Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Hearing: November 4, 1998
Judgment: July 9, 1999


Full case name:	Mavis Baker v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Citations:	[1999] 2 S.C.R. 817
Ruling:	Appeal allowed.

Court membership

Chief Justice: Antonio Lamer
Puisne Justices: Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, Charles Gonthier, Peter Cory, Beverley McLachlin, Frank Iacobucci, John C. Major, Michel Bastarache, Ian Binnie

Reasons given

Majority by: L'Heureux-Dube J.
Joined by: Gonthier, McLachlin, Bastarache and Binnie JJ.
Concurrence by: Iacobucci J.
Joined by: Cory J.
Major J. took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Laws applied

Pushpanathan v. Canada, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982; Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy Board, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369 (L'Heureux-Dube)
Capital Cities Communications Inc. v. CRTC, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 141 (Iacobucci)

Baker v. Canada (Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817 is a leading administrative law decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court provided guidance on the standard of judicial review of administrative decisions. The issue was what standard of procedual fairness should be applied when considering an appeal of a deportation order on "humanitarian and compassionate grounds."

1 Background
2 Opinion of the Court
3 See also
4 External links

[edit] Background

Mavis Baker was a Jamaican woman who lived illegally in Canada for 11 years as a domestic worker. During this time she gave birth to number of children in Canada. When the government discovered that she was in Canada illegally she was ordered to be deported under section 114(2) of the Immigration Act.

In her defence she applied for exemption on "humanitarian and compassionate" grounds as deportation would affect her Canadian-born children. The immigration officer rejected her application without giving reasons. Baker was able to make a request for the notes, and based on this evidence applied for judicial review of the decision. The Federal Court rejected the application. The Federal Court of Appeal agreed and held that the evaluation of the application did not need to be founded on the best interests of the child.

[edit] Opinion of the Court

Justice L'Heureux-Dube, for the majority, allowed the appeal. On the issue of determinnig the standard of review she outlined several factors that should be taken into consideration:

the nature of the decision being made and process followed in making it;
the nature of the statutory scheme and the terms of the statute pursuant to which the body operates;
the importance of the decision to the individual or individuals affected;
the legitimate expectations of the person challenging the decision;
the choices of procedure made by the agency itself.

L'Heureux-Dube also considered the domestic use of international law in Canada. She held that a ratified treaty that has not been implemented into domestic law can still be used to interpret domestic law.