According to Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, how many standards of review are there?

In Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the framework for judicial review of administrative decisions and established that there are two primary standards of review: reasonableness and correctness. This decision significantly simplified the previous approach, which considered multiple standards of review in a more complex manner.

Reasonableness is utilized when the decision-maker possesses specialized expertise in the area of issue and when the decision is made within their discretion. This standard allows the decision-maker's conclusions to be upheld as long as they are within a range of reasonable outcomes.

On the other hand, the correctness standard applies in situations where the legal issue is of a significant public interest, or where the decision-maker is interpreting a question of law outside of their specialized expertise. Under this standard, the reviewing court is entitled to substitute its own view for that of the decision-maker.

The shift to recognizing only two standards of review enhances clarity and accessibility to the law, making it easier for both practitioners and the public to understand the framework under which judicial reviews are conducted. The establishment of these two distinct standards allows for a balanced approach that respects the decision-making authority of administrative bodies while ensuring that important legal questions are resolved correctly.