Case information

Administrative law – Standard of review – Judicial review – Whether the standard of review applicable to decisions on conviction review applications is reasonableness – Whether the non-disclosure of forensic evidence violated D.V.’s fundamental constitutional rights – Whether the approach taken by the Federal Court to judicially review a conviction review decision is in line with the meaning and intent of the provisions – Whether a violation of fundamental rights to due process is a blatant continued prejudice to the applicant under the Regulations Respecting Applications for Ministerial Review, SOR/2002-416 – Whether it is the appropriate remedy in the present case to send the matter back for reconsideration by the Minister.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

(PUBLICATION BAN IN CASE) (SEALING ORDER) (CERTAIN INFORMATION NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC)

In 2003, the Ontario Court of Justice convicted D.V., a young offender, of sexual assault. The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed D.V.’s appeal. In 2007, this Court dismissed his application for leave to appeal. In 2009, D.V. applied for a Ministerial review of his conviction under s. 696.1 of the Criminal Code, alleging a miscarriage of justice. The Minister dismissed the application. In 2018, D.V. again applied for Ministerial review. The Minister conducted a preliminary screening for potential merit and dismissed the application, finding that there was no reasonable basis to conclude that a miscarriage of justice likely occurred. D.V. brought an application for judicial review.

The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review and ordered a reconsideration of the Minister’s decision. The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the Federal Court’s decision, and restored the Minister’s decision. The court found that the Federal Court failed to conduct a reasonableness review and instead improperly substituted its own view of the matter for that of the Minister. The court conducted a reasonableness review anew and found that the Minister’s decision was reasonable.