When regulatory decisions are challenged in court, the starting point is the decision-maker's reasons. Recent case law from the Supreme Court of Canada reminds us just how important reasons are in the review of administrative decisions.
Mason v. Canada
On September 27, 2023, the Supreme Court released its decision in Mason v. Canada ("Mason").1 In this case, the Immigration Appeal Division (the "IAD") determined that two foreign nationals who had been charged with violent offences were inadmissible to Canada under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.2 The issue was whether the violent offences in question (attempted murder in one case and intimate partner violence in another) related to "national security". Specifically, the applicants argued that the offences must be more than ordinary violent acts and require a national security connection. The stakes for these individuals were high as being rendered inadmissible on security grounds would likely result in deportation.
The IAD reviewed the governing legislation and held that the applicable legislative provisions did not require a connection between the violent offences and a threat to national security for a finding of inadmissibility. The Federal Court disagreed, taking issue with, among other things, the IAD's interpretation of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The Federal Court of Appeal restored the decision of the tribunal, finding that the IAD's decision, and specifically, its interpretation of the legislation was "reasonable". The Supreme Court, however, overturned the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal, holding the IAD's decision was unreasonable.
In Mason the Supreme Court tackled a number of issues including the question of standard of review. It confirmed "reasonableness" remains the presumptive standard of review even in the immigration context where the Federal Court certifies a "serious question of general importance" for determination by the Federal Court of Appeal. But, beyond the standard of review and the specific intricacies of the case, the Supreme Court said many important things about reasons:
- The Supreme Court emphasized that, following its earlier decision in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov ("Vavilov")3 judicial review on a reasonableness standard must begin with the decision-maker's reasons. Judicial review, the Court reminds us, is a "reasons-first" exercise.4 The Supreme Court was critical of the approach of both lower courts the Federal Court adopted its own freestanding interpretation of the legislation and then evaluated the administrative decisions against that interpretation; the Federal Court of Appeal began its analysis with a "lay of the land", reviewing the context and purpose of legislation before turning to the administrative decision-makers' reasons.
- The Supreme Court also emphasized, again following its earlier decision in Vavilov, that reasons must be responsive to the parties' submissions. Reasons are the primary way that an administrative decision maker demonstrates that it listened to the parties. In this case, the IAD failed to address two important points of statutory context that the applicant had...
