In the case of Fundy Settlement v. Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that…
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653 Case Summary
The case of Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of Canada that redefined how courts should review decisions made by government agencies. Alexander Vavilov, born in Canada to parents who were undercover Russian spies, had his Canadian citizenship certificate canceled by the Registrar of Citizenship. The Registrar claimed that Vavilov wasn’t a citizen because his parents were foreign government representatives. The Supreme Court found this decision unreasonable, stating that such a drastic step required clear, logical reasons and proper consideration of legal principles. The Court also set a new standard, making it clear that administrative decisions should be reviewed on a “reasonableness” basis unless specific circumstances call for a stricter “correctness” review. This ruling means that while most decisions by government agencies will be presumed reasonable, they must be well-justified, or they risk being overturned by the courts.
Supreme Court of Canada
Citation: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653
Date: Judgment Rendered: December 19, 2019
Docket: 37748
Coram: Wagner C.J. and Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Gascon, Côté, Brown, Rowe, and Martin JJ.
Reasons for Judgment: Wagner C.J. and Moldaver, Gascon, Côté, Brown, Rowe, and Martin JJ. (Joint Reasons); Abella and Karakatsanis JJ. (Joint Concurring Reasons)
Appellants: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Respondent: Alexander Vavilov
On Appeal From: Federal Court of Appeal
Overview
The Supreme Court of Canada redefined the standard of review for administrative decisions in the landmark case of Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov. The case focused on the cancellation of Alexander Vavilov’s Canadian citizenship certificate by the Registrar of Citizenship, interpreting a statutory exception in the Citizenship Act. The Court’s decision provides crucial guidance on the reasonableness standard of review.
Facts
Alexander Vavilov was born in Toronto in 1994 to parents posing as Canadians but who were actually Russian spies. Vavilov lived as a Canadian citizen and held a Canadian passport. After his parents’ arrest and return to Russia in 2010, Vavilov’s attempts to renew his Canadian passport were unsuccessful until he was issued a certificate of Canadian citizenship in 2013. In 2014, the Registrar of Citizenship canceled Vavilov’s certificate, interpreting Section 3(2)(a) of the Citizenship Act to mean that Vavilov was not entitled to citizenship because his parents were representatives of a foreign government.
Legal Issue
The core issue was whether the Registrar’s interpretation of the Citizenship Act and the cancellation of Vavilov’s citizenship certificate were reasonable.
Decision
The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision to quash the Registrar’s decision, deeming it unreasonable. The Court also revised the framework for determining the standard of review in judicial review cases.
Reasoning
• Standard of Review Framework: The Court established a presumption of reasonableness for administrative decisions, to be rebutted only in specific situations, such as statutory appeals or questions of law of central importance.
• Interpretation of Section 3(2)(a): The Registrar’s interpretation was found unreasonable as it did not align with the statutory context, international treaties, jurisprudence, or the potential consequences of such an interpretation. The Registrar failed to consider that Section 3(2)(a) applies narrowly to individuals with diplomatic privileges and immunities, which Vavilov’s parents did not possess.
• Reasons Requirement: The Court emphasized that administrative decision-makers must provide transparent, intelligible, and justifiable reasons for their decisions.
Conclusion
The Registrar’s decision was unreasonable due to inadequate justification and misinterpretation of the statutory provision. The Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed Vavilov’s status as a Canadian citizen.
Implications
The Vavilov decision significantly impacts the landscape of Canadian administrative law by clarifying the standard of review for administrative decisions. It emphasizes the necessity of reasoned decision-making and the conditions under which judicial deference is appropriate.
Notes
The court addressed when deference should be shown based on the type of error: correctness for errors of law, palpable and overriding error for errors of fact, and reasonableness for discretionary errors.
The default standard is reasonableness, but correctness applies if the legislature prescribes different standards or if there is a statutory right of appeal, including applying appellate review standards. Correctness also applies to general questions of law, jurisdictional boundaries between administrative bodies, and constitutional questions.
The Dore exception maintains reasonableness for certain discretionary decisions. Reasonableness means a decision must be close to correct, encompassing both the reasoning process and the outcome. Deference involves respect for the delegate’s expertise, but courts cannot create reasons for the delegate. Unreasonableness includes irrational reasoning or decisions untenable due to factual and legal constraints such as governing schemes, case law, statutory interpretation, evidentiary records, party submissions, past practices, and the decision’s impact.
When there is a statutory right of appeal, the Housen v Nikolaisen (SCC 2002) standards apply: correctness for law questions and palpable and overriding error for fact questions, with the Dore exception applying correctness for constitutional issues and reasonableness for discretionary Charter decisions.
Cited Authorities
• Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817
• Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190
• Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. Alberta Teachers’ Association, 2011 SCC 61, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 654
• Law Society of British Columbia v. Trinity Western University, 2018 SCC 32, [2018] 2 S.C.R. 293
Statutes and Regulations Cited
• Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29, s. 3(2)(a)
• Citizenship Regulations, SOR/93-246, s. 26(3)
• Constitution Act, 1982, s. 35
Authors Cited
• Paul Daly, “Deference on Questions of Law,” 74 Mod. L. Rev. 694
• David Mullan, “Unresolved Issues on Standard of Review in Canadian Judicial Review of Administrative Action,” 42 Adv. Q. 1
Solicitors
• Michael H. Morris, Marianne Zorić, and John Provart, for the appellant
• Hadayt Nazami, Barbara Jackman, and Sujith Xavier, for the respondent
• Sara Blake and Judie Im, for the intervener the Attorney General of Ontario
• Stéphane Rochette, for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec
• J. Gareth Morley and Katie Hamilton, for the intervener the Attorney General of British Columbia
• Kyle McCreary and Johnna Van Parys, for the intervener the Attorney General of Saskatchewan
• Jamie Liew, for the intervener the Canadian Council for Refugees
• Karen Andrews, for the intervener the Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario – Tenant Duty Counsel Program
• Matthew Britton and Jennifer M. Lynch, for the interveners the Ontario Securities Commission, the British Columbia Securities Commission, and the Alberta Securities Commission
• Laura Bowman and Bronwyn Roe, for the intervener Ecojustice Canada Society
• David Corbett and Michelle Alton, for the interveners the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (Ontario), the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal (Northwest Territories and Nunavut), the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal (Nova Scotia), the Appeals Commission for Alberta Workers’ Compensation, and the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal (New Brunswick)
• Terrence J. O’Sullivan and Paul Michell, for the intervener the Council of Canadian Administrative Tribunals
• Susan L. Stewart, Linda R. Rothstein, Michael Fenrick, Angela E. Rae, and Anne Marie Heenan, for the interveners the National Academy of Arbitrators, the Ontario Labour-Management Arbitrators’ Association, and Conférence des arbitres du Québec
• Steven Barrett, for the intervener the Canadian Labour Congress
• William W. Shores, Q.C., and Kirk N. Lambrecht, Q.C., for the intervener the National Association of Pharmacy Regulatory Authorities
• Brendan Van Niejenhuis and Andrea Gonsalves, for the intervener Queen’s Prison Law Clinic
• Adam Goldenberg, for the intervener Advocates for the Rule of Law
• Toni Schweitzer, for the intervener Parkdale Community Legal Services
• Paul Warchuk and Francis Lévesque, for the intervener the Cambridge Comparative Administrative Law Forum
• James Plotkin and Alyssa Tomkins, for the intervener the Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic
• Guy Régimbald, for the intervener the Canadian Bar Association
• Audrey Macklin and Anthony Navaneelan, for the intervener the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers
• David Cote and Subodh Bharati, for the intervener the Community & Legal Aid Services Programme
• Guillaume Cliche-Rivard and Peter Shams, for the intervener Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l’immigration
• Nicholas McHaffie, for the intervener the First Nations Child & Family Caring Society of Canada
• Daniel Jutras and Audrey Boctor, as amici curiae, and Olga Redko and Edward Béchard Torres
This information is for discussion purposes only and should not be considered professional advice. There is no guarantee or warrant of information on this site and it should be noted that rules and laws change regularly. You should consult a professional before considering implementing or taking any action based on information on this site. Call our team for a consultation before taking any action. ©2024 Shajani CPA.
Shajani CPA is a CPA Calgary, Edmonton and Red Deer firm and provides Accountant, Bookkeeping, Tax Advice and Tax Planning service.
Trusts – Estate Planning – Tax Advisory – Tax Law – T2200 – T5108 – Audit Shield – Corporate Tax – Personal Tax – CRA – CPA Alberta – Russell Bedford – Income Tax – Family Owned Business – Alberta Business – Expenses – Audits – Reviews – Compilations – Mergers – Acquisitions – Cash Flow Management – QuickBooks – Ai Accounting – Automation – Startups – Litigation Support – International Tax – US Tax – Business Succession Planning – Business Purchase – Sale of Business
Related Posts
