On December 4, 2024 The Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments in Dorinela Pepa v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, a critical case addressing statutory appeal rights under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). At the center of the case is the question of whether the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) reasonably denied an appeal, given alleged flaws in statutory interpretation and procedural fairness, and the proper standard of review to be applied in such cases.
The case is seen as a test of the limits of administrative discretion and procedural fairness in Canadian immigration law, with wide-ranging implications for individuals affected by changes in circumstances post-visa issuance and for the consistency of administrative decisions.
The appellant, Dorinela Pepa, is challenging the IAD’s decision to dismiss her appeal on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction to address post-visa developments, including procedural delays and new adverse circumstances. Counsel for Pepa, represented by Mary Lam, Lorne Waldman, and Steven Blakey, framed the issue as one of fairness and statutory interpretation, while the Minister argued that expanding appeal rights would undermine administrative efficiency and lead to unpredictable outcomes.
One of the pivotal questions in this case is the appropriate standard of review for the IAD’s decision: reasonableness or correctness.
The appellant argued that the case should be reviewed on a correctness standard because it involves a fundamental issue of statutory interpretation—whether the IAD had jurisdiction to hear the appeal under IRPA. They contended that questions of jurisdiction require a correctness review, as these decisions have broader implications for the proper functioning of the administrative scheme and the rights of appellants.
On the other hand, the Minister argued for a reasonableness standard, emphasizing deference to the expertise of the IAD in interpreting its enabling statute. They maintained that the IAD’s decision, even if not perfect, should stand as long as it fell within a range of reasonable outcomes.
Justice Karakatsanis asked the appellant’s counsel whether the argument rested more on the unreasonableness of the outcome or a failure to follow the required methodology under Vavilov. The appellant responded that both were at issue, but that methodology was particularly critical because the IAD failed to consider the full context of IRPA’s statutory scheme and the appellant’s procedural rights.
Justice Rowe pressed further, asking whether the appellant was effectively seeking correctness under the guise of unreasonableness. In response, counsel underscored that even if a reasonableness standard applied, the IAD’s decision could not withstand scrutiny because it failed to adequately justify its interpretation of jurisdiction under IRPA.
The appellant’s counsel argued that the IAD misinterpreted IRPA by failing to consider the overarching purpose of the Act, which includes fairness, justice, and the facilitation of appeals in cases where individuals are affected by post-visa changes. They pointed out that the IAD’s narrow interpretation of its jurisdiction disregarded Parliament’s intent to create a robust appeal mechanism.
The appellant highlighted procedural delays that effectively nullified her right to appeal. Counsel argued that such delays, particularly when caused by administrative inefficiency, should not strip an individual of rights guaranteed by IRPA. They called for the Court to reinforce the principle that administrative bodies cannot undermine statutory rights through procedural barriers.
A core part of the argument was that extinguishing appeal rights due to administrative delays constitutes an abuse of process and a violation of the rule of law. Counsel emphasized that fairness cannot be subordinated to administrative convenience, particularly when delays are beyond the control of the affected individual.
Counsel rebutted the Minister’s argument that granting broader appeal rights would lead to “administrative chaos.” They pointed out that clear procedural rules could mitigate this risk and that fairness should not be compromised for efficiency.
The Minister’s legal team defended the IAD’s interpretation, arguing that it reasonably concluded it lacked jurisdiction over Pepa’s appeal. The Minister argued that the IAD’s expertise in managing immigration appeals warranted deference, even if its interpretation was not the only plausible one. They pointed out that the IAD operates within a complex statutory framework and is better positioned to interpret its own jurisdiction.
The respondents stressed the importance of maintaining efficient decision-making processes, warning that an expansive interpretation of appeal rights could overwhelm the system and create delays for other applicants.
They argued that IRPA’s framework intentionally limits the scope of appeals to ensure timely resolution of immigration matters. They contended that allowing appeals based on post-visa changes would undermine this objective.
Justice Wagner questioned whether the IAD’s interpretation was consistent with the principle of fairness, particularly given the delays faced by the appellant. The Minister’s counsel responded that while fairness is important, it must be balanced against the need for efficiency and consistency.
In rebuttal, the appellant’s counsel stressed that fairness must take precedence in cases where individuals face life-altering consequences. They argued that the IAD’s decision undermined public confidence in the immigration system by prioritizing administrative convenience over justice.
The case also saw interventions from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers (CARL). CARL argued that the interpretation of IRPA’s provisions must prioritize individual rights and fairness, particularly in cases involving life-altering consequences. They emphasized that strict construction should guide the review of administrative decisions to ensure that ambiguities in the law are resolved in favor of preserving individuals' rights and linked to paragraphs 72, 133 and 134 of Vavilov. CARL highlighted that IRPA’s statutory framework often involves severe consequences comparable to those seen in criminal law, warranting robust safeguards against arbitrariness and procedural unfairness.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association focused its arguments on ensuring consistency, particularly procedural fairness and access to justice under sections 7 and 15 of the Charter. They contended that administrative decisions affecting immigration status, given their profound impact on individuals' lives and families, must adhere to a high standard of procedural justice. The CCLA warned that failing to provide a fair appeal process risks breaching fundamental rights and undermining public confidence in the immigration system.
This case has the potential to reshape how courts approach statutory interpretation in immigration matters and the standard of review for administrative decisions. A ruling in favor of Pepa could set a precedent for heightened judicial scrutiny of administrative bodies, particularly in cases involving fundamental rights and procedural fairness. Conversely, a ruling favoring the Minister could reinforce deference to administrative expertise but may raise concerns about access to justice.
The Court reserved its decision, with a ruling expected in the coming months. Immigration lawyers and advocacy groups are closely watching the case, as it could have far-reaching consequences for individuals navigating Canada’s immigration system.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dorinela Pepa v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will have profound implications for the balance between fairness and efficiency in immigration law. As Canada continues to welcome record numbers of immigrants, this case highlights the importance of ensuring that statutory rights are not undermined by procedural delays or administrative inefficiencies.
Any article or other information or content expressed or made available in this Section is that of the respective author(s) and not of the OBA.