Vavilov’s First Birthday: Watch the Recording

The Vavilov’s First Birthday Conference took place on Friday, December 18 on Zoom.

You can watch a recording of the proceedings here via Youtube:

Thanks to the Centre for Public Law and the Alex Trebek Forum For Dialogue for supporting the event.

And here is a record of the “chat” throughout the event, which has some case and commentary references which may be useful.

Panel 1

From Me to Everyone:  10:42 AM

Good morning everybody (and good afternoon and evening to those joining from overseas).

The main topic of discussion is Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65

Here is some background reading

Paul Daly, “The Vavilov Framework and the Future of Canadian Administrative Law”:

Paul Daly, “One Year of Vavilov”:

Paul Daly, “Unresolved Issues after Vavilov”:

UBC faculty, “Guest Posts from the West Coast”:

David Mullan, “Judicial Scrutiny of Administrative Decision Making: Principled Simplification or Continuing Angst?” (2020) 50 Advocates’ Quarterly 423

David Stratas, “The Canadian Law of Judicial Review: Some Doctrine and Cases”  :

From Me to Everyone:  11:21 AM

Housen v Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33

The companion case to Vavilov, which addressed Super Bowl ads, was Bell Canada v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 SCC 66

On “disguised correctness review” (a term invented by Prof Mullan), see here:

For judicial discussion of disguised correctness (forbidden by Vavilov), see Syndicat de l’enseignement de Champlain c Commission scolaire Marie-Victorin, 2020 QCCA 135

From Me to Everyone:  11:27 AM

The posts from Profs Flynn, Ford and Liston can be accessed here:

From Me to Everyone:  11:46 AM

The Swinton J judgement referenced by Prof Mullan: Planet Energy (Ontario) Corp. v Ontario Energy Board, 2020 ONSC 598

see esp para 31

Panel 2

From Me to Everyone:  12:10 PM

Pezim v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Brokers), 1994 CanLII 103 (SCC), [1994] 2 SCR 557

Canada (Director of Investigation and Research) v. Southam Inc., 1997 CanLII 385 (SCC), [1997] 1 SCR 748

Housen v Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33

From Me to Everyone:  12:23 PM

Committee for the Equal Treatment of Asbestos Minority Shareholders v. Ontario (Securities Commission), 2001 SCC 37 (CanLII), [2001] 2 SCR 132

McLean v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), 2013 SCC 67 (CanLII), [2013] 3 SCR 895

Bell Canada v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 SCC 66

Tervita Corp. v. Canada (Commissioner of Competition), 2015 SCC 3 (CanLII), [2015] 1 SCR 161

ATCO Gas & Pipelines Ltd. v. Alberta (Energy & Utilities Board), 2006 SCC 4 (CanLII), [2006] 1 SCR 140

Here is my paper which Steve referenced: Paul Daly, “Labour Law after Vavilov”:

Here is an excellent piece by Prof Bankes on statutory appeals: Nigel Bankes, “Statutory Appeal Rights in Relation to Administrative Decision-Maker Now Attract an Appellate Standard of Review: A Possible Legislative Response”:

Statutory Appeal Rights in Relation to Administrative Decision-Maker Now Attract an Appellate Standard of Review: A Possible Legislative Response

From Me to Everyone:  12:40 PM

West Fraser Mills Ltd. v British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal), 2018 SCC 22 at para 29.

And here’s the reference for CUPE: C.U.P.E. v. N.B. Liquor Corporation, 1979 CanLII 23 (SCC), [1979] 2 SCR 227

Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. International Union of Operating Engineers, 1970 CanLII 7 (SCC), [1970] SCR 425

Miller v College of Optometrists of Ontario, 2020 ONSC 2573 at para 79

Houghton v Association of Ontario Land Surveyors, 2020 ONSC 863 at para 15

Scarborough Health Network v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 5852, 2020 ONSC 4577

Paul Daly, “Labour Law after Vavilov”:

Jamie Liew, “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: A Preliminary Assessment of Whether the Vavilov Framework Adequately Addresses Concerns of Marginalized Communities”:

From Me to Everyone:  12:58 PM

A couple of examples Stephanie has identified:

Borgel v Paintearth (Subdivision and Development Appeal Board), 2020 ABCA 192

East Hants (Municipality) v Nova Scotia (Utility and Review Board), 2020 NSCA 41

From Me to Everyone:  01:01 PM

Sierra Club of BC Foundation v British Columbia (Environmental Assessment Office), 2020 BCSC 596

Nation Rise Wind Farm Limited Partnership v Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks,  2020 ONSC 2984

Alexis v Alberta (Environment and Parks), 2020 ABCA 188

From Me to Everyone:  01:04 PM

Howard Kislowicz and Robert Hamilton, “The Standard of Review and the Duty to Consult and Accommodate Indigenous Peoples: What is the Impact of Vavilov? Part 1” (November 20, 2020), online: ABlawg,

Howard Kislowicz and Robert Hamilton, “The Standard of Review and the Duty to Consult and Accommodate Indigenous Peoples: What is the Impact of Vavilov? Part 2” (November 24, 2020), online: ABlawg,

From Steve Barrett to Everyone:  01:05 PM

This is what Justice Binnie wrote, concurring in Dunsmuir: “[139]                       The judicial sensitivity to different levels of respect (or deference) required in different situations is quite legitimate.  “Contextualizing” a single standard of review will shift the debate (slightly) from choosing between two standards of reasonableness that each represent a different level of deference to a debate within a single standard of reasonableness to determine the appropriate level of deference.  In practice, the result of today’s decision may be like the bold innovations of a traffic engineer that in the end do no more than shift rush hour congestion from one road intersection to another without any overall saving to motorists in time or expense.” Of course, he was talking about the implications of eliminating patent unreasonableness, but it seems to me his observations apply even more forcefully to everything but appeals now being forced into a single reasonableness standard.

Panel 3

From Me to Everyone:  01:34 PM

On patent unreasonableness, see College of New Caledonia v Faculty Association of the College of New Caledonia, 2020 BCSC 384 vs Guevara v Louie, 2020 BCSC 380

Professor Raso on reasons and justification:

From Me to Everyone:  01:49 PM

Simon Halliday:

Karen Yeung:

Directive on automated decision-making:

From Me to Everyone:  01:58 PM

Paul Daly, “Vavilov For Administrative Tribunals”:

David Stratas, “The Bullet-Proof Administrative Decision-Maker: Maximizing the Chances of Surviving a Judicial Review”:

Canadian Council on Administrative Tribunals, Literacy and Access to Administrative Justice in Canada: A Guide for the Promotion of Plain Language (2005):

In terms of whether Vavilov makes a difference to administrative tribunals, see the skeptical comments in Radzevicius v Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, 2020 ONSC 319; Longphee v Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission, 2020 NBCA 45; Hughes v Law Society of New Brunswick, 2020 NBCA 68            

From Me to Everyone:  02:13 PM

The important recent IRB decision of the Federal Court of Appeal is: Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers v Canada (Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship), 2020 FCA 196

The theme of the 2021 Administrative Law & Governance Colloquium is also Front-Line Administration. Register for free here:

From Me to Everyone:  02:24 PM

See also, on the ability of a decision maker to depart from a prior practice or previous decision and the need for reasoned justification when doing so: Canada (Attorney General) v Honey Fashions Ltd., 2020 FCA 64

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC), [1999] 2 SCR 817 at para 39

From Me to Everyone:  02:46 PM

Cowan v Grande Prairie No 1 (County of), 2020 ABCA 399

This content has been updated on December 19, 2020 at 01:45.