Canada (Attorney General) v. Igloo Vikski Inc., 2016 SCC 38
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2016/2016scc38/2016scc38.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAMSWdsb28gVmlrc2tpAAAAAAE&resultIndex=1
An example of the Court’s application of the reasonableness standard of review in the context of highly specialized subject matter (import tariff classification).
Canada (Attorney General) v. Bri-Chem Supply Ltd., 2016 FCA 257 (CanLii)
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2016/2016fca257/2016fca257.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAIQnJpLUNoZW0AAAAAAQ&resultIndex=1
A good summary of the court – tribunal – administrator hierarchy and the principles behind it: tribunals are constrained by the rulings and guidance given by courts that govern the facts and issues in a case; tribunals should try to follow their earlier decisions unless there is good reason to depart from them and administrators must follow tribunal decisions except where these can be distinguished or if the administrator can precisely identify and articulate specific elements of a tribunal decision that is likely wrong.
Edmonton (City) v. Edmonton East (Capilano) Shopping Centres Ltd., 2016 SCC 47
http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/16213/index.do
As of November 4, 2016 the latest from the Supreme Court of Canada on the standard of review. The court is sharply divided. The majority reversed the Court of Appeal and applied the presumption of deference on judicial review. The minority found the standard of review to be correctness on the basis that the statutory scheme embodied in the Municipal Government Act along with the Board’s lack of relative expertise in statutory interpretation rebutted the presumption of deference in this case.
Of note: the Court was unanimous in finding that the statutory right of appeal in and of itself does not give rise to correctness review absent explicit legislative guidance.
