The Supreme Court has held that the nature of the decision to be made and the process followed in making it must be assessed. The very closeness of administrative decisions to the judicial process should indicate how much of these guiding principles should be imported. The very nature of the statutory system and the terms of the statute are very important in making decisions. We must also consider the effect on the individual or individuals affected. Courts have held that the more important decision affects the lives of those affected and the greater its impact on the specific person, the more difficult the procedural protections. Furthermore, the legitimate expectations of those challenging the decision may also determine which procedures the duty of fairness requires in certain circumstances of the case. The existence of a legitimate expectation will affect the duty of fairness owed to the individual or individuals affected by the decision. It is always good to take into account and respect the procedural choices made by the bodies themselves, especially when the decision-maker is left with the right to choose his own procedures provided for by the statute. Even if the duty of procedural fairness that would otherwise be applicable is undermined by the existence of a legitimate expectation based on the text of the articles of the Convention (on the rights of the child) and by the fact that Canada has ratified it (but has not internal). There is no legitimate expectation that could affect the content of the duty of fairness. While taking into account the other factors involved in determining the modalities of the duty of fairness, ignoring the hearing and notification was considered important. A Hu...... middle of paper ......ion if the decision was unreasonable should focus on the issues arising from the serious issue of general importance (issue of the approach to be taken for the interests of the children). The judge says that the children's best interests approach shows that the decision was unreasonable. The officer was completely contemptuous of the children's interest. Furthermore, the immigration officer's reasons show that his decision was inconsistent with the values ​​underlying the granting of discretion and did not withstand the somewhat detailed scrutiny required by the reasonableness test. A reasonable exercise of the power conferred requires particular attention to the needs of minors and their dependency. The officer's failure to consider the children was an unreasonable exercise of the power conferred by the legislation and must be quashed.