|
Judicial Review - SOR - Reasonableness - Failure of Rationality. Kaplan-Myrth v. Ottawa Carlton District School Board
In Kaplan-Myrth v. Ottawa Carlton District School Board (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court dismissed a school board trustee's JR against a school board.
Here the court cites the Vavilov caution against conducting a 'line-by-line' examination of the reasons below in a reasonableness inquiry:Internal Logic
[57] The Applicant submits that the report lacks internal logic. The Applicant is asking the court to embark on a line-by-line analysis for errors in the lengthy IC report contrary to Vavilov, at para. 102:Reasonableness review is not a “line-by-line treasure hunt for error”. However, a reviewing court must be able to trace the decision maker’s reasoning without encountering any fatal flaws in its overarching logic, and it must be satisfied that “there is [a] line of analysis within the given reasons that could reasonably lead the tribunal from the evidence before it to the conclusion at which it arrived”. [Citations omitted.] [58] The burden is on the party challenging the decision to show that it is unreasonable. Any alleged flaws or shortcomings must be more than merely superficial or peripheral to the merits of the decision”: Vavilov, at para. 100.
....
[61] This Court stated in Peterson, at paragraph 74, that reasons “must not be assessed against a standard of perfection”, they need not include all arguments, nor should we expect or require administrative decision-makers to “deploy the same array of legal techniques that might be expected of a lawyer or judge”: Vavilov, paras. 91-92. . International Longshore and Warehouse Union - Canada v. British Columbia Maritime Employers Association
In International Longshore and Warehouse Union - Canada v. British Columbia Maritime Employers Association (Fed CA, 2024) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed (as moot) a federal labour JR, here against a ruling of the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) that held that "ILWU Canada [had] engaged in an unlawful strike".
Here the court considers an argument of 'failure of rationality' in a JR reasonableness context:[78] In Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653 [Vavilov], the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that two types of defects may result in an unreasonable decision, namely, either a failure of rationality in the reasoning process of the administrative decision-maker or where the result reached by the administrative decision-maker is untenable in light of the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear upon the decision.
[79] In respect of the first type of defect involving a failure of rationality in the reasoning process, the majority in Vavilov held that a reasonable decision must be based on internally coherent reasoning that is both rational and logical (at para. 102). That said, "“reasonableness review is not a ‘line-by-line treasure hunt for error’”" (at para. 102, quoting Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 30 v. Irving Pulp & Paper, Ltd., 2013 SCC 34, [2013] 2 S.C.R. 458 at para. 54, citing Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses’ Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board), 2011 SCC 62, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 708 at para. 14). Thus, shortcomings in a decision must be more than peripheral to the merits of a decision to justify a court’s overturning the decision due to a failure of rationality in the reasoning process (Vavilov at para. 100).
|
