This case involved a fish harvester who was denied CORE status in 1996 and failed to overturn the initial denial after a series of eight appeals.
With respect to the the non-binding recommendations of two advisory boards, the Court followed Jada Fishing Co. v. Canada 2002 FCA 103 (digested herein) to hold that these recommendations were not subject to judicial review.
With respect to the limitation period set out in s. 18.1(2) of the Federal Court Act, the Court held that only the most recent application to the Minister for reconsideration was subject to judicial review.
With respect to the standard of review to be applied to an application for reconsideration, the court applied the patent unreasonableness standard. That is "the Minister is bound to base his or her decision on relevant considerations, avoid arbitrariness and act in good faith." With respect to natural justice, in responding to an application for reconsideration when such an application had not been invited, only minimal procedural fairness was required.
Applying this test, the court declined to grant the application.