|
JR - SOR - 'Reasonableness' Exception - Jurisdiction. Waterhen Lake First Nation v. Canada
In Waterhen Lake First Nation v. Canada (Fed CA, 2025) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed a JR, here challenging the striking of a Specific Claims Tribunal claim dealing with 'traditional harvesting'.
Here the court considers the proper JR SOR for 'true questions of jurisdiction', which is not an exception to the 'reasonableness' standard:[45] The Applicant claims that this Court should undertake correctness review because, in deciding whether it has the statutory authority to decide the Claim, the Tribunal is determining the limits of its jurisdiction. This argument cannot succeed. True questions of jurisdiction, defined in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 at para. 59, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190 as arising "“where the tribunal must explicitly determine whether its statutory grant of power gives it the authority to decide a particular matter,”" are no longer recognized as a category of questions commanding correctness review: Vavilov at para. 67.
[46] Decision makers must properly justify their interpretation of their statutory grant of authority in order for it to be upheld as reasonable: Vavilov at para. 109. Whether an interpretation is justified will depend on the context, including the language chosen by the legislature in describing the limits and contours of the decision maker’s authority. By using precise and narrow language and delineating the power in detail, the legislature may tightly constrain the decision maker’s ability to interpret the provision. The question for the reviewing court is whether the decision maker has properly justified its interpretation of the statute in light of the surrounding context: Vavilov at para. 110.
|
