Doré v Barreau du Québec

Doré set the framework for administrative decisions that engage Charter values. The decision-maker must proportionately balance the Charter value against the statutory objective. The reviewing court asks whether the balance was reasonable, not whether it was correct under an Oakes analysis.

Doré, a Quebec lawyer, was disciplined for a vituperative letter to a judge. He challenged the discipline as breaching his s.2(b) freedom of expression.

How do Charter values enter administrative decision-making?

Discipline upheld. Framework set out.

Where an administrative decision engages a Charter value, the decision-maker must balance the value with the statutory objectives proportionately. The reviewing court applies a reasonableness standard, asking whether the balance reflects a proportionate, robust engagement with the Charter value.

Abella J chose reasonableness rather than Oakes because administrative decision-makers operate with delegated authority, expertise, and contextual judgment. Oakes correctness would inappropriately substitute the court's view of the balance.

Modern framework for Charter-values administrative review. Loyola (2015), TWU v LSUC (2018), Saskatchewan v Whatcott (HRT) refine the approach. Vavilov did not disturb Doré as such; the relationship between the two is the subject of ongoing scholarly debate.

Doré v Barreau du Québec, 2012 SCC 12, [2012] 1 SCR 395.

McLachlin CJ, LeBel J, Deschamps J, Fish J, Abella J, Rothstein J, Cromwell J, Moldaver J, Karakatsanis J