|
JR - SOR - 'Reasonableness Review' - Justification - Submissions of the Parties. Giffen v. TM Mobility Inc.
In Giffen v. TM Mobility Inc. (Fed CA, 2024) the Federal Court of Appeal allowed an appeal, this from a denial of the Federal Court of a judicial review, this that "sought to set aside the ... decision of Adjudicator Michael Horan" that "determined that he had no jurisdiction to consider the appellant’s complaint that she had been unjustly dismissed following her return from maternity leave due to the limitation set out in paragraph 242(3.1)(a) of the Canada Labour Code" ... "(t)hat paragraph of the Code precluded an adjudicator from hearing an unjust dismissal complaint where a complainant was laid off because of a lack of work or discontinuance of a function."
The court finds fault with the Federal Court for not limiting their analysis to the parties' submissions, here as an aspect of the necessary 'reasonableness review':[42] Where reasons are given by an administrative decision maker, reasonableness requires that they must address significant arguments made to the decision maker. The Supreme Court of Canada underscored in both Vavilov at paragraph 127 and its subsequent decision in Mason v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 SCC 21, 485 D.L.R. (4th) 583 [Mason] at paragraph 74 that administrative decision makers’ reasons must be responsive to what the parties argued and must address their central concerns and arguments. As the majority of the Supreme Court stated at paragraph 74 of Mason:An administrative decision maker’s reasons must “meaningfully account for the central issues and concerns raised by the parties” ([Vavilov at] para. 127). Reasons must be “responsive” to the parties’ submissions, because reasons are the “primary mechanism by which decision makers demonstrate that they have actually listened to the parties” ([Vavilov at] para. 127 (emphasis in original)). Although an administrative decision does not have to “respond to every argument or line of possible analysis” raised by the parties, “a decision maker’s failure to meaningfully grapple with key issues or central arguments raised by the parties may call into question whether the decision maker was actually alert and sensitive to the matter before it” ([Vavilov at] para. 128).
|
