In a blog post I wrote back in August, I said that it remained a best practice for adjudicators to address all the arguments raised by the parties. Although I did not cite it, the Alberta Court of Appeal decision in Driver Iron Inc. was a good example of the interference of the courts in the nuts and bolts of the reasoning process. However, this week the Supreme Court beat back the nitpickers when it overruled the Court of Appeal in Construction Labour Relations v. Driver Iron Inc., 2012 SCC 65.
The Court of Appeal quashed a decision of the Alberta Labour Relations Board because it had failed to give “proper consideration” to the interplay between two statutory provisions and the different meanings that could be given to these provisions.
The SCC, in a unanimous (and short) decision stated:
[3] The Board did not have to explicitly address all possible shades of meaning of these provisions. This Court has strongly emphasized that administrative tribunals do not have to consider and comment upon every issue raised by the parties in their reasons. For reviewing courts, the issue remains whether the decision, viewed as a whole in the context of the record, is reasonable (Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses’ Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board), 2011 SCC 62, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 708).
This is more welcome relief for Canadian adjudicators.