Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov

Listen to Podcast

Case Brief

Facts

Alexander Vavilov, born in Canada in 1994 to parents who were secretly Russian spies, was issued a Canadian citizenship certificate in 2013. In 2014, the Registrar of Citizenship cancelled the certificate based on section 3(2)(a) of the Citizenship Act, which excludes children of foreign government representatives or employees from citizenship. The Registrar interpreted this section broadly, leading to the cancellation. Vavilov challenged this decision, with the Federal Court dismissing his application and the Court of Appeal allowing his appeal, finding the Registrar's decision unreasonable.

Issues

1. What is the proper approach to judicial review of administrative decisions, specifically concerning the standard of review? 2. Was the Registrar's decision to cancel Vavilov's citizenship certificate reasonable? 3. What is the appropriate remedy when an administrative decision is found to be unreasonable?

Legal Analysis

The Supreme Court used this case to revisit and clarify the framework for judicial review of administrative decisions, as established in *Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick*. The Court abandoned the previous contextual approach to determining the standard of review, replacing it with a presumption of reasonableness review. This presumption can be rebutted only if (1) the legislature explicitly indicates a different standard (e.g., through a statutory appeal mechanism resulting in an appellate standard) or (2) the rule of law requires correctness review (e.g., for constitutional questions, questions of central importance to the legal system, or jurisdictional conflicts between administrative bodies). Applying this framework, the Court held that the reasonableness standard applied to the Registrar's decision, as it was reached through judicial review, not a statutory appeal. The Court then analyzed whether the Registrar's interpretation of section 3(2)(a) was reasonable, considering various contextual factors such as the statute's purpose, international treaties, case law, and the potential consequences of the interpretation. The majority found the Registrar's interpretation unreasonable due to a failure to adequately justify it in light of these constraints. The dissenting justices disagreed with the majority's reformulation of legislative intent and rule of law impacting the standard of review, emphasizing the specialized expertise of administrative decision-makers.

Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Court of Appeal's decision to quash the Registrar's decision. The Court found the Registrar's interpretation of s. 3(2)(a) of the Citizenship Act unreasonable. The majority outlined a revised framework for judicial review, emphasizing a presumption of reasonableness review, while the minority expressed concerns about the impact on the balance of power between courts and administrative bodies and the potential overruling of precedents without sufficient justification. The Court concluded Vavilov was a Canadian citizen by birth.