Federal Court of Appeal Upholds Reasonableness Standard Decision
📌 In brief
In this case, the Federal Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Federal Court, which had applied the reasonableness standard of review to a decision made by the Social Security Tribunal - Appeal Division. The appeal was dismissed due to the high degree of deference given to administrative tribunal decisions under this standard.
⚖️ Legal holding
The Federal Court of Appeal applies a high degree of deference to decisions made by administrative tribunals under the reasonableness standard of review.
📖 Technical summary
The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the Federal Court.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal, upholding the Federal Court's decision based on the reasonableness standard of review for a decision made by the Social Security Tribunal - Appeal Division.
📚 Full judgment Official document
Date: 20260305 Docket: A-107-25 Citation: 2026 FCA 50 CORAM: DE [NAME] C.J. ROUSSEL J.A. PAMEL J.A. BETWEEN: [NAME] Appellant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent Heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on March 5, 2026. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia, on March 5, 2026.
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: DE [NAME] C.J. Date: 20260305 Docket: A-107-25 Citation: 2026 FCA 50 CORAM: DE [NAME] C.J. ROUSSEL J.A. PAMEL J.A. BETWEEN: [NAME] Appellant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia, on March 5, 2026). DE [NAME] C.J. [ 1 ] The appellant, [NAME], appeals the decision of the Federal Court dated February 20, 2025 ( [NAME] v. Canada (Attorney General) , 2025 FC 328), whereby his application for judicial review of a decision by the Social Security Tribunal – Appeal Division (the “Appeal Division” ) on a leave application was dismissed. [ 2 ] [NAME] raises a number of issues, revolving for the most part around the correct legal test to assess misconduct, the alleged error by the General Division to decide the case on the basis of voluntary leaving rather than on misconduct, and misapprehension or mischaracterization of the relevant facts. [ 3 ] On appeal from a Federal Court judicial review decision, this Court’s role is to determine if the Federal Court identified the correct standard of review and properly applied that standard. While the focus of our enquiry must therefore be the decision of the Appeal Division, it is now beyond dispute that appellants will bear a strong burden to convince this Court that its intervention is warranted when the Federal Court has convincingly addressed all of their arguments ( Bank of [NAME] v. Canada (Attorney General) , 2021 FCA 189 at para. 4; [NAME] v. Canada (Attorney General) , 2024 FCA 181 at para. 7; Canada (Attorney General) v. Canadian Civil Liberties Association , 2026 FCA 6 at para. 161). [ 4 ] This is precisely the case here. Not only has the Federal Court correctly identified reasonableness as the applicable standard of review, except with respect to procedural fairness issues, but it also thoroughly addressed all of the [NAME]’s arguments. Considering the high degree of deference that a reviewing court must show when applying the reasonableness standard to a decision of an administrative tribunal, and the narrow jurisdiction of the Appeal Division on a leave application, we have not been convinced that this Court ought to intervene. [ 5 ] [NAME] has been encouraged to do so by this Court on several occasions, at no time did he address the findings of the Appeal Division or why such findings would justify this Court’s intervention. As a result, not only has [NAME] not convinced us that the Appeal Division misapprehended the facts or erred in its application of the law, but we are also of the view, much like the Federal Court, that he is essentially asking us to reassess the evidence with a view to reach a different conclusion. This is not the role of this Court. [ 6 ] For the foregoing reasons, we will therefore dismiss the appeal, without costs. “[NAME]” Chief Justice FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-107-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA PLACE OF HEARING: VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA DATE OF HEARING: MARCH 5, 2026
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: DE [NAME] C.J. ROUSSEL J.A. PAMEL J.A. DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: DE [NAME] C.J. APPEARANCES : [NAME] ON HIS [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME] of Canada For The Respondent
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The Federal Court correctly identified reasonableness as the applicable standard of review.
- The Federal Court thoroughly addressed all of the appellant's arguments.
- A reviewing court must show a high degree of deference when applying the reasonableness standard to an administrative tribunal's decision.
- The Appeal Division has narrow jurisdiction on a leave application.
- The appellant was essentially asking the court to reassess the evidence to reach a different conclusion.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Federal Court's decision based on the reasonableness standard of review.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the Federal Court correctly applied the reasonableness standard of review to a decision made by the Social Security Tribunal - Appeal Division.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to dismiss the appeal because the Federal Court had correctly identified the reasonableness standard of review and thoroughly addressed all the arguments presented.
Which laws or rules were applied?
No specific laws or rules were mentioned in the judgment.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the Federal Court's application of the reasonableness standard of review to the decision made by the Social Security Tribunal - Appeal Division.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should expect a high degree of deference to administrative tribunal decisions under the reasonableness standard of review.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify any particular evidence or documents that were crucial to the decision.