Can a breach of procedural fairness by an officer be a ground for judicial review?

Yes. A breach of procedural fairness — for example, not being given a genuine opportunity to respond to a specific concern, bias on the part of the decision-maker, or inadequate interpretation during an interview — is a recognized, independent ground for judicial review at the Federal Court, separate from arguing that the decision itself was unreasonable on the merits.

Procedural fairness issues are also generally reviewed on a different, stricter basis than the reasonableness standard applied to most substantive decisions. Rather than asking whether the outcome fell within a range of defensible conclusions, the Court essentially asks whether the process itself was fair, considering the nature of the decision, its importance to the person affected, and what fairness reasonably required in that specific context.

Because procedural fairness arguments turn heavily on the specific facts of how the process actually unfolded — what was said, what was disclosed, and what opportunity to respond was actually given — a clear, detailed account of the process itself, not just disagreement with the outcome, is essential to making this kind of argument work at the leave and hearing stages.