You are on page 1of 2

Agraira v.

Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 SCC


36, [2013] 2 S.C.R. 559
Facts: A came to Canada illegally and but sought to stay on as a permanent
resident. He was denied on the basis that he had past dealings with a terrorist
organisation. When applying to the minister under s34(2) IRPA for ministerial relief,
the minister denied the request. A applied for judicial review arguing that the
ministers decision did not adequately take into account all of the necessarily
material as it focused too heavily on the interests of national security. Additionally,
given the representation by the government that a certain procedure will be
followed, the ministers decision, in focusing on security, violated As legitimate
expectations.
Issues: What is the appropriate standard of review to apply to a Ministers
decisions?
How can the court reflect and rule on a Ministers interpretation of national goals, in
this case National Interest?
And can the doctrine of legitimate expectation overrule a ministers decision
regarding interpretational concerns, namely can a legitimate expectation overrule
the ministers conclusions on the national interests of the country?
Principle: When looking at judicial review, if a question concerns the
reasonableness of actions, the court must review those actions according to all the
facts and reasons given and see if such a decision falls within an accepted set of
possible conclusions.
Judgment:
LeBel J. (McLachlin C.J. and Fish, Abella, Rothstein, Moldaver and
Karakatsanis JJ. concurring)
At Para 43: There are two different forms of relief for someone seeking permanent
status who has been denied. One deals with humanitarian and compassion grounds,
and the other deals with security and national interest. The appellant in this case
sought relief on the national interest grounds, and according to the statute, the
onus is on the appellant to prove his residency in Canada would not negatively
Impact the National Interest.
At para 48: An appeal on a question of judicial review is limited to asking whether
the original court applied the correct standard of review, and then seeing if this
standard was analysed correctly. In determining the correct standard of review:
a court deciding an application for judicial review must engage in a
two-step process to identify the proper standard of review. First, it
must consider whether the level of deference to be accorded with
regard to the type of question raised on the application has been
established satisfactorily in the jurisprudence. The second inquiry
becomes relevant if the first is unfruitful or if the relevant precedents
appear to be inconsistent with recent developments in the common

law principles of judicial review. At this second stage, the court


performs a full analysis in order to determine what the applicable
standard is.
At para 50: Given the historical precedent, and the nature of the statute, the correct
standard to judge on the facts of the case is reasonableness. Did the minister act in
a reasonable manner when making their decision.
At para 52: Reasonableness requires that the court look to the reasons offered, the
way the decision was articulated and see whether it falls into an accepted category
of decisions. They must do this with an eye on the deference owed to the decisionmaker.
At para 58 and 62: While the minister did not expressly define what he meant by
national interest, it is open for the court to examine the reasons given by the
minister and see what the definition was likely to be. Given the information
available to the minister, coupled with the reasons given, it is clear that the minister
put an enhanced important (though not a definitive importance) on the
implications to national security when looking at the question of national interest
while still considering other issues implicit to the national interest. Given the
reasons and guidelines, it is reasonable that the minister could come to this
conclusion.
At para 75: While the concern of security and the rebranding of responsibility to a
minister shows that security remains a large concern when dealing with national
interests, the fact that other elements are present remove the possibility of having
national security as the only prime consideration. This is also reflected in the
purpose of the statute itself as gleaned through its provisions.
At para 89: Given that the ministers conception of national interest as include to a
large extent security issues but no excluding other issues, and that humanitarian
concerns were best analysed under s.25 of the IRPA, the ministers decision, and the
reasons given for that decision, are valid and should be deemed as reasonable.
At para 96 and 97: A legitimate expectation comes about when a governing body
makes a representation which will be considered sufficiently preciseif, had they
been made in the context of a private law contract, they would be sufficiently
certain to be capable of enforcement from Mavi. And that even if there is a
legitimate expectation is can only bring out procedural obligations and not
substantive rights.
At para 101: The ministers interpretation of national interest was on which took into
account the guidelines which were to be expected to be followed and the potential
humanitarian claims which the appellant alleges. Therefore, the ministers decision
actually fulfilled an legitimate expectations, had there in fact been any.

You might also like