While counsel for the applicant acknowledged that factual findings of a decision maker such as the Officer on applications for permanent residents in Canada are reviewable on a standard of review of patent unreasonableness, she urged that determinations based upon the exercise of negative discretion or negative substituted evaluation are reviewable on a higher standard. In this regard, counsel relied on Alam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Where my colleague, Justice Mactavish, wrote at paragraph  of her reasons: There is a heavier onus on a visa officer to justify the exercise of negative discretion under paragraph 11 [b] of the Regulations than there is with respect to the exercise of, or refusal to exercise a positive discretion under paragraph 11  [a]; Justice Mactavish’s references to subsection 11  of the Regulations is to that subsection of the Regulations under the former Immigration Act. Nothing turns on the distinction between that sub-section and subsection 76  of the Regulations under the Immigration and Refugee and Protection Act.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.