 Hi guys, welcome back to my youtube channel So those of you who are here for the first time do go and see in the description box about what I do and what I blog But today I'm going to discuss the valvular of judgment, which I think was a much requested case from a lot of you So I am discussing my interpretation of the whole judgment. I had gone through it Three four months back and I know that the bell Canada it has overruled a lot of judgments And it has clarified the standard of review analysis for your admin law exam in your admin admin law NCA exam there is a topic which I am going to share with you the whole video is a little long But you should watch it till the end in order to gain clarity on what the valvular of judgment says I had made a presentation and sharing the screenshots with you guys and also Explaining each and everything that according to me was in dance man and which has been overruled and clarified in valvular of judgment So guys do check out the link the description it which is in the description box for the judgment Do read the judgment, but do not go through a whole of things just read the Contextual part of it the analysis of it and maybe the summary of the judgment The facts and everything I'm going to discuss here. You can take the screenshot It's no problem and you need to know one thing that if this Judgment concept, you know the way I explain if you like it do mention in the comment section Or if there is any other changes that you want me to do because I am also not a habitual teacher so you let me know in the description box and I am Surely going to take it into account for my next log. So guys firstly. I'm sharing the screen with you This is a landmark case because of the change in the standard of review So this is there it is also called that it has been Clarified the doctrine of standard of review for admin law exams and for administrative law in Canada It is also have changed the contextual analysis You just need to understand the fact and what is the new standard of review though I will discuss some of the history of standard of review with girls But you do not need to worry about anything else about in the judgment. So this is the fact guys These are the facts of the case while balloon was born in Toronto and must be around 20 Five years now at the time of his birth his parents were proposing as Canadians under resume names But in reality, they were foreign nationals working on assignments. So they were basically spies of the GRV GRV is the Russian Russian intelligence We did not know that his parents were not who they claim to be We was unaware of it and he believed that he was a Canadian citizen by a birth He lived and identified as a Canadian and he held a Canadian passport in 2010 We's parents were arrested in United States in charge with Espionage they pled guilty and were returned to Russia under a prisoner swap They were the Americans returned them to Russians Following their arrest we's attempt to renew his Canadian passport was very much unsuccessful However in 2013 he was issued a certificate of Canadian citizenship. So apparently what has happened is well below Well below who wanted to immigrate who wanted to apply for his citizenship because of his birth Which is under the Citizenship Act under section 3 But the immigration officer who was apparently dealing with his case just rejected it because as you know the immigration tribunal is an admin body and That body rejected his case claiming that they cannot Give him citizenship because he they put him under an exemption under 3 clause 2 Now this is the fact which has continued facts as continued then in 2014 What happened is that the registrar of citizenship cancelled the certificate on Immigration on the interpretation of section 3 as I told you clause 2 an exception a of the Citizenship Act What they put him under is that they thought that we's since we's parents were working for the Russian government They categorize the same thing as diplomatic The categorize his birth as a diplomatic child and they said that because of this 3 to a She the immigration officer Interpreted that Valvolo who therefore was not and had had never been entitled to citizenship We's application for judicial review of the registrar Decision was dismissed by the federal court. So the federal court dismissed the judicial review And that is why the case went to Supreme Court By the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Appeal because the Court of Appeal had granted Valvolo and Valvolo of the citizenship and had had quashed the registrar decision Now let me tell you what had happened In 2008 the Supreme Court had brought in a judgment of dunce mayor Dunce mayor as you know was the landmark case on standard of review before your syllabus was revised Dunce mayor was the land judgment for this particular topic standard of review analysis That what kind of standard of review should the court apply when the matter goes to judicial review When an admin decision goes to judicial review and what kind of standard of review should it take? So there were primarily only two decisions. They came boiled it down to that was Reasonableness and correctness now in this 10 years of decade of this dunce mayor decade What happened is that there was such a long argument and they used to be you know The court used to waste so much of time on contextual analysis Of whether the applicable standards should be correctness or reasonableness that The litigation also increased and it was actually a very gray area for everybody and which was much debated by the professors academic criticism It received academic criticism So the court thought that this is a very good judgment To clarify the whole jurisprudence and analysis of the standard of review That was given in dunce mayor gifts and they thought of revisiting Revisiting this whole thing. So what they did is doctrine of they used the doctrine of clarity and tried to clear this whole mess Earlier there used to be long discussions as I told you and which I which I've also written on you which you can see on your screen The majority wrote it was a seven is to two judgment The seven were in majority and two were in minority in the supreme court So the seven majority judgment was was written so beautifully But I will only discuss some relevant parts with you and try to explain you the main crux of it Now the court thought that they want to clarify this Turbulent area of Canadian law and for that what they did is They tried to make a holistic revision of this whole approach that whether it should be correctness Whether it should be reasonableness and if whatever it may be how are people going to analyze other factors How is the court's going to analyze other factors? So now when a judgment goes admin decision, which is not somebody's not happy with the admin decision and that goes for judicial review Then what are the what is the approach that the judges are supposed to take with that admin decision? So now the court has made that the presumption of reasonableness will always be there So what is happening is that now when you take a matter to the the admin You are not happy with the matter and you take the case for judicial review To the court then what is happening exactly is that the court will Pay difference like court will be bound and you know not bound Actually court will be very much in favor of the admin body because you remember The dance man had said that the admin body needs to be given difference Because the admin body has expertise and they are more professional. They are dealing with the matter in this context With a specific field in specific area and the legislature has intended before them to Make that particular decision So the court was bound to give some kind of difference Now the court has without going into debate of whether it should be of reasonableness or correctness The revised standard of review analysis begins with the presumption that reasonableness is the applicable standard in all cases So where a legislature has created an administrative decision maker for specific purpose? So that that is why these are the reasons that court had said and which i'm Which is on your screen and i have made it in forms of points So that it's easy for you to comprehend and understand that it says that where a legislature has created an administrative Decision maker for the specific purpose of administering a statutory screen It must be presumed that the legislature also intended the decision maker So now what is happening? It's the court should understand that why are we going into reasonableness Because since the legislature made that particular passed that law made that statute the immigration act supposedly And now the immigration board the board the body of immigration the admin tribunal has been given powers by the legislature So what we should do is we should understand and respect that kind of Power that has been given to the admin body and that is where the presumption of reasonableness Now it says where a legislature has not explicitly like not clearly mentioned That a court is to have a more involved role in reviewing the decision the decision maker It can safely be assumed that legislature intended a minimum of judicial interference So wherever the law is unambiguous like wherever the law is clearly stating that They do want the court to interfere and they do want the correctness to be the standard of review in the law itself Till then reasonableness is the presumption So this is the further the same point a call for the same Substantiating the same argument that the court gave that I have bold and underlying to the important and very important part Respect for these institutional design choices require a reviewing court to adopt a posture of disdain So when you are going for reasonableness the court says that you are trying to somehow Restrain yourself because you are not going to look into the facts and everything from the start You are going to give deference to the tribunal or to the admin body or to the admin decision So what they're trying to say is that you have the whole reasonableness is like a restrain a barrier that you need The court should keep in mind Does whenever a court reviews an administrative decision It's to start with the presumption that the applicable standard of review for all aspects of the decision will be reasonableness As a result it is no longer necessary for courts to engage in a contextual inquiry in order to identify the appropriate standard So as I told you now the court does not need to know that whether the contextual analysis and debates that lawyers go On for hours and hours believe me because of the precedent was so confusing back then in the whole dance medicaid that The court says that there will no need for you to argue anymore on the basis of contextual analysis start with reasonableness Conclusively closing the doors for the application of any other kind of framework So this is again the part I have taken from the judgment but Somehow put in my own words, but I'm reading the highlighted part that is among many other things So first you understand that prior to value of the distinction between statutory appeal and judicial review mechanism had become very blurred Now what do you mean by this? What the court means to say is that what happens is that you open the immediate for example the immigration act You open the immigration act and there is a mechanism of appeal If you are not happy with the decision you can go to court to appeal Now if you are not happy with the decision there is always a power to go for judicial review, right? There are rits under which you or through which you can go for judicial review So the court says now if a matter comes under appeal the debate had always been like this So if a matter comes under a statutory appeal or a matter comes under judicial review Is the court again supposed to look into both the contextual analysis? Or is the standard of review is going to be the same that area was very vague So that is what it says that the mechanism was so blurred with the fact that in either a statutory appeal Or judicial review proceeding reviewing courts would generally take the same that is reasonableness approach But however correctness was also there back then so there used to be a lot of debates among judges also So this this was a very gray area as I told you among many other things the decision in valval of Fundamentally changes the law concerning so-called statutory appeals Now appeals from many type of decisions made by administrative decision makers Will now be reviewed according to ordinary appellate standard of review rather than potentially more differential standards that are applied on judicial review So now what is going to happen is the court is going to and if you are going under the appeal Then the court is going to use its own De novo approach if you call it in law and the court is going to see whether The decision has been right or wrong from the start and can look from the start with its own mind With a fresh mind without any prejudice of reasonableness in mind because it's under appeal But however, if it's a standard of review question, then the presumption new presumption is reasonableness So guys there are two as you can see when can this reasonableness review be rebutted Now there are circumstances in which you can say that no reasonableness should not be applied by the court Correctness should be applied by the court What are the two circumstances in which we can do that? The first is where the legislature has itself explicitly in the law indicated That that the correctness should be the standard of review the correctness Earlier used to you know have some only five or six type of Things in which correctness used to be applied But do not go into that much detail of duncement Just understand the fact that if the law itself the admin act The act i.r Supposing the immigration act itself says that okay We want the legislature wants the correctness to be the standard of review If this if the case is from the appeal or if the case is from judicial review go to court So now if it is explicitly not mentioned then again, it is reasonableness But if it is explicitly mentioned then it is rebutted and it is correctness The second situation with presumption of reasonableness can be reviewed and rebutted is the rule of law The rule of law is very important guys the rule of law that requires Correctness to be applied now when if you read the minority judgment part They say that they have mentioned the majority has mentioned rule of law But rule of law is such a vague concept. There can be so many things under rule of law But this is another i'm sure this is another gray area that will be discussed in future judgments But for now as per valvalov, this is one of the rebuttal ground So what the majority did is in the court the court in valvalov also articulated five specific grounds Where derogation from the presumption of reasonableness is warranted When reviewing the merits of an administrative decision So these five situations do call for they fall under the rule of law category And they say that you if you derogate any of this presumption Then these are the ground grounds of rebutting Under rule of law when there is a specific standard of review has been set out in the statue as we discussed A statutory right of appeal has been set out in the statue Constitutional question so if it is a question of constitution then correctness General question of law of central importance to the legal system as a whole Questions regarding the jurisdictional boundaries between administrative bodies So in all of these situations the five situations I think they could comprehend that these are the five categories The rule of law will imply what rule of law will imply and where correctness needs to be applied But the court has also indicated that this is not necessarily exhaustive There can be more into the list but till then there is no more people the court is supposed to Follow this they further state that the approach that they have focused so what the If their case is supposedly coming for judicial review what they are looking for that the Judgment is reasonable justifiable and identifiable So these kind of things were discussed in dunsner, which I'm just quoting you need not worry about it But the court has discussed in details about it and they have said that now the approach we set out in one of Is one that focuses on justification Offers methodological consistency and reinforces the principle that reason decision making is the lynchpin of institutional legitimacy So guys you see the importance of this language that is why I've highlighted it The judgment has been written so beautifully by the judges supreme court judges and every word that is mentioned You know, it is describing a certain kind of chaos that was going on before this judgment So they are all trying to declutter this whole thing Plus what I've highlighted and whereas you can see that in ads per duncement The court was only in duncement the court was only going to review the decision Now the court has laid specific emphasis on the reason decision So the court also will look into the reasonableness of the outcome and the reasonableness of the decision maker's reasoning process itself So they will look into how what the reasoning process has been adopted by the decision maker So all in all the decision in valvulo was that the supreme court granted him Citizenship and said quashing of a citizenship certificate was not viable was not a reasonable decision that the admin body took Because they said that once a kid is born with a diplomatic immunity And that kind of benefits which valvulo was never given So when he was not given the benefits of being a diplomat, how can you put him under a category of being a diplomat kid? Right. So the court was very efficient in delivering that in delivering those kind of reasons and also Mentioned it's so much about standard of reviews your students that is why the case is long But I have tried to you know, put crux crux and crux of it Maybe not even the crux the crux of crux But you can go and read for yourself the decision I hope you understood the whole concept and the steps that were involved Now all you have to do is you have to apply this judgment in the facts that will be given to you at hand So maybe you are given a judge maybe you are given something that Like a theoretical question that throw light on valvulo judgment Or maybe you are given some path facts in which you have to apply valvulo judgment In most cases the judgment is very important. That's why I thought I should bring it to your table So guys, I hope this whole thing was useful for you. You enjoyed the judgment You understood the judgment, which is very important You got the key points, which is again very important If you want me to vlog about another nca topic, which is a much demand like valvulo was So do let me know if you like the video hit the like button Subscribe and share my channel so that I am also very much motivated to bring all this kind of information with you As much as I know I want to share Bye guys