What Does Vavilov Mean for Constitutional Issues in Administrative Law?

by Cheryl Milne

It seems like a lifetime ago that I last attended an in-person legal conference. It was only March 9th, and while the specter of COVID-19 was present (there were hand sanitizer dispensers at the elevator banks and we all used them), social distancing was not yet a phrase on everyone’s tongue as we sat shoulder to shoulder in the downtown conference facility. The conference hosted by Osgoode Hall Law School was a day-long examination of the Supreme Court of Canada’s long-awaited administrative law decision, Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65. I was asked to discuss its implications for constitutional issues.

The short answer is that the decision poses more questions than answers. The long version is what I think can be covered in a blog post rather than an academic paper. Hence, my attempt, from the relatively safe confines of my kitchen, to summarize what I said on March 9th and what I have thought about it since. I should add that I was joined on this two-person panel by Senwung Luk of OKT LLP, who addressed the implications for the duty to consult and accommodate, and whose succinct answer to that question was, “utter chaos.”

For those of you who were not hanging on the edge of your seats for the duration of 2019 awaiting the Court’s pronouncement on the standard of review in administrative law, the appeal involved the judicial review of the decision of the Registrar of Citizenship to cancel the Canadian citizenship of the Canadian-born son of parents later revealed to be Russian spies – their story served as inspiration for the television series, The Americans. That got some of your attention!

I don’t propose to analyze the Court’s overall approach to the administrative law questions and the standard of review here. For a more comprehensive treatment, I suggest Paul Daly’s blog Administrative Law Matters which links to his longer paper posted on SSRN. My task was to discuss the constitutional issues that the majority purported not to address.

In refusing to comment on its earlier administrative law decision in Doré v Barreau du Québec, 2012 SCC 12, the Court leaves open many questions. Doré established that the standard of review of an administrative decision that impacted Charter rights was reasonableness, rather than the application of the Oakes test under s. 1 of the Charter, but in keeping with the general theme of proportionality under s.1, the decision needed to be a proportional balancing of the Charter right with the governing statutory objective. This approach was reiterated in Loyola High School v. Quebec (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 12 and the Trinity Western decisions (referenced below). It remains controversial, with critics claiming that it fails to respect the primary or priority of Charter rights[1] and fails to place the onus on government for justifying a limitation on rights as is required under s. 1 of the Charter.[2]

The majority states clearly that “constitutional matters require a final and determinate answer from the courts” (para.55), thus attracting the correctness standard of review. But that applies only to constitutional questions, such as a challenge to the constitutional validity of legislation. The majority of the Court goes on to state,

However, it is important to draw a distinction between cases in which it is alleged that the effect of the administrative decision being reviewed is to unjustifiably limit rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (as was the case in Doré) and those in which the issue on review is whether a provision of the decision maker’s enabling statute violates the Charter… [para. 57]




So, you might ask what is so unclear about that? The reasonableness standard continues to apply to the Doré set of cases, while challenges to statutes require the standard of correctness. But the Court interchanges constitutional questions with the term constitutional matters, which include federalism issues and treaty rights, and glosses over any confusion that could arise over what could fit within that category. For example, the Ontario Courts of Justice Act defines a constitutional question as one that invokes the constitutional validity or applicability of a statutory provision as well as a claim for a constitutional remedy under s.24(1) of the Charter. Does this mean that the standard of correctness applies to a claim for a constitutional remedy based on government action as opposed to the validity of a statute, as anticipated by R v Conway, 2010 SCC 22?

To illustrate the Court’s inconsistency on this issue alone, one need only look to the case of Ernst v Alberta Energy Regulators, 2017 SCC 1, admittedly not a judicial review, but a case that provides confusing analysis about what constitutes a constitutional question. The plaintiff was seeking Charter damages against the administrative body for allegedly infringing her Charter right to freedom of expression. The regulator raised the statutory provision that barred claims against it to seek a dismissal of the proceedings, while Ernst argued that the provision could not be interpreted so as to prevent a Charter claim. A minority of the Court agreed with the regulator’s interpretation that the legislation barred a damages claim, suggesting the Ernst ought to have sought a judicial review instead. Their ruling dismissing the appeal became the majority decision when Justice Abella reasoned that the claim should be dismissed because the plaintiff failed to file a Notice of Constitutional Question to have the provision declared unconstitutional. If that sounds confusing to you, you are not alone.

A further constitutional matter that could also fall within the category of general questions of law of central importance to the legal system as a whole, which is another category requiring the correctness standard of review, is the consistent interpretation of a Charter right itself. As McLachlin, C.J. (as she then was) noted in her concurring reasons in Law Society of British Columbia v Trinity Western University, 2018 SCC 32, possibly conflating reasonableness and correctness in this context,

…[T]he scope of the guarantee of the Charter right must be given a consistent interpretation regardless of the state actor, and it is the task of the courts on judicial review of a decision to ensure this. A decision based on an erroneous interpretation of a Charter right will be unreasonable. Canadians should not have to fear that their rights will be given different levels of protection depending on how the state has chosen to delegate and wield its power. [para. 116]





In stating that it was not revisiting Doré, the majority said that “reconsideration of [its approach to the standard of review of reasonableness was] not germaine to the issues in this appeal” [para.57]. To properly examine this statement, one needs to dip one’s toe into the majority’s revised reasonableness framework. In asserting that the role of the reviewing court is to review and not to decide the issues themselves, the majority states that the review does not entail an “attempt to ascertain the ‘range’ of possible conclusions that would have been open to the decision maker” [para.83]. This specifically contradicts the language of Doré [para. 56] in respect of the proportionality analysis and the approach to judicial review generally enunciated in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 [para. 47]. The Court reiterated this pre-Vavilov approach in Trinity Western University v Law Society of Upper Canada, 2018 SCC 33, where Justice Abella stated for the majority,

The reviewing court must consider whether there were other reasonable possibilities that would give effect to Charter protections more fully in light of the objectives, always asking whether the decision falls within a range of reasonable outcomes [Doré, at para.57; Loyala, at para. 41, citing RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 1995 CanLII 64 (SCC), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199, at para. 160). [para. 36]




It is difficult to ascertain whether a given decision that is required to balance Charter rights against legislative purpose is proportional without asking whether the decision falls within a range of reasonable outcomes. While the section 1 Oakes test is not applicable, the imperative of minimally impairing a Charter right is central to the proportionality analysis.

Another aspect of the decision that raises questions about the approach to expect in future cases is the Court’s treatment of context. The contextual approach to determining the standard of review has been clearly rejected. Reasonableness, even where Charter rights are implicated (other than a constitutional question), is the presumptive standard. However, context still plays a role in the way that a robust reasonableness review is conducted.

The majority states, “what is reasonable in a given situation will always depend on the constraints imposed by the legal and factual context of the particular decision under review” [para. 90]. However, it is also important to note that the majority in Trinity Western also stated that in the Charter context reasonableness and proportionality are synonymous, suggesting, perhaps, a different approach to the standard of reasonableness given that one could argue that proportionality requires a particular approach when assessing the impact on Charter protected rights.

While we appear to be stuck with Doré for the foreseeable future, that may not be a bad thing in light of the Court’s deferential approach to reasonableness in Vavilov. However, questions still remain under that approach as to who bears the onus for demonstrating the reasonableness of a decision, with the Courts generally requiring those challenging the decision to meet that onus. This leaves the individual alleging the breach of their Charter rights with the burden, unlike the onus on government under the Oakes test.

So, my short summary was that there are more questions than answers in respect of the implications of Vavilov for constitutional issues. Those questions for me include: What is a constitutional question? Does the interpretation of the Charter right invoke the standard of correctness or is an incorrect interpretation unreasonable? How will the context of a Charter claim alter the reasonableness standard, or will it? How will the proportionality analysis be conducted if the reviewer is not to examine alternative outcomes that could have been available? And, does the requirement of justification and the focus on reasons address any of the issues pertaining to onus that have been the subject of the criticism of Doré?

Cheryl Milne is the Executive Director of the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights

[1] Macklin, Audrey, Charter Right or Charter Lite? Administrative Discretion and the Charter (October 9, 2014). Supreme Court Law Review, Vol 67, 2014. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2507801

[2] Liston, Mary, Administering the Charter, Proportioning Justice: Thirty-five Years of Development in a Nutshell Canadian Journal of Administrative Law & Practice; Toronto Vol. 30, Iss. 2, (Jun 2017): 211-246.

Recapping Brandon Garrett’s Constitutional Roundtable on Wealth, Equal Protection, and Due Process

by Kylie de Chastelain

On Wednesday, October 2nd, 2019 the Asper Centre hosted Professor Brandon Garrett for a Constitutional Roundtable titled “Wealth, Equal Protection and Due Process.”

Professor Garrett presented work from a recent paper exploring “equal process” – a term he coined to describe the intersection between the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses in the United States Constitution. “Equal process” claims have already arisen from Supreme Court and lower court cases where the main issue is wealth inequality, but courts have been wary of engaging with constitutional issues on a cumulative or intersectional basis. Garrett argues that the “equal process” approach should be more widely implemented to help address a series of pressing civil right issues, including the constitutionality of fines, loss of voter rights or driver’s licenses, and detention for inability to pay cash bail.

To illustrate the damaging effects of “punishing the poor,” and the need for an “equal process” approach, Garrett presented findings from a compelling empirical research study he conducted at Duke Law’s JustScience Lab. The study examined driver’s license suspensions in North Carolina from 1996-2018. In North Carolina, licenses can be suspended for a failure to pay traffic tickets or failure to appear in court. Many states have similar legislation. However, in North Carolina, as elsewhere, insufficient public transit options make driving a necessity. The loss of one’s license can have substantial material effects on livelihood and employment.

Garrett and his team found that approximately 1 out of 7 driving-age individuals in North Carolina currently have suspended licenses, for a total of 1,225,000 active suspensions. Of these, 827,000 are for a failure to appear in Court, 263,000 are for a failure to comply with orders to pay traffic fines or court fees, and 135,000 are for both. This data was further analyzed against race and class metrics to find that driver’s license suspensions occur disproportionately in low-income and non-white populations. In other words, license suspension and legal procedure of this kind punish people for poverty; something the Equal Protection Clause explicitly aims to prevent.

Historically, U.S. courts have been unwilling to examine constitutional issues such as these in creative ways, preferring to examine constitutional matters in isolation. This clause-by-clause tactic, Garrett argues, fails to adequately address the complex issues arising from poverty. An interdisciplinary approach yields better results.

For example, in Bearden v Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983), a man who was sentenced to probation and ordered to pay $750 in fines but could not afford to do so eventually had his probation revoked. The Bearden Court explicitly merged Equal Protection and Due Process analyses in this case, noting that a classic procedural approach – where fine amounts are automatic regardless of ability to pay – was inherently unjust. Instead, the Court examined why the man could not pay and explored whether alternative measures could equally serve the state’s interest. Implementing a delayed payment plan, reducing the fine, or ordering time in public service could all fulfill requirements for punishment and restitution without unduly compounding the effects of poverty in this man’s life. Like this, the “equal process” approach could empower courts and litigators to raise joint claims and establish more just modes of penalty.

In this way, Professor Garrett argues, Bearden provides courts and lawyers with a strong basis for raising and trying joint claims. Adopting an “equal process” approach could empower courts to re-examine their objectives and interests in handing down punishment to society’s most vulnerable.

Following Professor Garrett’s presentation, Professor Vincent Chiao offered his comments and insight into the Canadian context. R v Boudreault, 2018 SCC 58 is a recent notable case where the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the mandatory victim surcharge provision of the Criminal Code on the basis that it was unconstitutional. As Chiao noted, the Court’s analysis in Boudreault did not focus on due process or equality but on gross disproportionality and cruel and unusual punishment as per s. 12 of the Charter.

The decision in Boudreault marked a clear departure from R v Tinker 2017 ONCA 522, where the Court reinstated victim surcharges against appellants on the basis that they were “rationally connected” to aims regarding remedy for criminal activities and accountability to victims. In Tinker, s. 12 arguments addressing cruel and unusual punishment were dismissed. But in Boudreault, as in Bearden, the Court acknowledged that victim surcharges compound the effects of poverty, effectively creating ongoing debts that are impossible for offenders to repay. Chiao emphasized that although the result in Boudreault was encouraging, Professor Garrett’s “equal process” approach could help elucidate intersectional, equality-focused jurisprudence in Canada moving forward.

Kylie de Chastelain is a 1L JD student at the Faculty of Law and is the current Asper Centre work-study student.

Recapping YY Chen’s Constitutional Roundtable on Citizenship and the Charter

by Michelle Huang and Jeffrey Wang

On Thursday, February 28, the Asper Centre hosted Professor Y. Y. Brandon Chen for a Constitutional Roundtable titled “Toward a Substantive Understanding of Citizenship in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”. Chen is a lawyer and social worker by training, and is completing his SJD at UTLaw. He is currently an Assistant Professor at the University of Ottawa’s Faculty of Law, focusing his research on public law, health, and migration. Chen was also an Asper Centre clinic student in 2009 while a pursuing his JD at UTLaw.

For the Roundtable, Professor Chen presented an argument for a more inclusive judicial definition of Canadian citizenship within the Charter. The first part of his presentation focused on the three sections of the Charter that explicitly limit rights to citizenship – sections 3, 6, and 23. He argues that courts have relied on Federal statutes’ definitions of citizenship to inform their understandings of citizenship, resulting in a large number of people being inadequately protected. Chen’s stance is that Courts should be reading these sections of the Charter in a more purposive manner in an attempt to include non-citizen groups who are also entitled to the same degree of protection.

Chen posed two questions in relation to s.3, s.6 and s.23. Firstly, should the meaning of “citizen of Canada” depend on legislative definition? If so, are we allowing Parliament to skirt its Charter obligations? Secondly, he asks what a judicially constructed definition of citizenship would look like.

Chen proposed that citizenship can be understood as membership in a state. More specifically, it is the desire to foster a deep connection to a society. This idea is supported by social science research and the Supreme Court in the case of Ontario v Winner [1951] SCR 887. However, the present legislative definition of citizenship is not broad enough to encompass all groups of people who possess these qualities. There are non-citizens with similar interests and relationships to the Canadian state that are entitled to the protection of the Canadian government under this definition.

The second part of Chen’s legal argument was focused on how s.15 of the Charter interprets citizenship as an analogous ground of protection. Currently, the court only targets policies that draw a clear line between citizenship and non-citizenship. For example, in Toussaint v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 CAF 208, the Federal Court of Appeal rejected a claim that a law discriminated against non-citizens simply because other non-citizen groups are protected by the law. This is a simplistic line of argument that tends to erase the distinct groups that exist under the non-citizen category, such as migrant workers, international students, and permanent residents. Despite their universal non-citizen legal status, these groups receive differential rights from the government.

Chen emphasized that Canadian courts have ruled that discrimination based on one type of disability is still disability discrimination, even if other types of disabilities are protected. In recognizing that there are different non-citizen groups who receive differential treatment, the same logic should be applied to them.

Overall, Professor Chen presented a compelling argument for the courts to understand citizenship in a way that more actively protects individuals’ rights. In questioning the courts’ reliance on Parliament’s definition of citizenship, he opened up the possibility of protecting more individuals under the Charter who are already substantive members of Canadian society. Furthermore, in challenging the normative line between citizenship and non-citizenship under s.15, Professor Chen advocates for a more nuanced and complex understanding of differential (non)citizenship experiences.

Michelle Huang and Jeffrey Wang are 1L JD Candidates at the Faculty of Law. They are also members of the Asper Centre Immigration & Refugee Law student working group this year.

What they don’t know will hurt them: no consent, gender identity or social media in the Ontario sex ed curriculum

By Leslie Anne St. Amour

In my opinion, to call the court’s decision dismissing the case against the Ontario government in respect to the repeal and replacement of the sex ed curriculum disappointing would be an understatement. I would consider instead: disheartening, or infuriating.

In 2018 the Ontario government issued a directive to repeal the 2015 sexual education curriculum and replace it with the 2010 curriculum, which had the same sexual education content as the 1998 curriculum. The previous curriculum did not include among other things consent, gender identity and expression, cyberbully or sexting. The Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario (ETFO), the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), and a parent of a child affected brought two applications to judicially review this directive, which essentially required the determination of one question: whether the directive and the events surrounding the decision infringed the Charter rights of teachers, students, and/or parents.

Arguments were made regarding sections 2(b), 7 and 15(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in this case by the ETFO and the CCLA. Several interveners also took part to provide other perspectives including: Grand Council of Treaty 3, Justice for Children and Youth and Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and HIV & AIDS Legal Clinic Ontario.  This article provides my opinion on the Charter analysis provided by the court, but I will note there was also a discussion of jurisdiction and standing.

I understand how the court came to dismiss the applications, but I still believe it was incredibly important that the case was brought. We need queer youth, young women and girls and survivors of sexual violence to know we stand with them. The court did clarify that teachers can teach from the 2015 curriculum with no fear of professional repercussions and in many ways, that is a win for students with willing teachers. But the concern remains for students of teachers unwilling to teach this content for personal reasons or because of the opinions of those around them.

2(b) – Freedom of Expression

In addressing the section 2(b) freedom of expression analysis, the court examined the combination of the removal of topics from the curriculum along with statements made by members of the government and the creation of a website which allowed for the submission of information on teachers and classrooms. The complainants alleged that this constellation of factors established a violation of teachers’ freedom of expression by preventing them from teaching facets of the 2015 curriculum which were removed by the replacement with the 2010 curriculum.

In finding that there was no 2(b) violation, the judge appears to rely on the fact that counsel clarified the positions of the Minister in respect to what was fair game for teachers to teach under the new curriculum. I am frustrated by this result as this clarification would not have come had this not been brought to court and runs counter to the common understanding of the statements made by the government, which the court itself called “Ill-considered”. However, I expect some teachers will find solace in this decision as it confirms their ability to provide necessary information on consent, gender identity, sexual orientation, sexting and cyberbullying to their students without fear of professional sanctions.

7 – Guarantee to Life, Liberty and Security of the Person

While working with the Asper Centre, within our working group, I focused on the s. 7 arguments and I knew this would be a difficult argument to make but I hadn’t expected the court’s focus on a lack of evidence of harm stemming from the 2010 curriculum. Jurisprudence on s. 7 does not require direct scientific evidence, but rather a sufficient casual connection is enough to draw a reasonable inference on a balance of probabilities.

In my mind, every sexual assault which was committed by a person who had been taught sex ed in Ontario during the time period the 2010 curriculum was in use or was perpetrated against someone had been taught sex ed in Ontario during that time arguably had a link to the curriculum. This is due to a lack of education around the requirement of consent to engage in sexual activity. I thought of the young men and women who didn’t know they needed to say yes, didn’t know how to say no or didn’t know what to do when their no or lack of yes meant nothing to someone else. I think of the young men and women now having to face the reality of having engaged in sexual misconduct or assault because no one taught them any better in a world which rewards toxic masculinity and rape culture and encourages women to bite their tongue and let it go.

And so, I knew this argument would be hard to make because a government does not have a positive burden to ensure life, liberty and security of the person and because a policy of one government does not bind the next, but I hadn’t expected part of the issue to be a conceived lack of harm.

15(1) – Equality

In addressing the s 15(1) arguments the court references the characterization of the curriculum as a benefit which is not available to certain groups however, does not address this point specifically in its reasons. The court reiterates the jurisprudence surrounding the fact that the repeal of a policy does not constitute a Charter violation if it removes a benefit that previously existed. However, my understanding of the framing of the issue as a benefit which is not available to certain groups such as LGBTQ students is a desire to see the current curriculum, separate from the repeal itself, as a violation.

By providing a sexual education curriculum which does not teach content relevant to diverse gender identities or sexual orientations, cis and straight students are receiving a benefit from the government that other students cannot receive. That benefit is a sexual education curriculum which is relevant to them. The court does not address the s. 15 claim from this angle, addressing only the lack of requirement to continue to provide a benefit that had previously been received.

I want to end this article by saying that I and many others will continue to stand with the students impacted by the repeal and this decision and continue to do what we can to support them and their access to the necessary information they are no longer guaranteed in the classroom. Therefore, I’ve provided a list of links below to resources that are working to fill this gap:

My Sex Ed – Resources


Planned Parenthood- Factsheet

Teen Health Source

Leslie Anne St. Amour is 2L JD Candidate at the Faculty of Law and a former Asper Centre clinic student. [read Leslie Anne’s previous blog post reflecting on her work on this case as an Asper Centre Clinic student.]



R v Bird: Do Not “Breach First, Challenge Later”

by Sahil Kesar

Spencer Bird (“Bird”), a long-term offender, was charged with breaching the conditions of a community supervision order prescribed by the Parole Board. At the criminal proceeding, he sought to use the defence that the order which imposed his parole conditions was unconstitutional as they violated Section 7 of the Charter. He argued that the condition that he reside in a facility that was designated a penitentiary for the community portion of his sentence breached his right to liberty. At trial, Bird was successful only to have the decision overturned and to be convicted on appeal on the basis that he could not collaterally attack the parole condition in this manner. The Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) drew upon the doctrine of collateral attack based on the approach developed in R v Consolidated Maybrun Mines Ltd and R v Al Klippert Ltd to determine its applicability when the constitutionality of an administrative order is challenged collaterally, rather than appealed or judicially reviewed directly.

The majority dismissed the appeal on the basis that Bird was precluded from collaterally attacking the long-term supervision order (“LTSO”) prescribed by the Parole Board. Analyzing the factors of the Maybrun framework, Moldaver J determined that Parliament could not have intended to let offenders “breach first” and “challenge later” the LTSO conditions imposed on them by the Parole Board. Further, the availability of other options for Bird to pursue his constitutional rights favoured not allowing the collateral attack especially since Parliament intended to defer to the judgment of the Parole Board, given the wording of the legislative scheme. Moldaver J did find, however, that the final factor of the Maybrun framework favoured allowing the collateral attack; however, after weighing all the factors of the Maybrun framework, Moldaver J concluded that Parliament did not intend to have LTSO conditions collaterally attacked in the case at hand and dismissed the appeal.

Martin J, in a concurring opinion, also dismissed the appeal but on the basis that the LTSO conditions did not violate the Charter, concluding that Bird could collaterally attack the LTSO conditions imposed by the Parole Board in his defence. Martin J differed in her approach to the factors enumerated in the Maybrun framework. She was of the view that allowing a collateral attack does not amount to a “breach first, challenge later” approach since breaching LTSO conditions is not a strategic plan, especially since it could potentially lead to an additional 10-year sentence. Martin J also found that none of the options listed by the majority, which Bird could have sought instead of breaching his LTSO conditions, were adequate and intended by Parliament to use in this specific legislative scheme, particularly habeas corpus. She also found that the fifth factor weighed in favour of allowing the collateral attack.

Looking at the Charter arguments, Martin J dismissed the Section 9 and 11 arguments on the basis that this was not an exceptional case where she should hear Charter arguments not previously raised. On the Section 7 argument, Martin J disagreed with Bird’s arguments that the residency condition imposed on him was arbitrary. She found that the broad definition of penitentiary does not amount to him being forced to serve an arbitrary extension of his carceral sentence. She also found that the distinctions between other parolees and long-term offenders do not indicate that long-term offenders were not to be housed where Bird was being forced to reside. Ultimately, Bird’s residency condition was within the ability of the Parole Board to impose and was based on his particular circumstances.

The Asper Centre intervened in this appeal. The Centre made four submissions:

  1. First, the Asper Centre’s sought to have constitutional considerations made explicit in the Maybrun This was based on two assertions. First, Maybrun was not a constitutional case but the jurisprudence it drew on provided for the balancing of legislative intent against constitutional considerations. Particularly, the US jurisprudence points towards the idea that courts should not ignore a defendant’s constitutional rights or the practical availability of prescribed remedies when deciding whether to permit a collateral attack on an administrative order. Second, the Maybrun framework implicitly permits constitutional considerations. Since the framework is intended to protect the rule of law by determining the legislature’s intended forum for relief, it must do so in a way that encourages compliance with the constitution because the principle of constitutionalism requires state action to comply with the constitution. Divorcing Charter rights from the Maybrun framework creates a perverse situation where an administrative decision is neither rooted in law nor constitutionally compliant.
  2. Second, the Asper Centre sought to have the repute of the administration of justice included as an enumerated factor under the Maybrun Denying a collateral attack when Charter rights are at stake would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, as shown in certain other examples.
  3. Third, with emphasis on seeking judicial review in Federal Court, the Asper Centre sought to have access to justice considered in the Maybrun Judicial review in Federal Court is not timely or accessible for three reasons: 1) the requirement to exhaust complex and ineffective internal reviews; 2) the difficulty in obtaining deadline extensions in Federal Court; and 3) the protracted time period required to obtain judicial review.
  4. Fourth, allowing collateral attacks does not prejudice the Crown. There is no impact on the standard of review. The Crown asserted that allowing the collateral attack would distort the standard of review since constitutional questions would be considered under correctness instead of reasonableness. However, reasonableness would be applied under Dore, not correctness as they assert.

Moldaver J for the majority, asserted that the two principles that underlie the approach to collateral attacks on court orders are accounted for in the Maybrun framework for administrative orders. The framework adequately balances legislative intent with ensuring effective means for recourse to individuals challenging administrative orders. As such, this rejects the notion that constitutional considerations or the repute of the administration of justice (submissions one and two of the Asper Centre) need to be explicitly included since the framework already accounts for the rule of law and the repute of the administration of justice.

Moldaver J made reference to the Asper Centre’s third submission at paragraph 57. He accepted that there are realistic concerns over timeliness and accessibility of relief in Federal Court and that efficiency and timeliness are of greater importance when liberty is concerned. However, he held that Bird received notice of the Parole Board’s decision to impose residency conditions five months before his long-term supervision commenced, therefore giving him ample time to seek judicial review. Moldaver J stated that concerns about timeliness of judicial review was speculation and that Parliament might want to consider whether the procedures in place governing judicial review could be modified to provide more timely and accessible relief. However, he did not make access to justice a consideration in the Maybrun framework. Martin J, in her concurring opinion also accepted that Bird would have been unlikely to have the resources to secure counsel or self-represent himself for the purpose of navigating judicial review proceedings. She did consider the access to justice issues that this raises as the absence of an internal appeal process cannot mean Parliament intends individuals to navigate Federal Court.

Neither the majority nor the concurrence directly addressed the Asper Centre’s fourth submission.

Read the Asper Centre’s Factum in the Bird Appeal here.

Sahil Kesar is a 3L JD Candidate at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law and is currently the Asper Centre half-time Clinic student