We know that many members sit on administrative decision-making boards and tribunals. The recent Supreme Court decision in Pepa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 SCC 21 states that justification is key to administrative decision making.
In Pepa, the Court concluded that:
- Decision makers must demonstrate how their decisions are consistent with applicable legal and factual constraints;
- Reliance, or lack of reliance, on applicable precedents must be justified; and
- The consequences of decisions must be considered.
As to precedents, the Court stated that precedents used must be “…pertinent, on point, and help answer the question at hand…”. They must be based on current statutory provisions and not be distinguishable on their facts.
As to statutory interpretation, though administrative decision makers do not need to perform a full statutory interpretation analysis in every case, their decisions do need to be justified in light of the text, context, and purpose of the underlying statute.
And if a decision has a harsh consequence for a party, there is a higher burden on the decision maker to explain why their decision reflects the legislature’s intention. For example, if a decision would be to negate a limitation defence that the statute sets out and precedents have upheld, one would think that the decision maker would have to clearly explain why that limitation should not apply.