Opinion of The Court
Dickson J., writing for the unanimous Court, proposed a new analytical framework to approach administrative decisions. He noted that the existence of privative clauses indicated the legislative choice of empowering specialized administrative bodies to decide certain matters such as labour relations. Limited by such privative clauses, courts should only interfere if an interpretation of the Act was "so patently unreasonable that its construction cannot be rationally supported by the relevant legislation."
The Court held that the decision of the Labour Board was not patently unreasonable and reinstated the Board's decision. The court found that the section was "very badly drafted" and that it "bristles with ambiguities". The wording of the statute allowed multiple plausible interpretations, including both the Board's and the Court of Appeal's interpretation. As such, the decision of the Board should be given deference.
Further, the Court attempted to clarify the issue of jurisdiction. Dickson J. wrote that the preferable approach to jurisdictional problems is that "jurisdiction is typically to be determined at the outset of the inquiry", but also noted that:
The question of what is and is not jurisdictional is often very difficult to determine. The courts, in my view, should not be alert to brand as jurisdictional, and therefore subject to broader curial review, that which may be doubtfully so.
This decision was a major shift in the approach to judicial review. Prior to this decision, Canadian courts primarily concerned themselves with the question of whether an administrative body had acted within its own jurisdiction. If it was within the jurisdiction conferred upon it by the enabling statute, then its decisions were generally upheld. If it was found to go beyond its jurisdiction, then courts were free to overturn the decisions. This approach was often criticized for being overly formalistic and often led to courts labeling questions as jurisdictional without considering the reasons of the administrative decision-maker in question.
The new approach emphasized the need for deference in the proper circumstances, often considering relative expertise of the body and the legislative intention in creating such a body. In such cases where administrative decision-makers are acting properly within their own jurisdiction, courts are told to evaluate the decision on a standard of "patent unreasonableness".
Read more about this topic: CUPE V. New Brunswick Liquor Corp.
Famous quotes containing the words opinion of, opinion and/or court:
“A fashionable milieu is one in which everybodys opinion is made up of the opinion of all the others. Has everybody a different opinion? Then it is a literary milieu.”
—Marcel Proust (18711922)
“An inquiry about the attitude towards the release of so-called political prisoners. I should be very sorry to see the United States holding anyone in confinement on account of any opinion that that person might hold. It is a fundamental tenet of our institutions that people have a right to believe what they want to believe and hold such opinions as they want to hold without having to answer to anyone for their private opinion.”
—Calvin Coolidge (18721933)
“To rear a tiger is to court calamity.”
—Chinese proverb.