What factor does NOT belong to the Baker factors relevant to judicial review of administrative decisions?

The Baker factors are a set of principles established by the Supreme Court of Canada to guide the judicial review of administrative decisions. These factors help courts assess the appropriateness of different forms of judicial intervention in administrative decision-making.

The nature and purpose of the decision, constitutional mandates governing decision-making, and statutory constraints on the decision are all essential aspects that influence how a court might evaluate an administrative action's legality and reasonableness.

When reviewing a decision, understanding its nature and purpose helps determine the context in which the decision was made and whether it aligns with statutory objectives. Similarly, constitutional mandates can establish limits on how decisions are made, ensuring they respect fundamental rights or obligations, while statutory constraints provide the legal framework that guides the decision-maker's authority and discretion.

In contrast, the personal background of the decision maker is not one of the Baker factors considered in this analytical framework. While a decision maker's background may inform their perspective, it is not a formal consideration in evaluating the legality and reasonableness of an administrative decision. The focus stays on the legal and contextual aspects of the decision itself rather than on personal attributes of the individual making it.