|
Reasons - Purpose. Jennings-Clyde (Vivatas, Inc.) v. Canada (Attorney General)
In Jennings-Clyde (Vivatas, Inc.) v. Canada (Attorney General) (Fed CA, 2025) the Federal Court of Appeal allowed an appeal, this brought against a dismissed Federal Court JR, this in turn brought against "the refusal of the Canada Revenue Agency to let the appellant file tax returns late: see subsection 220(3) [SS: 'Administration and Enforcement - Extensions for returns'] of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.) (the provision allowing for the exercise of discretion to allow late filings) and subsection 164(1) of the Act [SS: 'Refunds'] (the provision requiring the appellant to file its return within three years of the end of the relevant taxation year to get a refund)."
Here the court (Stratas JA) considers the appellant's argument that "it did not get an adequate explanation for the refusal from the Agency", which it finds as justified, in typical blunt Stratas fashion:[3] As a general principle, we do not allow an administrative decision-maker like the Agency to decide a matter affecting someone’s rights or practical interests unless it gives an adequate explanation for its decision, or the explanation is otherwise evident or discernable. See, generally, Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653.
[4] This is no small thing. Through their decisions, administrative decision-makers like the Agency have the power to affect people’s lives, sometimes significantly. In our democratic governance, there is a quid pro quo for that: public administrative decision-makers must explain their decisions. "“""L’État, c’est moi”" and "“trust us, we got it right”" have no place in public administrative decision-making: Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Tennant, 2018 FCA 132 at para. 23.
[5] And there are good practical reasons why we insist on seeing adequate explanations for administrative decisions:Adequate explanations lead often to more thinking, better thinking, and, thus, better decision-making. This is because administrative decision-makers, while they write up adequate explanations for their decisions, often discover gaps or flaws in their reasoning or the need for more submissions.
Adequate explanations tell affected persons that the administrative decision-maker took on board their key arguments and rejected them for certain reasons: this vindicates the interests served by procedural fairness.
Adequate explanations further the transparency, legitimacy and accountability of administrative decision-makers to the parties before them, other regulatees, reviewing courts, and the wider public—something needed more than ever in these days of widespread skepticism, cynicism, and mistrust of government. (See generally Canadian National Railway Company v. Canada (Transportation Agency), 2025 FCA 184 at para. 46 and cases cited therein.)
|
