This was a Judicial Review wherein the Administrator of Administrative Penalties (the “Administrator”) sought to overturn the Land and Property Rights Tribunal's (“LPRT”) decision that significantly reduced a penalty for the Respondents from $12,000 to $1,000. The Review was initiated due to concerns about whether the LPRT's decision conformed to the standards of reasonableness as established by the Supreme Court of Canada in the pivotal decision of Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65.

The Court first looked to the Rules to ensure the necessary procedural steps for Judicial Review had been taken. The Court noted that Rules 3.15 to 3.19 provide the jurisdictional basis for Originating Applications for Judicial Review. The LPRT rendered its decision on July 26, 2022, leading the Applicant to file an Originating Notice on September 12, 2022, and subsequently serve it upon the Respondent. This Action fulfilled the requirements set out in Rule 3.15.

Additionally, the Certified Record of Proceedings was filed on October 31, 2022, with a Supplemental Certified Record of Proceedings following on February 11, 2023, in accordance with Rules 3.18 and 3.19, thereby incorporating these documents into the Court Record. The analysis concluded that all procedural mandates of the Rules concerning the initiation and processing of the Judicial Review had been satisfactorily met.

The Court found that the Administrator had provided sufficient reasons and rationale for imposing a $12,000 penalty during the Appeal to the LPRT, which the LPRT did not adequately engage with. The LPRT's decision to reduce the penalty was within its jurisdiction, but the Court deemed the reasons for the reduction unsupported by the evidence presented.

The Court also noted that new evidence introduced by the Respondents was inadmissible, as it had not been presented before the LPRT, and the Respondents did not make an Application to allow new evidence, pursuant to Rule 3.22.

Conclusively, the Court determined the LPRT's decision to reduce the penalty lacked logical reasoning, failing to meet standards of justification, transparency, and intelligibility, and thus was not justified given the factual and legal constraints. Consequently, the Court quashed the LPRT’s decision, finding it unreasonable, and reinstated the Administrator's original penalty decision.