Some Thoughts on the SCC Decision in Agraira

The Supreme Court of Canada rendered, through the pen of LeBel J., a unanimous judgment in Agraira v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 SCC 36 last week.

The applicant is a Libyan national. He first sought and was refused refugee status: he claimed that he was a member of the Libyan National Salvation Front. This caused problems for him down the line. When he applied to become a permanent resident of Canada, he was deemed inadmissible because of his involvement in a terrorist organization. In short, he was not involved enough to be a refugee, but too involved to be admissible!

Towards a Right to Respond in Immigration Law?

You know when academics say, "Some of my best ideas come from students"? Sometimes, we mean it.

Unanswered Questions post-Dunsmuir

In a recent decision, Justice Stratas of the Federal Court of Appeal raised a host of questions about the applicability of the Supreme Court of Canada's re-shaping of judicial review doctrine to decisions taken by discretionary decision-makers:

[19]           I am inclined to find that the Director is subject to this “normal” or “usual” position of deference to his decision-making. But there exists considerable uncertainty on this, arising from Dunsmuir itself, previous case law, and the unusual circumstances of this case:

(a)        We are dealing with a Ministerial delegate, not a “tribunal” in any formal sense. In Dunsmuir the Supreme Court used the word “tribunal” on this point. In my view, although it is not perfectly clear, in Dunsmuir the Supreme Court did not intend to restrict this position of deference to interpretations by formal tribunals. Throughout its discussion of the standard of review, the Supreme Court used the terms “tribunal,” “decision maker,” “exercises of public authority,” “administrative bodies,” “adjudicative tribunal,” “adjudicative bodies,” “administrative tribunal,” and “administrative actors”: Dunsmuir, supra at paragraphs 28-29, 31, 33, 41, 47-50, 52, 54-56, and 59. It seems to have used the terms interchangeably and, collectively, they are wide enough to embrace a Ministerial delegate such as the Director.

(b)        In a relatively recent decision, albeit before Dunsmuir, the Supreme Court did not defer to the interpretation of a Ministerial delegate who was interpreting a statute closely related to his function: Hilewitz v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration); De Jong v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 SCC 57 (CanLII), 2005 SCC 57, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 706, (a visa officer making an assessment under subparagraph 19(1)(a)(ii) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I‑2); see also Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Patel, 2011 FCA 187 (CanLII), 2011 FCA 187 and cases cited at paragraph 27 of Patel. This is certainly consistent with how we today approach decisions involving some other Ministerial delegates. For example, in the income tax context, income tax assessors – Ministerial delegates – are very familiar with the Income Tax Act. One might think that the normal administrative law standard of review analysis would apply to appeals of these administrators, with deference to their legal interpretations being the result: see, e.g., Canada (Director of Investigation and Research) v. Southam Inc., 1997 CanLII 385 (SCC), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748 and Dunsmuir, supra at paragraph 54. But it does not. The Tax Court of Canada, sitting in appeal on income tax assessments, and this Court do not defer at all to the statutory interpretations of the Minister’s delegate.

(c)        The Supreme Court spoke in Dunsmuir of deference to interpretations of certain types of “statutes.” Did it mean to restrict this principle to “statutes”? There would appear to be no principled basis to do so. Deference probably also applies to interpretations of other types of laws, such as the Order in Council in this case.

(d)        The Director’s title seems to suggest that he administers programs such as this, and so he could be considered to be interpreting what Dunsmuir described as a law “closely connected with [his] function,” warranting our deference. But there is no evidence in the record on this one way or the other, nor would one expect there to be such evidence given the narrow nature of a record on judicial review.

(e)        The position of deference for administrative interpretations of statutes is said in Dunsmuir to apply only “usually” or “normally.” Does this qualification refer to the situations mentioned in Dunsmuir where the correctness standard applies? Perhaps not, as these situations largely do not involve issues of statutory interpretation. Does this qualification refer to some as yet unidentified situations? We simply do not know.

(f)         In this particular case, as we shall see, the Director did not engage in any actual interpretation of the Order in Council. Rather, he simply interpreted and applied an administrative policy made under that Order in Council. Does this mean that the Director’s decision is subject to correctness review? I am not so sure. There are statements in Dunsmuir that suggest that the Director’s failure to interpret the Order in Council may not matter. In two places in Dunsmuir, the Supreme Court suggests that in assessing the substance of decision-making under the reasonableness standard we are to examine the outcome reached by the decision-maker and not necessarily the plausibility of the reasons actually given. At paragraph 47, we are directed to ask ourselves “whether the decision falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law” and at paragraph 48 we are told that an administrative decision can be supported on the basis of reasons that “could [have] be[en] offered” [emphasis added].

(g)        I am not alone in my doubts on this issue. Recently, this Court discussed Dunsmuir and the standard of review that should apply to the Governor in Council’s interpretation of a statute. It found the law in this area to be unclear: Global Wireless Management Corp. v. Public Mobile Inc., 2011 FCA 194 (CanLII), 2011 FCA 194 at paragraph 35.

But the Court does not seem to be interested in resolving these questions. Leave to appeal was refused in that case, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has not appealed the decision that his interpretation of the Species at Risk Act was not entitled to deference, and now the Court has refused leave to appeal in the Globalive case.

Perhaps the Court has had enough of administrative law for a while.

A Slightly Less Cold House for Foreign Investors

One of the components of the Federal Government's omnibus budget bill, the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, involves amendments to the Investment Canada Act. In certain circumstances, take-overs by foreign persons of Canadian corporations must be reviewed by the Minister for Industry and, if the Minister concludes that the proposed investment is not of "net benefit" to Canada, the foreigners have to remain on the outside looking in. Aliant Techsystems and BHP Billiton saw their take-over efforts run aground on the net benefit rock, as Kevin Ackhurst reminds us.

Decisions by the Minister are to be taken within 45 days, although there is a power to extend the time for decision. If the decision is negative, further submissions can be made, but the reasons for the decision need not be disclosed until a final decision is reached. Not an ideal situation for a multi-national corporation with potentially billions of dollars on the table, and not hard to perceive how this might chill the enthusiasm of foreign investors (as if it were not cold enough here already...).

Amendments to the decision-making process are now proposed, along with the introduction of a ministerial power to accept offers of security. The amendments to the decision-making process do not change the basic infrastructure of the Act, but the Minister will have a little bit more elbow room to disclose concerns about proposed investments early in the decision-making process. Strangely, this does not seem to be accompanied by a provision allowing proponents to amend their applications, but presumably a 'right to respond' to concerns raised by the Minister will be read in to the statutory scheme, on the basis that procedural fairness requires it (see, e.g., para. 17 here).