|
JR - SOR - Reasonableness - 'Line-by-line Treasure Hunt'. Jagadeesh v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce
In Jagadeesh v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (Fed CA, 2024) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from a JR of a Canadian Human Rights Commission's dismissal of the appellant's complaint.
The court considers Vavilov doctrine regarding JR 'reasonableness', here the "line-by-line treasure hunt for error" examination caution:[96] The Supreme Court of Canada tells us that reviewing a decision under the reasonableness standard of review does not involve a "“line-by-line treasure hunt for error”": Vavilov, above at para. 102. We are also instructed not to assess the reasons of administrative bodies such as the Canadian Human Rights Commission against the standard of perfection: Vavilov, above at para. 91.
[97] Reasons for a decision are, rather, to be "“read holistically and contextually”", in light of the record before the reviewing court, "“with due sensitivity to the administrative regime in which they were given”": Vavilov, above at paras. 97 and 103. A reviewing court must be able to trace the decision maker’s reasoning without encountering any fatal flaws in its overarching logic. The Court must, moreover, be satisfied that there is a line of analysis contained in the reasons that could reasonably lead the decision maker from the evidence before it to its conclusion: Vavilov, above at para. 102.
[98] It is not for the Federal Court (or this Court on appeal) to ask whether there was sufficient evidence before the Commission to warrant the referral of a complaint to the Tribunal for inquiry. This would be to ask whether the Commission was correct in its assessment of the evidence – applying correctness review rather than reasonableness review: Ennis, above at para. 50.
[99] In assessing the reasonableness of a Commission decision to dismiss a human rights complaint, our job is, rather, to ask ourselves whether the Commission’s decision was one that it reasonably could have made, based on the record before it: Ennis, above at para. 53.
[100] As noted earlier, in determining whether the Commission’s decision to dismiss Mr. Jagadeesh’s human rights complaint was reasonable, we cannot just look at the decision rendered by the Commissioners in isolation, but must also have regard to the reasoning contained in the investigation report.
|
