CAT/C/55/D/505/2012 that they have been deprived of an effective remedy for reviewing the decision of the RPD, the PRRA, and/or decisions on applications on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, or for seeking a stay of removal. The complainants do not identify and explain any specific allegations of procedural unfairness or irregularities in their particular applications for judicial review. The complainants applied with the assistance of counsel for leave to seek judicial review of all three decisions, and in their applications they had the opportunity to raise issues with the procedure and the substance of those decisions. The State party submits that it has consistently and constantly argued that the judicial review in the Federal Court is an effective remedy. Judicial review is one key element of the State party’s immigration and protection determination system, which is a blend of administrative and judicial decision-making. Judicial review has consistently been recognized by the Committee as a procedure that must be exhausted for the purposes of admissibility. 17 In several communications involving Canada, the Committee has noted that applications for leave and judicial review are not mere formalities, but that the Federal Court may, in appropriate cases, look at the substance of a case.18 4.29 The State party refers to Singh v. Canada, where the Committee supported the complainant’s position that judicial review of his negative RPD and PRRA decisions did not provide him with an effective remedy. 19 The Committee expressed the view that the State party should provide for judicial review of the merits, rather than merely of the reasonableness, of decisions to expel an individual where there are substantial grounds for believing that the person faces a risk of torture.20 The State party maintains that the Committee’s views in Singh v. Canada are limited to the specific facts of that case and do not indicate a more general condemnation of the effectiveness of judicial review as a remedy. The State party understands the view of the Committee to be that the Federal Court, on the particular facts related to Nirmal Singh, failed to provide him with an effective domestic remedy. 4.30 The State party maintains that its system of judicial review by the Federal Court does provide for “judicial review of the merits”, in the sense that it allows for review of both the law and the facts. It is best characterized as judicial supervision of administrative decision-making. The function of judicial review is to ensure the legality, the reasonableness and the fairness of the administrative decision-making process and its outcomes. The Federal Court reviews IRB decisions for factual errors or errors involving both facts and law, generally on a reasonableness standard, in deference to the tribunal’s expertise. However, the Court may review, on a correctness standard, any aspect of the IRB 17 18 19 20 See, for example, communications No. 307/2006, Yassin v. Canada, decision of 4 November 2009, paras. 9.3-9.4; No. 304/2006, L.Z.B. v. Canada, decision of 8 November 2007, para. 6.6; No. 66/1997, P.S.S. v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 13 November 1998, para. 6.2; No. 86/1997, P.S. v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 18 November 1999, para. 6.2; No. 42/1996, R.K. v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 20 November 1997, para. 7.2; No. 95/1997, L.O. v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 19 May 2000, para. 6.5; No. 22/1995, M.A. v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 3 May 1995, para. 3; No. 183/2001, B.S.S. v. Canada, decision of admissibility adopted on 12 May 2004, para. 11.6; No. 273/2005, T.A. v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility adopted 15 May 2006, para. 6.3; and European Court of Human Rights, judgement of 30 October 1991, Vilvarajah and Others v. United Kingdom, application No. 13163/87; 13164/87; 13165/87; 13447/87; 13448/87, para. 126 See communications No. 273/2005, T.A. v. Canada, para. 6.3, and No. 304/2006, L.Z.B. v. Canada, para. 6.6. See communication No. 319/2007, Singh v. Canada, decision of 30 May 2011, para. 8.8. Ibid., para. 8.9. 13