The Council of Canadian Administrative Tribunals is a national organization dedicated to promoting excellence in administrative justice.

Recent News

  • Most applicants to adminis...

  • This book describes the ad...

  • This book provides informa...

© 2020 CCAT. All Rights Reserved


ext. 2040

150 Elgin Street,

Suite 1000, Ottawa, ON K2P 1L4



Consistency and Predictability Repository

Home / Consistency and Predictability Repository

What’s the point of this repository?

Consistency and predictability are important values of administrative justice. Consistency promotes fairness, by ensuring that like cases are treated alike. Predictability may be seen as consistency from the practical viewpoint of the users. When a tribunal is predictable in its processes, approaches and adjudication, that encourages efficient use of resources by enabling parties to make informed decisions about whether to appeal in the first place, what evidence and arguments to raise, and whether to settle. Predictability will help first level decision makers make better decisions. Finally, consistency and predictability can serve as badges of reasonableness that reviewing courts may rely on when considering tribunal processes and decisions.

The purpose of this repository is to identify case law, best practices and policies that may help tribunals in pursuing consistency and predictability, while avoiding impinging on member independence.

This repository is curated. There is an element of subjectivity in the selection. There is likely case law, articles, best practices and policies we have missed. We want this to be a living document. If you think there is a resource that should be included, please let us know by sending a message to CCAT at: info@ccat-ctac.org.

Case Law
Case Citation Link
Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers v. Canada (Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship), 2020 FCA 196 https://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/488437/index.do
Shuttleworth v. Ontario (Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals), 2019 ONCA 518 https://canlii.ca/t/j140m
Commission scolaire de Laval v. Syndicat de l’enseignement de la région de Laval, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 29 https://canlii.ca/t/gnrhl
Cherubini Metal Works Ltd. v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General), 2007 NSCA 37 https://canlii.ca/t/1r4cg
Thamotharem v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2007] F.C.J. No. 734 https://canlii.ca/t/1rmr4
I.B.E.W., Local 894 v. Ellis-Don Ltd., 2001 SCC 4 https://canlii.ca/t/523k
Québec (Commission des affaires sociales) v. Tremblay, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 952 https://canlii.ca/t/1fscv
I.W.A., Local 2-69 v. Consolidated Bathurst Packaging Ltd., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 282 https://canlii.ca/t/1fsz2
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 https://canlii.ca/t/j46kb
Waycobah First Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2010 FC 1188 https://canlii.ca/t/2dq0z
Articles, Blogs
Title Link/Citation
Christopher D. Bredt, Mannu Chowdhury, “Peer Review and Adjudicative Independence: Finding the Right Balance in Administrative Justice” 34 Can. J. Admin. L. & Prac. 55
Donald Chiasson, “Government Perspective on Administrative Tribunals” 14 Can. J. Admin. L. & Prac. 199
Paul Daly, “Ensuring Consistency in Administrative Adjudication: Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers v. Canada (Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship), 2020 FCA 196” https://www.administrativelawmatters.com/blog/2020/11/13/ensuring-consistency-in-administrative-adjudication-canadian-association-of-refugee-lawyers-v-canada-immigration-refugee-and-citizenship-2020-fca-196/
Paul Daly, “The Principle of Stare decisis in Canadian Administrative Law” (2015) 49 Revue juridique Thémis 757-780
Ron Ellis, “Jurisprudence and Consistency” (Council of Canadian Administrative Tribunals Conference – June 2006) http://www.ccat-ctac.org/CMFiles/Ron%20Ellis/13.JurisprudenceConsistency-CCATconferenceJune2006.pdf
Ron Ellis, “The Corporate Responsibility of Tribunal Members” http://ccat-ctac.org/CMFiles/Ron%20Ellis/21.TheCorporateResponsibilityofTribunalMembers.pdf
Bryan Finlay and Richard Ogden, “Consistency in Tribunal Decision-Making” 25 Can. J. Admin. L. & Prac. 277
Macaulay, Practice and Procedure Before Administrative Tribunals Chapter 22: Consistency and Independence
Chapter 38: Standard of Review and Consistency
Ruth Sullivan, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes, 6th Ed. Chapter 23.103-23.125, Administrative Interpretation
Kevin Whitaker, Michael Gottheil, and Michael Uhlmann, “Consistency in Tribunal Decision Making: What Really Goes On Behind Closed Doors” Laverne A. Jacobs & Justice Anne L. Mactavish, eds., Dialogue Between Court And Tribunals – Essays in Administrative Law and Justice (2001–2007)
Gary Yee, “Predictability in Tribunals” Ontario Bar Association’s Institute – Administrative Law Ten Years Later: Coherence and Consistency in Administrative Practice Post-Dunsmuir (February 6, 2018)
Gary Yee, “Performance, Predictability and Proactivity — Conference Theme for 27th Annual Conference of the Council of Canadian Administrative Tribunals (CCAT)” 24 Can. J. Admin. L. & Prac. 297 (November, 2011)
Suzanne Comtois, « Le contrôle de la cohérence décisionnelle au sein des tribunaux administratifs » 21 Revue de droit de l’Université Sherbrooke 77 (1990).
Yves-Marie Morissette, « Rétrospective et prospective sur le contentieux administratif » 39 Revue de droit de l’Université Sherbrooke (2008-2009).
Monica Popescu, « L’arrêt Vavilov : à la recherche de l’équilibre perdu entre la primauté du droit et la suprématie législative » 62 : 2 Les Cahiers de droit 567 (juin 2021).
Adjudicative Policies Policies relating to reasons review, deliberative secrecy, Consolidated Bathurst, jurisprudential guides and lead case policy, guidelines etc.
Tribunal Policy Link Description
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Reasons Review Policy Sets out the tribunal’s objectives of reasons review, and the voluntary nature of review of decision-maker reasons by the tribunal’s legal services.
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Policy on the Use of Chairperson’s Guidelines Sets out how the tribunal uses its statutory power to issue guidelines to decision-makers and staff.
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Policy on the Use of Jurisprudential Guides Sets out how the tribunal uses its statutory power to designate certain tribunal decisions as jurisprudential guides for decision-makers.
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Reasons review Sets out the voluntary nature of review of decision-maker reasons by the tribunal’s legal services. Also encourages sharing of draft decisions among decision-makers, in accordance with the principles in Consolidated-Bathurst and Shuttleworth
Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal Hallmarks of Decision Quality – Code of Conduct Sets out principles that should guide the tribunals decision-making process, including elements that should be included in decisions.
Tribunals Ontario Code of Conduct – Adjudicative Tribunals Accountability, Governance and Appointments Act, 2009 Section on Quality and Consistency refers to guidelines on form and language and the need for consistency and predictability.
Ontario Securities Commission Adjudication Guideline Sets out guidelines for decision-making by Panel Members, including consulting with other Members not on the Panel and considerations for departing from previous Commission decisions. Also describes the process that Panel Members may take to participate in review and discussion of a decision.