Top 6 Supreme Court of Canada Cases Shaping Administrative Law and Tribunals (2019–2025)

Administrative tribunals and boards are on the frontlines of Canadian justice, making decisions that shape people’s everyday lives, from housing and employment to immigration, human rights, and professional regulation.

As such, it’s imperative that administrative tribunals stay current with Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decisions to uphold fairness, consistency, and compliance with evolving administrative law standards. In recent years, the SCC has issued or reaffirmed several rulings that directly shape how tribunals operate and how practitioners frame their advocacy.

Below, we review six landmark SCC cases and highlight what they mean in practice for tribunals and practitioners.

1. Vavilov (2019): The Cornerstone of Reasonableness Review

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, [2019] S.C.J. No. 65

The SCC reaffirmed reasonableness as the presumptive standard for judicial review and emphasized that tribunal decisions must be transparent, justified, and intelligible.

“The effect of Vavilov on Canadian administrative law cannot be underestimated.  We are still dealing with its aftermath years after the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision. In creating a presumption of reasonableness review to administrative decisions across Canada, Vavilov established an ethic of judicial restraint and deference where the State has chosen to delegate its decision-making function to administrative adjudicators. Over time, that approach has been revolutionary – narrowing the circumstances in which judicial review will be employed to scrutinize the merits of an administrative decision”.

— Marco P. Falco, Partner, Judicial Review and Appellate Litigation, Torkin Manes LLP (Toronto)

Why It Matters in 2025:

• Tribunals should provide clear, well-reasoned decisions that align with the statutory framework.
• Counsel must frame arguments for reasonableness review and ensure reasons are intelligible.
• Courts will scrutinize tribunals’ reasoning, especially when rights are significantly impacted.

Key Takeaway:

Vavilov remains the foundation of administrative decision-making and review in Canada.

2. Abrametz (2022): The Duty to Avoid Delay

Law Society of Saskatchewan v. Abrametz, 2022 SCC 29, [2022] S.C.J. No. 29

The SCC confirmed that excessive delay in tribunal proceedings can amount to an abuse of process, undermining both fairness and public confidence.

Why It Matters in 2025:

• Tribunals need robust case management to prevent delay.
• Counsel should raise delay concerns proactively.
• Timeliness is a fairness requirement, not an administrative convenience.

Key Takeaway:

Justice delayed remains justice denied, even in administrative law.

3. Yatar (2024): Judicial Review Stays Alive

Yatar v. TD Insurance Meloche Monnex, 2024 SCC 8, [2024] S.C.J. No. 8

The SCC held that statutory rights of appeal limited to questions of law do not bar judicial review for issues of fact or mixed fact and law.

Why It Matters in 2025:

• Tribunal reasons must anticipate both appeal and judicial review scrutiny.
• Counsel cannot assume restricted appeal clauses oust judicial review.
• Reinforces Vavilov’s ongoing centrality to administrative fairness.

Key Takeaway:

Judicial review remains a safeguard even when legislatures narrow appeal routes.

4. Opsis (2025): Federal Powers and Tribunal Limits

Opsis Airport Services Inc. v. Quebec (Attorney General), 2025 SCC 17, [2025] S.C.J. No. 17

The SCC found Quebec’s Private Security Act inapplicable to federally regulated airport operations, reaffirming interjurisdictional immunity.

Why It Matters in 2025:

• Tribunals must understand the constitutional scope of their mandates.
• Counsel should be ready to raise or rebut federalism-based arguments.
• Overlapping jurisdictions demand constitutional literacy.

Key Takeaway:

Tribunals must remain alert to constitutional limits and federal-provincial boundaries.

5. Power (2024): Accountability for Unconstitutional Laws

Canada (Attorney General) v. Power, 2024 SCC 26, [2024] S.C.J. No. 26

The SCC recognized potential Crown liability when Parliament enacts laws later ruled unconstitutional, reinforcing constitutional accountability.

Why It Matters in 2025:

• Tribunals operate within statutory frameworks that may be subject to challenge.
• Counsel must assess constitutional vulnerabilities proactively.
• Aligning administrative decisions with Charter principles is critical.

Key Takeaway:

Constitutional compliance is a non-negotiable standard in administrative governance.

6. Murray-Hall (2023): Shared Jurisdiction in Action

Murray-Hall v. Quebec (Attorney General), 2023 SCC 10, [2023] S.C.J. No. 10

The SCC upheld Quebec’s ban on homegrown cannabis, reaffirming the double aspect doctrine, where both federal and provincial laws can coexist.

Why It Matters in 2025:

• Tribunals often operate where jurisdictions overlap.
• Dual regulation is permissible unless there’s direct conflict.
• Balancing competing legislative objectives is part of daily practice.

Key Takeaway:

Overlapping authority is part of Canada’s federal fabric and tribunals must balance both spheres.

A Living Framework for Administrative Justice

These six Supreme Court of Canada decisions define the modern framework for administrative justice:

• Vavilov: Reasonableness and transparency.
• Abrametz: Timeliness and procedural fairness.
• Yatar: Persistence of judicial review.
• Opsis and Murray-Hall: Constitutional balance.
• Power: Legislative accountability.

For tribunal members and practitioners, these rulings serve as practical guideposts shaping training, advocacy, decision-writing, case management, and statutory interpretation. Staying informed about SCC jurisprudence isn’t merely optional, but the very cornerstone of upholding effective, fair, and credible administrative justice in Canada.

LexisNexis Canada: In-Depth SCC Case Coverage

For tribunal members and administrative law practitioners seeking deeper analysis of these landmark cases, Lexis+ AI Canada provides unmatched resources to support your ongoing research. Our case law coverage includes the full text of each decision, plus accompanying headnotes and digests. Beyond case law, you can explore a wealth of additional content, including:

• Halsbury’s Laws of Canada: Authoritative overviews of Administrative Law and Constitutional Law .
• Leading Treatises: Sara Blake’s Administrative Law in Canada and the Honourable Guy Régimbald’s Canadian Administrative Law.
• Academic Commentary: Supreme Court Law Review, McGill Law Journal, Queen’s Law Journal.
• Practical Guidance Modules: Checklists and precedents for judicial review, statutory interpretation, and tribunal procedure.

LexisNexis Canada provides the complete toolkit for mastering SCC jurisprudence so tribunal members and practitioners can stay informed, compliant, and effective in a rapidly evolving administrative law landscape.