why Extended Producer Responsibility and the Circular Economy Demand Boardroom Action

Discussion of global amendments to Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and right to repair laws, impacting product lifecycle management and regulatory compliance for businesses.

Read More
May 6, 2025
Featured Insight

Québec’s Bill 96: Where we are now after four years and the road ahead

Join Enda Wong, Business Law, Shari Munk-Manel, Employment & Labour Relations, and Émile Catimel-Marchand, Financial Services and Regulatory as they discuss Bill 96, its impacts on the day-to-day operations of companies doing business in Québec, including in the areas of employment, contracting, product design, labelling and advertising.

May 5, 2025
Featured Insight

Put Your Best Foot Forward: New Evidence Requirements for Trademark Appeals

Discussion of amendments to Canada's Trademarks Act impacting timing of delivery of evidence to the Trademark Opposition Board or later to the Federal Courts.

Read More
Apr 30, 2025