Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov

Listen to Podcast

Case Brief

Facts

Alexander Vavilov, born in Canada in 1994 to Russian spies posing as Canadians, was issued a Canadian citizenship certificate in 2013. In 2014, the Registrar of Citizenship cancelled the certificate, interpreting section 3(2)(a) of the Citizenship Act to exclude children of foreign government employees, regardless of diplomatic immunity. Vavilov challenged this decision, which was initially dismissed by the Federal Court but overturned by the Court of Appeal as unreasonable.

Issues

1. What is the proper approach to judicial review of administrative decisions, specifically regarding the standard of review? 2. Was the Registrar’s decision to cancel Vavilov’s citizenship certificate reasonable?

Legal Analysis

The Supreme Court revisited its framework for judicial review, established in *Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick*. The majority significantly altered the approach, establishing a presumption of reasonableness review for all administrative decisions unless the legislature explicitly indicates otherwise (e.g., through a statutory appeal mechanism prescribing correctness review) or the rule of law demands correctness (constitutional questions, general questions of law of central importance, jurisdictional conflicts between administrative bodies). The Court provided detailed guidance on applying the reasonableness standard, emphasizing a holistic review of the decision and its justification, focusing on internal coherence and tenability in light of the factual and legal context. The dissenting justices argued that the majority's approach unduly restricts deference to administrative decision-makers, ignores established principles of legislative intent and expertise, and disregards stare decisis by overruling a significant body of precedent. Applying the reasonableness standard, the majority found the Registrar's decision unreasonable due to its failure to adequately justify its broad interpretation of section 3(2)(a) considering the statutory context, international law, previous case law, and potential consequences.

Decision

The appeal was dismissed. The Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision to quash the Registrar’s decision, concluding that the Registrar’s interpretation of section 3(2)(a) of the Citizenship Act was unreasonable. The majority also significantly revised the framework for judicial review of administrative decisions, establishing a presumption of reasonableness review with limited exceptions. The dissenting justices agreed with the dismissal of the appeal but disagreed with the majority's reformulation of the standard of review framework.