Lance v. Canada (Attorney General)

Lance v. Canada (Attorney General)

The delegate's refusal was unreasonable because the written reasons and record show he failed to meaningfully grapple with central evidence and arguments (including that safety/efficacy for this patient had been accepted) and entirely failed to consider squarely raised s.7 Charter claims; the SAP refusal lacked sufficient justification, intelligibility and transparency and the matter must be remitted to a different delegate for redetermination within 14 days.

Citation
2024 FC 787
Parties
Applicant: Jody Lance; Applicant: William Jeptha Davenport; Respondent: Attorney General of Canada
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Special Access Program Refusal / Judgment and Remittal
Outcome
Application for judicial review granted; SAP refusal set aside and matter remitted to a different delegate for redetermination; decision to be rendered within 14 days; costs awarded to Applicants
Legal Topics
Special Access Program (sap), Psilocybin Access, Charter S.7 (life, Liberty, Security), Reasonableness Review (vavilov), Administrative Reasons and Adequacy, Remittal Vs. Mandatory Relief
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Health Law Regulatory Law Special Access Program (sap) Psilocybin Access Charter S.7 (life, Liberty, Security) Reasonableness Review (vavilov) +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jody Lance

Applicant

William Jeptha Davenport

Applicant

Attorney General of Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Special Access Program Refusal / Judgment and Remittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of new evidence on judicial review
  2. 2 Adequacy of administrative reasons
  3. 3 Whether delegate's refusal was reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The delegate's refusal was unreasonable because the written reasons and record show he failed to meaningfully grapple with central evidence and arguments (including that safety/efficacy for this patient had been accepted) and entirely failed to consider squarely raised s.7 Charter claims; the SAP refusal lacked sufficient justification, intelligibility and transparency and the matter must be remitted to a different delegate for redetermination within 14 days.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review granted; SAP refusal set aside and matter remitted to a different delegate for redetermination; decision to be rendered within 14 days; costs awarded to Applicants

Orders

  • Application for judicial review granted and SAP refusal quashed
  • Matter remitted to a different delegate of the Minister for redetermination