|
|
| (24 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | {{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= July 8, 2023}} |
| {{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = complaints}} | | {{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = complaints}} |
|
| |
|
| == A. Introduction == | | = Introduction = |
|
| |
|
| This chapter does not address all problems, legal or otherwise, relating to government, but it provides some general information that may assist your client. This section contains general guidelines for dealing with public bodies (e.g., the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the Egg Marketing Board, or a public university). Individuals involved in the judicial review process should consult the following texts: | | This chapter provides some general information that may assist in making a public application or complaint, but does not address all problems, legal or otherwise, relating to government. This chapter contains general guidelines for dealing with public bodies (e.g., the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the Egg Marketing Board, or a public university). Individuals involved in the judicial review process should consult the following texts: |
|
| |
|
| David J Mullan, ''Administrative Law'', (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2001). | | David J Mullan, ''Administrative Law'', (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2001). |
| *Part of the Essentials of Canadian Law series by Irwin Law, this text provides a comprehensive review of administrative law in Canada. | | *Part of the Essentials of Canadian Law series by Irwin Law, this text provides a comprehensive review of administrative law in Canada. |
|
| |
|
| Sara Blake, ''Administrative Law in Canada'', 5th ed (Toronto: LexisNexis, 2011). | | Sara Blake, ''Administrative Law in Canada'', 6th ed (Toronto: LexisNexis, 2017). |
| *This text provides a simple and clear review of administrative law. | | *This text provides a simple and clear review of administrative law. |
|
| |
|
| Line 14: |
Line 15: |
| *This regularly updated three-volume text provides a more detailed review of administrative law. | | *This regularly updated three-volume text provides a more detailed review of administrative law. |
|
| |
|
| == B. Governing Legislation and Resources ==
| | {{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters1-7}} |
| | |
| === 1. Legislation ===
| |
| | |
| ''Federal Courts Act'', RSC 1985, c F-7.
| |
| | |
| ''Judicial Review Procedure Act'', RSBC 1996, c 241.
| |
| | |
| === 2. Resources ===
| |
| | |
| David Mossop, Kendra Milne & Jess Hadley, ''Representing Yourself in a Judicial Review'', 2d ed (Vancouver: Community Legal Assistance Society, 2010), online: <clasbc.net/publications>.
| |
| | |
| The Ombudsperson of BC website: http://www.ombudsman.bc.ca.
| |
| | |
| == C. Step One: Informal Review ==
| |
| | |
| Disputes with government agencies can often be resolved through informal communication. Agencies often make initial decisions based on misperceptions, without all relevant information. Sometimes the most difficult part of an advocate’s job is to locate the person making the decision or someone in a position to review the decision. Before pursuing more drastic (and often expensive) avenues, try to locate this person and ensure that they have been provided with all relevant information.
| |
| | |
| == D. Step Two: Formal Review ==
| |
| | |
| Most government agencies have some sort of formal review process. For some agencies there is little difference between formal and informal review, while others have sophisticated, published processes that closely resemble courtroom procedure. Whatever the problem is and whichever government player is involved, be sure to research the review process before launching a formal appeal. Factors such as cost, location of the hearing, type of submissions heard, and evidence required will all affect the choice of whether or not to pursue a resolution through the formal review process.
| |
| | |
| Generally, powers of review and review procedures are set out in the statutes and regulations that govern a particular tribunal or court. Agencies themselves further clarify this process. Many publish handbooks for internal use that are available to the general public on their websites or in law libraries. Lawyers with experience in the area may also provide valuable insight. Lawyers at the Community Legal Assistance Society can be helpful when dealing with specific problems, especially those dealing with poverty law topics (EI, WCB, Income Assistance).
| |
| | |
| '''NOTE: Pay attention to time limits.''' Many worthy cases have been lost because an advocate failed to pay proper attention to limitation periods. Some limitation periods are very short.
| |
| | |
| == E. Step Three: Examining an Appeal ==
| |
| | |
| If launching an internal review fails to solve a client’s issue, they can either apply for judicial review or contact the BC Ombudsperson. Both of these options can be pursued at the same time, but one option may be preferable to the other in certain circumstances. Generally speaking, clients will be looking to resort to the courts through a judicial review, which will actually render a binding decision on a case. The Ombudsperson is generally to be contacted only where the client does not have a legal cause of action, but still wants to change a part of a government body’s structure that leads to unfairness.
| |
| | |
| === 1. Judicial Review ===
| |
| | |
| If a client receives an unfavourable decision from an agency’s appeal process, or objects to the appeal process itself, the client may have recourse to the courts. Sometimes regulations give an individual a right to appeal directly to the courts. If so, the client should use this direct right to appeal rather than the general judicial review procedure. However, even if the client has no express statutory right to appeal to the courts, superior courts possess inherent jurisdiction to review administrative action to ensure that administrative decision-makers do not exceed the authority granted to them by statute.
| |
| | |
| The courts have developed criteria against which to assess the adequacy of government agencies’ decision-making procedures. These criteria form the heart of administrative law. It is not within the scope of this section to attempt a comprehensive overview of the basic principles of administrative law. Interested parties can find an excellent introduction to these fundamental principles in ''Dunsmuir v New Brunswick'', 2008 SCC 9. Bastarache and Lebel JJ for the majority provide the following description at paragraphs 27-28:
| |
| | |
| As a matter of constitutional law, judicial review is intimately connected with the preservation of the rule of law... By virtue of the rule of law principle, all exercises of public authority must find their source in law. All decision-making powers have legal limits, derived from the enabling statute itself, the common or civil law or the Constitution. Judicial review is the means by which the courts supervise those who exercise statutory powers, to ensure that they do not overstep their legal authority. The function of judicial review is therefore to ensure the legality, the reasonableness and the fairness of the administrative process and its outcomes.
| |
| | |
| Remember that judicial review should not be contemplated unless all aforementioned avenues have been exhausted.
| |
| | |
| ==== a) BC Judicial Review Procedure Act ====
| |
| | |
| For matters within the jurisdiction of the BC Legislature, the ''Judicial Review Procedure Act'', RSBC 1996, c 241 [''JRPA''], provides for the judicial review of the “exercise, refusal to exercise, or proposed or purported exercise, of a statutory power” (''JRPA'', s 2). This includes the power to review decisions “deciding or prescribing (a) the legal rights, powers, privileges, immunities, duties or liabilities of a person, or (b) the eligibility of a person to receive, or to continue to receive, a benefit or licence...” (''JRPA, s 1). In a proceeding under the ''JRPA'', the court has broad powers to craft a suitable remedy; most often the case will be returned to the tribunal for reconsideration in light of the court’s findings of law or fact (see Section I.F.4: Available Remedies, below). An application under the ''JRPA'' can be brought before a Supreme Court judge in Chambers. Although this is a less expensive procedure than a trial, it may still be beyond the means of most clients.
| |
| | |
| ==== b) Judicial Review Procedure ====
| |
| | |
| A party applying for judicial review must first determine whether the Federal Court or a provincial superior court has authority to decide on the matter. As a general rule, provincial jurisdiction includes tribunals established within provincial constitutional jurisdiction and tribunals created by the province due to a delegation of powers by the federal government.
| |
| | |
| ===== (1) Federal Court =====
| |
| | |
| When considering judicial review of federal tribunals, look at both the ''Federal Courts Act'', RSC 1985, c F-7, and the particular tribunal’s governing statute. Often the governing statute sets out important limitation periods and procedures.
| |
| | |
| The Federal Court Trial Division hears reviews of most federal tribunals. However, the 16 tribunals listed in section 28 of the ''Federal Courts Act'' are reviewed by the Federal Court of Appeal. Examples of federal tribunals that are reviewed by the Federal Court of Appeal include the Canada Industrial Relations Board, Employment Insurance umpires, the Competition Tribunal, and the CRTC.
| |
| | |
| The procedures for a federal judicial review are set out in s 18.1 of the ''Federal Courts Act''. There is a '''30-day''' limitation period for applications to the Federal Court, which can be extended under s 18.1(2).
| |
| | |
| ===== (2) Provincial Superior Courts =====
| |
| | |
| A tribunal under provincial jurisdiction can be reviewed upon application to a judge in the BC Supreme Court. The procedural rules are described in the ''BC Supreme Court Civil Rules'', BC Reg 168/2009, available in the Practice, Procedure & Policy section of the [http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/supreme_court BC Supreme Court website].
| |
| | |
| Tribunals that can be reviewed under the ''JRPA'' include the Employment and Assistance Appeal Tribunal, the Workers’ Compensation Board, and the Residential Tenancy Branch.
| |
| | |
| ===== (3) Standing =====
| |
| | |
| In general, only the parties who had standing before the tribunal or who are directly affected by the tribunal’s decision may apply for judicial review.
| |
| | |
| ===== (4) Time Limits =====
| |
| | |
| The time limit to apply to the Federal Court for judicial review under section 18.1 of the ''Federal Courts Act'' is '''30 days''', although it can be extended by the Federal Court (s 18.2(2)). However, other federal legislation may direct different timelines. For example, for decisions made pursuant to the ''Immigration and Refugee Protection Act'', SC 2001, c 27, appellants must look to both that statute and the ''Federal Courts Act''.
| |
| | |
| For provincial tribunals, applicants must refer to the ''Administrative Tribunals Act'' [''ATA''], SBC 2004, c 45, and the specific statute governing the tribunal; '''60 days''' is the default (''ATA'' s 57). Limitation periods may be extended pursuant to section 11 of the ''JRPA'', unless another enactment provides otherwise or the delay will result in substantial prejudice or hardship to another person affected.
| |
| | |
| ===== (5) Stay of Orders or Proceedings =====
| |
| | |
| While an application for judicial review is pending, existing orders from a tribunal must be obeyed, and the tribunal has discretion to continue with the proceedings. However, an applicant can ask the court to stay the tribunal’s order or to prohibit the proceedings from continuing. For an accessible explanation of how to do this, refer to this booklet (at Appendix sections C-E):
| |
| | |
| David Mossop, Kendra Milne & Jess Hadley, ''Representing Yourself in a Judicial Review'', 2d ed (Vancouver: Community Legal Assistance Society, 2010), online: <clasbc.net/publications>.
| |
| | |
| ===== (6) Evidence =====
| |
| | |
| The primary evidence for judicial review is the tribunal’s record of the hearing. Generally, the court does not allow new evidence to be introduced at a judicial review hearing.
| |
| | |
| ===== (7) Filing Fees and Indigency Applications =====
| |
| | |
| Applicants who cannot afford the filing fees for judicial review may apply for an indigency order pursuant to Rule 20-5 in Appendix C, Schedule 1 of the BC Supreme Court Civil Rules. Indigency status affords the applicant relief from all court fees and is available to those with low income and limited earning potential. Note that the process for indigency applications is complicated. For more exhaustive details on the process, please refer to this booklet (at sections 4(E) and 5):
| |
| | |
| David Mossop, Kendra Milne & Jess Hadley, ''Representing Yourself in a Judicial Review'', 2d ed (Vancouver: Community Legal Assistance Society, 2010), online: <clasbc.net/publications>.
| |
| | |
| ==== c) Scope of Judicial Review ====
| |
| | |
| Assuming a party can resort to the courts to review the decision of a tribunal, there are limitations as to the scope of judicial review.
| |
| | |
| ===== (1) Substantive Errors =====
| |
| | |
| An administrative body has only as much power as its governing statute grants to it. This grant of authority is limited in both the context and the manner in which it can be applied. If an administrative decision-maker exceeds his or her authority, the court can step in to provide a remedy.
| |
| | |
| ====== (a) Errors of Fact ======
| |
| | |
| Findings of fact are generally reviewable only if they are not supported on the evidence. The deference granted by the court to a tribunal’s findings of fact in judicial review is akin to the deference an appeal court shows to a trial court’s findings of fact. Nevertheless, the legislature is presumed not to have intended to give an administrative body the authority to act arbitrarily or capriciously. If the tribunal makes a finding of fact that cannot reasonably be drawn from the evidence, then it is exceeding the authority granted to it, and its decision can be set aside by the court.
| |
| | |
| ====== (b) Errors of Law ======
| |
| | |
| Substantive law reviewable by the courts can be divided into two areas: statutory interpretation related to the powers of a tribunal, and interpretation related to other broader questions of law.
| |
| | |
| A tribunal can be overruled if it is acting without authority. A tribunal must generally act within the jurisdiction of the legislation that created it. Similarly, a tribunal must not misinterpret the rules that govern the way it exercises authority, since these rules represent a precondition to the exercise of that authority. The mandate of a tribunal is defined in large part by the intention of the legislature. If in the course of exercising its authority a tribunal misinterprets its mandate, a court may declare the tribunal’s decision void upon judicial review.
| |
| | |
| Similarly, a tribunal can be overruled if it applies the law incorrectly in other contexts. The enabling statute creating a given tribunal cannot grant it the authority to act illegally or to change the law.
| |
| | |
| ====== (c) Standards of Review ======
| |
| | |
| Different standards of review may be imposed depending on the issue that is under review and the nature of the tribunal. The law relating to standards of review is quite complicated; thus, for a more detailed discussion of the issues pertaining to the standards of review, one should refer to ''Dunsmuir'', above. See also the ''ATA'' for statutorily prescribed standards of review applicable to certain provincial tribunals. Generally, for questions of law that go beyond the tribunal’s specialized area of expertise, the standard of review will be '''correctness'''— i.e., the tribunal must get the law right.
| |
| | |
| If a tribunal is interpreting its own enabling statute or a closely related statute with which it has particular familiarity or expertise (e.g., the Workers’ Compensation Board applying the Workers Compensation Act), then the court will generally show some deference to the tribunal’ s interpretation. The standard of review will generally be reasonableness. Likewise, for questions of fact, and for exercises of discretion (e.g., with respect to the appropriate remedy), the court will usually show deference to the judgment of the administrative decision-maker who saw the evidence first-hand. The standard of review will generally be reasonableness. A court does not usually review a tribunal’ s discretionary decisions unless its discretion was not exercised in good faith, was exercised for an improper purpose, was based on irrelevant considerations, or was otherwise unreasonable. The appropriate degree of deference depends on a number of factors, including the nature of the discretionary decision, the knowledge and expertise of the decision-maker, and the amount of discretion that is given by legislation. See Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 SCR 817 [Baker],and Suresh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] SCC 1 (for Charterviolations). A third, more deferential standard of review, patent unreasonableness, used to be applied in some circumstances. However, Dunsmuir has expressly done away with this standard of review, at least in the context of the common law. It is unclear at this time how Dunsmuir may have affected the standards of review dictated by the ATA, which still makes reference to “patently unreasonable” findings. However, Binnie J offered the following obiter comments in Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Khosa, 2009 SCC 12: “The expression ‘ patently unreasonable’ did not spring unassisted from the mind of the legislator. It was obviously intended to be understood in the context of the common law jurisprudence, although a number of indicia of patent unreasonableness are given in s. 58(3). Despite Dunsmuir, ‘ patent unreasonableness’ will live on in British Columbia, but the content of the expression, and the precise degree of deference it commands in the diverse circumstances of a large provincial administration, will necessarily continue to be calibratedaccording to general principles of administrative law. That said, of course, the legislature in s. 58 was and is directing the BC courts to afford administrators a high degree of deference on issues of fact, and effect must be given to this clearly expressed legislative intention.”Binnie J further stated that a “legislature has the power to specify a standard of review if it manifests a clear intention to do so. However, where the legislative language permits, the court (a) will not interpret grounds of review as standards of review, (b) will apply Dunsmuir principles to determine the appropriate approach to judicial review in a particular situation, and (c) will presume the existence of a discretion to grant or withhold relief
| |
| | |
| next p5-6
| |
