Reasonableness review after Vavilov
Overview
In Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov [2019] 4 SCR 653, the Supreme Court of Canada reformulated the law of judicial review, confirming that most administrative decisions — including immigration decisions — are reviewed on a standard of reasonableness. A reasonable decision is one that is justified, transparent and intelligible in its reasoning, and justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision-maker. A reviewing court does not ask whether it agrees with the outcome; it asks whether the outcome is within the range of acceptable decisions.
Vavilov replaced the earlier framework established in Dunsmuir v New Brunswick [2008] and Edmonton (City) v Edmonton East (Capilano) Shopping Centres Ltd [2016]. The decision reordered the analytical framework and made reasonableness review more structured and demanding in practice.
In immigration law, the Vavilov standard applies to virtually all IRCC and CBSA decisions reviewed by the Federal Court — including refugee decisions, visa refusals, H&C decisions, and inadmissibility findings.
Legal basis
- Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov [2019] 4 SCR 653 — the governing Supreme Court authority on the standard of review
- Federal Courts Act, RSC 1985, c F-7, s 18.1 — grants the Federal Court jurisdiction to review federal administrative decisions
- Mason v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) [2023] 2 SCR 543 — applies Vavilov in the immigration context and clarifies the reasonableness analysis for immigration officers' decisions
How it works
When does reasonableness apply?
Under Vavilov, reasonableness is the presumptive standard for all administrative decisions unless:
- A statutory provision clearly requires a different standard
- The question is one of "true" jurisdictional questions (extremely narrow category)
- The question is a constitutional question or a general question of law of central importance to the legal system as a whole (correctness applies)
In the immigration context, the overwhelming majority of decisions are reviewed on reasonableness.
What makes a decision reasonable?
Under Vavilov, a reasonable decision has two dimensions:
- Justified, transparent and intelligible reasoning: the decision-maker must explain their reasoning in a way that the reviewing court (and the parties) can understand; unexplained leaps of logic, unexplained rejection of relevant evidence, and internal inconsistency will render a decision unreasonable
- Justified in relation to the facts and law: the decision must not contradict binding legal authority, must be consistent with the statutory scheme, must be based on the evidence before the decision-maker, and must be within the range of decisions that could reasonably be reached on those facts and that law
Reasons are central to reasonableness
A significant practical consequence of Vavilov is the central importance of the decision-maker's reasons. Where written reasons are required (or where reasons were provided), the review focuses on those reasons. Courts will not "fill in" gaps in reasoning or assume the decision-maker considered factors not mentioned in the reasons.
Application in immigration
Common grounds on which immigration decisions are found unreasonable under Vavilov include:
- Failure to consider relevant evidence or submissions
- Inadequate analysis of the best interests of the child in H&C decisions
- Misapplication of the credibility assessment framework in refugee decisions
- Failure to explain why particular evidence was accepted or rejected
- Applying the wrong legal test to the facts
The correctness standard in immigration
Constitutional questions (e.g., whether a provision violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) are reviewed on the correctness standard — the court substitutes its own view of the correct answer.