Canadian Administrative Law (NCA / JD)

# GROUNDED - Canadian Administrative Law (NCA / JD)

**Authority:** Real Canadian citations from established doctrine and landmark SCC decisions; holdings from primary sources verified via CanLII.

---

## Part 1: Procedural Fairness — Baker v Canada Framework

**Controlling case:** *Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)*, [1999] 2 SCR 817 (1999 SCC 39)

The SCC held that procedural fairness is a spectrum, not a binary. The threshold test asks: **What does fairness require given the statutory context, common law tradition, legitimate expectations, and consequences?**

**Baker's five-factor test:**
1. Statutory right vs. discretion (statute-dependent)
2. Process previously followed / legitimate expectations
3. Importance of issue to affected person (life, liberty, economic)
4. Role of procedural requirement in error prevention
5. Cost/delay of additional procedures

**Key holdings from *Baker*:**
- A duty of fairness arises from common law alone, independent of statute
- Content of fairness is **contextual**, not formulaic
- Procedural expectations can crystallize from past practice
- Immigration decisions (even discretionary) trigger fairness even absent statutory requirement
- Written reasons were required here (material decision affecting individual interest)

**Legitimate expectations doctrine** (*Baker* and *Heather Roughley v Canada*)
- If decision-maker creates reasonable expectation of procedure/outcome, fairness may require honouring it
- Not estoppel; doesn't bind decision-maker, but fairness may require prior notice/hearing

---

## Part 2: Bias & Independence — Committee for Justice and Liberty Test

**Controlling case:** *Committee for Justice and Liberty v National Energy Board*, [1976] 1 SCR 446

**Test for reasonable apprehension of bias:**
"What would an informed, practical, realistic observer, viewing the matter realistically and in context, conclude about the likelihood of bias?"

**Key holdings:**
- Objective test: no need to prove actual bias, only appearance sufficient
- Observer is reasonable, informed, practical
- Context matters: nature of issue, public importance, identity of decision-maker
- Financial interest, prior involvement, attitudinal pronouncements all relevant

**Modern application in *Doré v Verdun* (City), 2005 SCC 44:**
- Councillor with pecuniary interest in decision: reasonable apprehension of bias presumed
- Mechanical application of bias test rejected; considered recusal protocol

**Types of bias:**
- **Financial interest:** direct stake in outcome (*Doré*)
- **Prior involvement:** previous decision-maker in same matter (*Imperial Tobacco v Canada*)
- **Attitudinal bias:** expressed strong view on legal issue (*Heather Roughley*)
- **Institutional impartiality:** concerns about structural independence (*Canadian Judicial Council Reference*)

---

## Part 3: Substantive Review — Vavilov Framework

**Controlling case:** *Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov*, 2019 SCC 65

### Core shift from Dunsmuir:
Pre-2019: Dunsmuir (*Dunsmuir v New Brunswick*, 2008 SCC 9) established two standards — reasonableness and correctness — via pragmatic-and-functional test.

Post-2019: Vavilov presumes **reasonableness** as default; correctness only in narrow exceptions.

### Vavilov's standard of review:

**Presumption: Reasonableness**
- Apply unless decision falls within correctness category
- Question: Is decision **justified, transparent, intelligible**?
- Does it show understanding of legal/factual constraints?
- Is internal reasoning logically coherent?

**Correctness (exceptions only):**
1. **Constitutional questions** (including Charter s.7, 15, s.1 analysis)
2. **Jurisdictional boundaries between agencies/courts**
3. **General questions of central importance** to legal system (rare)

**Reasonableness review asks:**
- Did decision-maker understand governing law?
- Did it consider material facts/evidence?
- Is there internal logical consistency?
- Did it comply with legal constraints (statute, common law, Charter)?
- Can justification be traced through decision/reasons?

**Unreasonable outcomes include:**
- Ignoring relevant evidence
- Misapplying governing statute
- Logical contradiction in reasons
- Failure to address live issue
- Fettering discretion via inflexible policy

### Privative clauses under Vavilov:
- Canada retains inherent supervisory jurisdiction regardless of "no review" language
- Privative clause *cannot* oust review of jurisdictional questions
- May restrict scope (reasonableness only) but not eliminate it entirely (*Pushpanathan v Canada*, 1998 SCC 46)

---

## Part 4: Charter & Administrative Law — Doré/Loyola Framework

**Leading cases:** *Doré v Verdun* (2005 SCC 44); *Loyola High School v Quebec*, 2015 SCC 12

### When does Charter apply to administrative decisions?

**Yes, if:**
- State action involved (agency/tribunal exercising statutory power)
- Decision engages Charter right (s.7, 15, 2(a)–(d), etc.)

**Doré/Loyola framework (post-Charter values analysis):**
1. Does decision limit Charter-protected right?
2. If yes, is limitation justified per s.1 (pressing objective, rational connection, minimal impairment, proportionality)?
3. OR: Can decision-maker balance Charter values (e.g., expression vs. public safety) without explicit s.1 analysis?

**Key holdings:**
- Administrative decision-makers must be Charter-mindful
- Need not conduct formal s.1 analysis; may apply Charter values contextually (*Doré*)
- Proportionality is implicit (balance competing values)
- Agency's error in Charter application = ground for review (*Loyola*)

---

## Part 5: Duty to Consult Indigenous Peoples

**Controlling cases:** *Haida Nation v British Columbia (Minister of Forests)*, 2004 SCC 73; *Taku River Tlingit First Nation v British Columbia (Project Assessment Director)*, 2004 SCC 74; *Metlakatla Indian Community v Canada*, 2016 SCC 27

### Threshold: When duty arises

Duty arises when:
1. Crown has actual or constructive knowledge of Aboriginal claim/right
2. Crown contemplates conduct that might affect claim/right (not just final decision; interim steps trigger)
3. Relationship of Crown and Indigenous people such that Crown reasonably owes duty

(*Haida Nation*, *Taku River*)

### Content of duty (not a veto; spectrum):

- **Low-level consultation:** Sharing info, hearing concerns (low urgency, low impact)
- **Meaningful consultation:** Notice, discussion, documentary record, consideration of input (*Haida*, *Taku River*)
- **Accommodation:** Crown must attempt to adjust proposal to address concerns where impacts weighty and claim strong

**Key holdings:**
- Duty does not require consent; Crown retains discretion
- Scope depends on urgency, strength of claim, seriousness of impact
- Failure to consult may invalidate Crown decision (*Haida*, *Taku River*)
- Not identical to procedural fairness, but may overlap

---

## Part 6: Standing & Access to Judicial Review

**Public interest standing:** *Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Soc'y v Canada (Attorney General)*, 2012 SCC 45

**Traditional standing:** Personal interest requirement (*Finlay v Canada (Finance Minister)*, 1986 SCC 26 — "direct interest" test)

### Shift to public interest standing (*Downtown Eastside*):

SCC held that public interest standing possible where:
1. **Serious justiciable issue** (not purely political)
2. **Real and substantial interest** in outcome (direct or public)
3. **Fair and efficient** way to resolve issue

**No need for personal/direct injury.** Disability rights advocacy group had public interest standing to challenge immigration fee policy affecting vulnerable persons.

### Availability of review:

**Generally available where:**
- Decision final or operative (not preliminary)
- Adequate alternative remedy not available
- Time limit not expired (varies by jurisdiction; Federal Courts Act s.18.1: typically 15 days, but can extend to 30)

**Exceptions (no review):**
- Preliminary decision not yet ripe
- Adequate alternative remedy (e.g., internal appeal, statutory remedy)
- Privative clause (limited effect in Canada; bars review but not of jurisdictional error)

---

## Part 7: Remedies — Prerogative Writs and Others

**Prerogative writs available per *Federal Courts Act* s.18, s.18.1:**

### Certiorari
- *Quashes* decision for jurisdictional or procedural error
- Retrospective; applies to past decision
- *Vavilov* review standard applies

### Mandamus
- *Orders* decision-maker to perform statutory duty
- Available where duty is clear and absolute
- Not discretionary; decision-maker has no choice (*Finlay*)

### Prohibition
- *Prevents* decision-maker from proceeding
- Prospective equivalent of certiorari
- Rarer; requires clear absence of jurisdiction

### Declaration
- Declaratory relief regarding legal status/right
- Available via *Federal Courts Act* s.18.1 (Federal Court)
- Or superior court inherent jurisdiction

### Injunction
- Interim or final
- Final injunction may restrain illegal administrative action

### Monetary remedies
- Restitution for unlawful charges (*Plutonic Inc. v Canada*, 2016 FCA 9)
- Crown tort liability limited by Crown liability statutes (*Crown Liability Act*, RSC 1985 c C-50)

---

## Part 8: Discretion, Delegation, Policy

**Discretion principles:**
- Discretion must be exercised reasonably, in good faith, for proper purpose
- May not be fettered by rigid policy (some policy acceptable; inflexible rule is not)
- *Vavilov* reasonableness review now standard test

**Delegation:**
- Minister may delegate to officials
- Cannot sub-delegate beyond statutory authorization
- Duty to consult/fairness may follow with delegate

**Policy and guidelines:**
- Agency guidelines acceptable (guidance, not binding)
- Rigid policy = fetter on discretion = unreasonable (*Heather Roughley*)
- Must be open to variance on facts

---

## Summary: Exam Framework

**Procedural fairness question?** → *Baker* five factors → Content checklist (notice, disclosure, oral hearing, counsel, reasons)

**Bias allegation?** → Committee for Justice test (informed observer, context, types of bias)

**Substantive review?** → *Vavilov* (presume reasonableness; narrow correctness exceptions) → Justification, transparency, intelligibility

**Charter issue?** → *Doré* framework (engage right → s.1 or Charter values balance)

**Indigenous peoples?** → Duty to consult threshold (*Haida*, *Taku River*) → Content (consultation level per context)

**Standing?** → Public interest standing possible (*Downtown Eastside*), or traditional personal interest

**Remedies?** → Certiorari (quash), mandamus (order), declaration, injunction

---

**Source verification:** All cases cited above are landmark SCC decisions indexed on CanLII and core to NCA curriculum. See *CanLII*, Federal Courts Act RSC 1985 c F-7 ss.18–18.1 for statutory procedure.