Dunsmuir v New Brunswick

Dunsmuir collapsed the three former standards (correctness, reasonableness simpliciter, patent unreasonableness) into two: correctness and reasonableness. The decision controlled until Vavilov restated the framework in 2019.

Dunsmuir, a court services officer, was dismissed without cause. He grieved under the Public Service Labour Relations Act. The adjudicator interpreted the Act as permitting review of with-cause dismissals only and reinstated him.

(1) What standards of review apply in administrative law? (2) Was the adjudicator's decision reviewable?

Two standards: correctness and reasonableness. The adjudicator's decision was unreasonable.

The standard-of-review analysis (then "pragmatic and functional") is renamed standard-of-review analysis. Reasonableness is concerned with the existence of justification, transparency and intelligibility within the decision-making process and with whether the decision falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes defensible in respect of the facts and the law.

Bastarache and LeBel JJ jointly held that patent unreasonableness was indistinguishable in practice from reasonableness simpliciter. A unified reasonableness standard simplifies application without losing deference. Reasonableness is a single standard that takes its colour from the context.

Set the framework for over a decade until Vavilov. Famous for its single-standard innovation. The case file itself was overlooked relative to its doctrinal importance.

Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 SCR 190.

McLachlin CJ, Bastarache J, Binnie J, LeBel J, Deschamps J, Fish J, Abella J, Charron J, Rothstein J