8/12/2019 Administrative Minor F05
1/68
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW SUMMARY
Bezair v. Windor Roman Catholi Se!arate Shool Board "#$$%&' $ (R ")d& *)* "Div.Ct.&......................................................................................................................................*
#
8/12/2019 Administrative Minor F05
2/68
PART I INTRODUCTION
Appeals
rights of appeal are purely the creation of statute
Judicial Review Procedure Actsee full NOTES
Prerogative Writsremedies requested whe it reviewed gov!t act "su#sumed i JRPAct$
o certiorari % to quash or set aside a decisio& review certait' of decisio
o prohi#itio % to order a tri#ual ot to proceed i a matter&li(e a i)uctio%
prevet gov!t from actig
o madamus % to order the performace of a pu#lic dut'coverse% force the gov!t
to act*
o ha#eas corpus % issues to determie the legalit' of a perso+s detetio% whether
#' a private perso or pu#lic official% with a view to orderig the release of the
ulawfull' imprisoed*
PART II ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
(i) Introduction
T,E R-.E O/ .AW AN0 T,E A012N2STRAT23E STATE
Procedures4 5ENERA. 2NTRO0-6T2ON
audi alterampartem "liste to the other side$% ad util recetl'% it uam#iguousl'
icluded the etire rage of commo law procedural rights*
2ssues of cocer
o
the cocept of 7legislative7 as opposed to 7admiistrative7 ad 7)udicial7fuctios&
o the ma(ig of 7rules7 ad 7polic'7 as opposed to the resolutio of disputes&
o the 7o8fial7 or 7prelimiar'7 as opposed to 7fial7 ature of some decisios&
o the descriptio of the iterest at sta(e as #eig a 7privilege7 as opposed to a
7right7&
o the pull associated with 7propert'7 claims as opposed to other t'pes of 7iterest*7
(ii) The Duty of Firne!!" Sco#e of A##$iction
() %i!toric$ O&er&ie'/airess4 The Threshold,istorical Overview
Natural Justice
o audi alteram partem4 right to a oral hearig
o otice
o cousel4participatory rights, witnesses, cross-examinations, submissions,
impartial decision-maker
curret ame for Natural Justice is procedural )ustice
%
8/12/2019 Administrative Minor F05
3/68
commo law rights "icludig atural )ustice$ ca #e overridde #' explicit statute of
legislature
T,E TRA02T2ONA. 0O6TR2NE AN0 T,E APPEARAN6E O/ /A2RNESS
Cooper v. Board of Works for Wandsworth District !"#$%, !&$ '( &!& 'ng.C)%
ER.E 6J4
o *atural +ustice does not only apply to strictly +udicial actsbroadeneddo not
need to consider whether it was +udicialuasi-+udicial to determine whether
natural +ustice applies
o Natural )ustice requires otice ad a opportuit' to #e heard
/he district board must do the thing legally 0 there must #e a resolutio
9otice:& ad% if there #e a #oard% ad a resolutio of that #oard% 2 have
ot heard a word to show that it would ot #e salutar' that the' should
hear the ma who is to suffer from their )udgmet #efore the' proceed to
ma(e the order uder which the' attempt to )ustif' their )udgmet #efore
the' proceed to ma(e the order uder which the' attempt to)ustif' their act*
o No harm to #oard to hear 6ooper% #ut great harm to 6ooper
o 2 thi( the appeal clause would evidetl' idicate that ma' e;ercises of the
power of a district #oard would #e i the ature of )udicial proceedigs
NOTES
o rare e;ample of collateral attac(* The remed' #eig sought is damages% ot
)udicial review
E
8/12/2019 Administrative Minor F05
4/68
,O.02N5
Supreme 6ourt re)ected otio that certiorari ca #e used to review ol' )udicial or quasi8
)udicial fuctios% which appeared to e;pad the limits of certiorari to iclude
eforcemet of procedural requiremets geerall'*
no separate set of rules that constituting fairness vs. natural justicerather there is a
spectrum
>ut cofied4o the remed' #e grated ol' i cases of serious i)ustice
9*( v. Coopers < =ybrand, 2!3435 ! 7C( &3> Can.%
criteria "o8e;haustive$ for determiig whether a decisio or order is oe required #'
law to #e made o )udicial or quasi8)udicial #asis*
(1) Is there anything in the language in which the function is conferred or in
the general context in which it is exercised which suggests that a hearing is
contemplated?
(2) oes the decision or order directly or indirectly affect the rights and
o!ligations of persons?(") Is the adversary process involved?
(#) Is there an o!ligation to apply su!stantive rules to many individual cases
rather than$ for example$ the o!ligation to implement social and economic policy
in a !road sense?
Cardinal v. Director of ?ent 6nstitution. 2!3">5 ; 7C( #&$
The deial of a right to a fair hearig must alwa's reder a decisio ivalid% whether
or ot it ma' appear to a reviewig court that the hearig would li(el' have resulted i
a differet decisio*
.e0ai4 ?0ut' of fairess lies i ever' pu#lic authorit' of admiistrative ature that is
ot legislative% that affects a rights% privileges% or iterests idividual@
o uty of fairness applies where it affects an individual%s
rights$
privileges$ or
interests of individual$
?night v. 6ndian 1ead 7chool Division *o. !3 2!33:5 6 7C( #>$ 7ask.%
5ENERA. 0-T O/ /A2RNESS
T,E NAT-RE O/ T,E 0E62S2ON
-. There i! no $on*er need/ e0ce#t #erh#! 'here the !ttute ndte! it/ to
di!tin*ui!h et'een 1udici$/ +u!i21udici$ nd dini!trti&e deci!ion! .
3fo$$o'in* Nicho$!on45. Deci!ion! of $e*i!$ti&e nd *ener$ nture cn e di!tin*ui!hed in thi!
re!#ect fro ct! of ore dini!trti&e nd !#ecific nture/ 'hich do not
enti$ !uch duty
6. A deci!ion of #re$iinry nture 'i$$ not in *ener$ tri**er the duty to ct
fir$y/ 'here! deci!ion of ore fin$ nture y h&e !uch n effect
T,E RE.AT2ONS,2P >ETWEEN T,E E1P.OER AN0 T,E E1P.OEE
o 0o!t eed to show )ust cause% #ut requires the admiistrative #od' to give the
officer holder reasos for the dismissal ad a opportuit' to #e heard*
9Nicholso:% 9sice it is a pu#lic positio:
+
8/12/2019 Administrative Minor F05
5/68
T,E 21PA6T O/ T,E 0E62S2ON ON T,E E1P.OEE
o &here is a right to procedural fairness only if the decision is a significant one
and has an important impact on the individual.
-N0ER T,E E0-6AT2ON A6T
o ,avig come to the coclusio that there e;ists a geeral right to procedural
fairess% the statutor' framewor( must #e e;amied i order to see if it modifies
this right 'rocedural fairness is a common law right$ and statute may modify
this right
-N0ER T,E E1P.O1ENT 6ONTRA6T
o it will be presumed, as was the case with the statute, that the parties intended
that procedural fairness would apply and it will take an explicit or clearly
implicit provision to the contrary to override this presumption
T,E 6ONTENT O/ T,E 0-T TO A6T /A2R.
o 7oth the ru$e! of ntur$ 1u!tice nd the duty of firne!! re &ri$e
!tndrd!. Their content 'i$$ de#end on"
the circu!tnce! of the c!e/
the !ttutory #ro&i!ion nd
the nture of the tter to e decided.o 7ince the respondent could be dismissed at pleasure, the content of the duty of
fairness would be minimal ad 2 would ted to agree that otice of the reasos for
the appellat >oard+s dissatisfactio with the respodet+s emplo'met adaffordig a opportuit' to #e heard would #e sufficiet to meet the requiremet
of fairess*
APP.26AT2ON4 6O1P.2AN6E W2T, T,E 0-T TO A6T /A2R.
o the dut' to give reasos eed ot ivolve a full ad complete disclosure #' the
admiistrative #od' of all of its reasos for dismissig the emplo'ee% #ut
rather the commuicatio of the #road grouds revealig the geeral su#stace of
the reaso for dismissal
o 2t was foud that through the egotiatio sessios #etwee the respodet+s
attore' ad the appellat >oard% the respodet was made full' aware of thegrievaces of the >oard ad had ample opportuit' to preset his side of
the stor'*
o therefore coclude that the respodet was properl' dismissed ad that his actio
must fail*
SOP2N=A J4
o @s a general rule, this category does not attract the duty of procedural
fairness because the employer can terminate the employment without cause and
without giving any reason
o 2 her reasos% m' colleague cocludes% at BCC% that a commo law dut' of
fairess arises from 7the ature of the decisio% the relatioship e;istig #etwee
the respodet ad the appellat >oard ad the impact o the respodet of the
impuged decisio*7 /his precedes her detailed examination of the statute
o /he correct approach reuires an examination of the statute, regulations and
contract to determine whether the respondent has brought himself within the
exception to the general rule that an office terminable at pleasure does not
attract the duty of fairness. /o do so, provisions of the governing instruments
must be identified which specifically or by implication point to a duty of fairness*
E1ER5EN62ES
,
8/12/2019 Administrative Minor F05
6/68
6mportant the action in uestion is interim only and is open to reassessment in the
context of a subseuent hearing.
(c) 8iittion! of the Sco#e of the Duty" Deci!ion! of the $e*i!$ti&e nd*ener$ #o$icy nture
Duasi8)udicial888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888legislative polic'
9artineau2!3":5 27C(5
A #ure$y ini!teri$ deci!ion/ on rod *round! of #u$ic #o$icy/ 'i$$ ty#ic$$y
fford the indi&idu$ no #rocedur$ #rotection
Pu#lic #odies e;ercisig legislative fuctios ma' ot #e amea#le to )udicial
supervisio
W,AT 2S A .E52S.AT23E PO.26 0E62S2ON% AN0 W,AT .E3E. O/ /A2RNESS TO
>E APP.2E0
-) the ore *ener$ the i#ct of the deci!ion/ the ore $i9e$y it i! to e $e*i!$ti&e
o i! the i#ct of the deci!ion diffu!e nd ffectin* rod !#ectru of the
#u$ic in *ener$$y undifferentited nner/ or !#ecific in effect.
5)ho' i! the deci!ion to e de:doe! it $oo9 to #o$icy or to d1udicti&e #rocedure
Canada @A% v. 6nuit /apirisat of Canada 2!3":5 7C(
RAT2O
;u!t ecu!e it '! n ct of cinet (*o&ernor in counci$)/ dn< en it '! iune
fro 1udici$ con!idertion:Any ct of =IC hd to co#$y '< !ttute 1ust loo( at the spectrum agailoo( at the ature of the power
o 6s it simply a dispute between parties, or a polycentric decision.
o Are the' loo(ig at the rights #etwee idividuals or are differet cosideratios
ivolved*
To deterine 'hether it i! #o$icy2deci!ion/ $oo9 to the !ttutory !chee
o Nture of Deci!ion"
8oo9 t 'hether the !u1ect tter ffect! nrro' *rou# of
indi&idu$!
8oo9 t 'hether it i! di!cretionry deci!ion
o Nture of Deci!ion2M9er
Cinet:!#eci$i>ed ody of #o$icy29er! Was!t )ust a ad)udicative factit was a #road #ased polic' decisiopol'cetric issue
ad #etter to loo( at the miister!s specialiFed staff
/his is not the kind of decision that attracts protection of procedural fairness since it was
a legislative decision
o no need for cabinet to give any reasons for re+ection, or to hold any hearing
1omex 7CC, !3":%
026=SON "disset$
-
8/12/2019 Administrative Minor F05
7/68
o Bylaw was not of general applicationit was targeted at 1omex in particular,
and it interfered w their property rights
o *ot that municipality couldnt make the decision, but that because it was
targeted, it couldnt be called legislation
o =ittle or no procedural protection for legislative policy decision, whereas the
+udicialadministrative decision will have substantial protection
o
6ourt wet #ac( to 1artieaurights% #eefits ad iterestso Not )ust a #'law agaist all citiFes% rather at a specific group*
o At miimum% ,ome; should have (ow that the' were goig to have a #'law
eacted
>ut the result ma' have #ee )ust the same fiall'
Just eed a opportuit' to #e heard
o ,ome; 0id ot get remed'% sice it was discretioar'the #uilder #ehaved
poorl'
ESTE"ma)orit'$
o Statute does ot provide otice requiremets
o &he !ylaw represented the culmination of an inter partes dispute on
adversarial lines !etween omex and the municipality therefore this decisionwas not legislative$ !ut rather uasi*judicial
o attracts priciple of otice ad cosequet doctrie of audi alteram partem
PO.2681A=2N5
Bezair v. Windor Roman Catholic Separate School Board (1992), 9 OR (3d) 737 (iv. Ct.)
6ourt said there was a level of fairess that applied
5uidelie Polic' said that >oard will follow the pu#lic cosultatio e;pectatios
7ince neither 9inisters nor boards own procedural guideline followed there was a
denial of procedural fairness
)ublic consultation is condition precedent to a valid decision*
(e )embroke Civic 1ospital v. 8ntario 1ealth 7ervices (estructuring Commission
,O.02N54 This is political decisioo procedural fairess
Duty to consult public and other affected groups, but it was only reuired to make policy
decision it was not to act as an ad+udicator
0G eed to have procedural fairess for polic' decisio
Right to #e a#le to Hmeet the case! applica#le to adversarial decisio% ot to pol'cetric
polic' decisio ma(ig eterprise
(d) Intere!t! Protected y the Duty of Firne!!
(' Webb and 8ntario 1ousing Corporation 2!34"5 28nt. [email protected]
2SS-E4 What happes whe gov!t aget tries to limit or retract a right
She was aware of the pro#lems ad she had a opportuit' to respod to those pro#lems
this satisfied the 0O/ owed to her
+hen a person applies for housing$ the person is not entitled to procedural fairness
!ecause it is not a right$ rather it is a privilege,!enefit.moreover$ the - is not
adjudicative at all
*
8/12/2019 Administrative Minor F05
8/68
/ut when the government !estows this !enefit on a person$ then they are entitled to
procedural fairness rights (to a limited degree) when the government tries to retract the
privilege.
2f a #eefit is retracted% the there is more importace attached tha a perso appl'ig
see We## case
Canadian @ssociation of (egulated 6mporters v. Canada @A% 2!33&5 ; C ;&4 C@%
,O.02N5 "6A$
6A reversed decisio ad said it was polic' ma(ig ad was a(i to legislatioo right
to ma(e su#missios
,eld priciples of procedural fairess are ot applica#le to quota polic' although the'
ma' #e to idividual decisios respectig grats of quotas*
o 0uggests that the !roader the affected group$ the more liely to !e a legitimate
policy decision. (from dissent in omex)
Statute did ot idicate that procedural fairess was iteded
o No idicatio i statute that pu#lic cosultatio is required*
o What applicat is see(ig is a pu#lic cosultatio process I ot cotemplated #'
statute
1utfield v. Board of ort 7akatchewan Aeneral 1ospital 2!3"#5 2@B C@5
,O.02N5
If the !oard affects the rights of an individual in a final decision$ then they are owed
the duty of fairness$ which will vary according to the significance of the right
o Although the court of appeal affirmed this decisio% it relied o arrower grouds
tha this*
While the respondent was under no duty to grant hospital privileges to an applicant, the
interests rights% of the applicant were sufficiently affected to impose procedural fairness
rightso Note that ,utfield did ot have a' rights here he was appl'ig for privileges
for the first timethere were procedural rights #ecause of the severe impact it
would have o his professioal reputatio*
Now cocered wG the iterest at sta(e ad whether it is feasi#le to protect this iterest
Protected private propert' rightspractice of a professio
o 0ecisios ivolvig reputatio are more protectio ",utfield$
=egitimate 'xpectation
+here there was no common law duty of fairness owedthere will !e a duty of
fairness owed when the person affected !y the decision*maer is led to !elieve that they
will have participatory rightsexpecting duties of fairness to apply
8E ##$ie! on$y to #rocedur$ ri*ht!/ not !u!tnti&e ri*ht!
ature of the !u!tnti&e intere!t4
o ?e"i referece to the applicat+s iterest i cotiued occupatio of
govermet housig$ ad
o %utfie$d"i referece to the applicat+s iterest i hospital admittig privileges
arisig from his traiig ad etr' ito the geeral practice of medicie% though
8/12/2019 Administrative Minor F05
9/68
iterestigl' this was ot see as geeratig legitimate e;pectatio% at least i
1c0oald J+s uderstadig of the term$
egitimate 3xpectation in anada4 an expectation of a hearing arising out of express
representations$ a practice of holding such hearings or a com!ination of the two.
2 each% S66 held that the grouds for successful ivocatio of the doctrie had ot
#ee made out*
8ld 7t. Boniface (esidents @ssn. 6nc. v. Winnipeg City%, 2!33:5 $ 7C( !!4: 9an.%,
Sopi(a o .egitimate E;pectatio4 the principle affords a party affected by the decision
of a public official an opportunity to make representation in circumstances in whichthere otherwise would no such opportunity. /he court supplies the opportunity to make
a representation where, based on the conduct of the public official, a party has been led
to believe that his or her rights would not be affected without consultation*
(eference re Canada @ssistance )lan 2!33!5 ; 7C( >;> BC%
SOP2N=A J4
&here is no support in anadian or 3nglish cases for the position that the doctrine of
legitimate expectations can create su!stantive rights.o Where it is applica#le% it ca create a right to ma(e represetatios or to #e
cosulted% #ut ot a right of coset
,e saw it as procedural fairess applied to legislatio
o Rules goverig procedural fairess do ot appl' to a #od' e;ercise legislative
fuctios
o /urthermore% it is fudametal to our s'stem of govermet that a govermet is
ot #oud #' the uderta(igs of its predecessor*
RESTR26T2ONS 6ON6ERN2N5 P->.26 >O02ES
o @A #ure$y ini!teri$ deci!ion/ on rod *round! of #u$ic #o$icy/ 'i$$
ty#ic$$y fford the indi&idu$ no #rocedur$ #rotection/ nd ny ttc9
u#on !uch deci!ion 'i$$ h&e to e founded u#on u!e of di!cretion@
o 7pu#lic #odies e;ercisig legislative fuctios ma' ot #e amea#le to )udicial
supervisio7
Council of Civil 7ervice Enions v. 9inister for the Civil 7ervice, 2!3">5 @C $4& 'ng. 1=%.
.ord /raser of Tull'#elto said%
=egitimate, or reasonable, expectation may arise either from an express promise
given on behalf of a public authority or from the existence of a regular practice
which the claimant can reasonably expect to continue. ... 2 the preset case the evidece shows that% ever sice 56,D #ega i KLC% prior
cosultatio has #ee the ivaria#le rule whe coditios of service were to #e
sigificatl' altered* Accordigl' i m' opiio if there had #ee o questio of atioal
securit' ivolved% the appellats would have had a legitimate e;pectatio that the
miister would cosult them #efore issuig the istructio of MM 0ecem#er K*
urey v. (oman Catholic 7chool Board for Conception Bay Centre !33!%, ;@dmin. =( ;d% ;#$
*fld. 7C/D%
$
8/12/2019 Administrative Minor F05
10/68
the court reversed the )udgmet of Wells J4
on perusing the affidavits of ; of the !$ applicants for relief, the court was unable to find
any evidence that those deponents had believed that the past practice would be followed
in this instanceimplies that there must !e evidence of an actual a su!jective
legitimate expectation existed.
@ttaran v. Eniversity of British Columbia !33"%, & @dmin. =( $d% && BC 7C%. /
Re)ected
o the procedure was new and had been used only once previously0
o very few in the affected and complaining student body knew about it at the
relevant time.
o it was i the ature of a istructio to staff% ot a represetatio to affected
costituecies
Estoppel ad .egitimate E;pectatio
estoppel as a private law cocept4 with (owledge of the promise or assurace
i questio% the applicats acted to their detrimet i such a wa' as to ma(e it
iequita#le for the other part' to ow assert the strict letter of the law* Of course% )ust as private law estoppel is ow movig awa' from a' eed for proof of
actual detrimetal reliace% it ma' ot #e a#solutel' ecessar'% if the aalog' is
emplo'ed% to loo( for a'thig other tha a reasoa#l' held #elief that past practice will
#e followed*
9ount 7inai 1ospital v. Fuebec 9inister of 1ealth and 7ocial 7ervices% 2;::!5 ;7C( ;"!
Fue.%
o There is% i short% o eed to resort to the doctrie of legitimate e;pectatios to
achieve procedural relief*
o =egitimate 'xpectation does not allow substantive relief.
0* Promissor' Estoppel
o &he doctrine of legitimate expectations does not necessarily$ though it may$
involve personal nowledge !y the applicant of the conduct of the pu!lic
authority as well as reliance and detriment.
o ,owever this is ot a private law case* Pu#lic law estoppel clearl' requires
a appreciatio of the legislative itet em#odied i the power whose e;ercise is
sought to #e estopped* The legislatio is paramout* 6ircumstaces that might
otherwise create a estoppel ma' have to 'ield to a overridig pu#lic iterest
e;pressed i the legislative te;t*
(e) Non2Fin$ Adini!trti&e Action" Recoendtion! nd Deci!ion!
to Pro!ecute The dutie! of firne!! !hou$d not ##$y to $o'er $e&e$! 'hen there ##e$! re
$$o'ed t hi*her $e&e$
?i$$ $$o' for #rocedur$ #rotection! for non2di!#o!iti&e herin*! 'hen there re
!eriou! ne*ti&e con!e+uence! to the #er!on
o For e0#$e/ fct findin* y on$y occur t the $o'er $e&e$.
(e @bel and @dvisory (eview Board !343%, 34 D=( $d% $:& 8nt. Div. Ct.%0 affGd.
!3"!%, !!3D=($d%!:! 8nt.C@%
#/
8/12/2019 Administrative Minor F05
11/68
At the hearig% the law'ers as(ed for disclosure of the reports give to the #oard*
5RAN5E J4
o the rules of atural )ustice should appl' otwithstadig that the proceedig will
result i a recommedatio ol' i cases such as thisde Smith tests4
o The te!t for non2di!#o!iti&e deci!ion!
o (1) &he importance of the decision for the applicant
Applicatio4 ol' opportuit' to avoid icarceratioideal caseo (2) the degree of proximity !etween the investigation and the 5final6 decision
and the exposure of the person invested to harm&he influence of the lower
decision on the final outcome
@pplication 1ere the proximity is greatThe secod test of de Smith is
easil' met whe oe cosiders the effect the recommedatio ad
its acceptace has o the freedom of the applicats*
ie* The recommedatios are usuall' followedcompels
protectio of rights
o &hat is$ loo at the nexus !w, the recommendation and the final decision&he
more liely that the lower level decision will affect the final decision$ and the
higher effect on the individual then more liely to have procedural fairnessrights
o 0isclosure4 That is ot however to sa' that the reports must ecessaril' #e
revealed* Normall' he should #e give the opportuit' of perusal* Oe ca
readil' imagie those reports cotaiig allegatios of fact detrimetal to the
applicat which could readil' #e refuted*
.ower dut' of fairessgive some opportuit' to ma(e su#missios
A//2R1E0 ON APPEA.
o O+0riscoll J disseted
#oard 7is ot su#)ect to review #ecause the #oard+s report*** does ot #id
the .ieuteat85overor
o The 6ourt of Appeal decided the )urisdictioal issue i favour of A#el ad
0ivisioal 6ourt a#out the procedures NOTES
o /his case allowed procedural protection even though it concerned a non-binding
report, and was an administrative rather than +udicial or uasi-+udicial decision.
o 0ispositio made i A#el* The outcome was ot a order for productio #ut
rather a quashig ad remissio #ac( for recosideratio of the procedural claims
made #' A#el ad his couselshows some deferece ad ot reviewed o
correctess stadard*
9asters Case 2!33&5 8ntario Court of Hustice Aeneral Division%, Divisional Court
&he existence of a general duty to act fairly depends on the consideration of the nature
of the decision to !e made !y the administrative !ody7 the relationship existing !etween
that !ody and the individual7 and the effect of the decision on the individual8s rights.o 1asters+ positio was more politicall' accouta#le ad more seior tha those
positios i*icholsonad?night*
o /urther% the Premier was ot actig pursuat to a statute #ut rather was e;ercisig
a prerogative to cosider revo(ig oe of his earlier appoitmets 9more
discretioar':
/he applicant was given an adeuate opportunity to know the allegations against him
and to state his case before the )remier considered the matteraware of allegations and
had opportunity to be heard.
##
8/12/2019 Administrative Minor F05
12/68
(iii) Con!titution$ Thre!ho$d!" 8ife/ 8ierty nd Security of
the Per!onB
The 6harter of Rights ad /reedoms
/he Charter and the Bill of (ights 7ources of )rocedural )rotection
Bill of (ights
* a% the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and en+oyment
ofproperty, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law
M* o law of 6aada shall #e costrued ad applied so as to
o e% deprive of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the
principles of fundamental +ustice for the determination of his rights and
obligations. federal statutes ol'
Charter
C* Ever'oe has the right to life% li#ert' ad securit' of the perso ad the right ot to
#e deprived thereof e;cept i accordace with the priciples of fudametal )ustice*
*ational @nti-)overty 8rganiIation v. Canada @ttorney-Aeneral% !33:%, #: D=( &th% 4!;
C@%
2 must agree with the appellat ad the iterveers that s* M"e$ of the 6aadia >ill of
Rights ca have o applicatio i this matter*
Charter
2t was held as earl' as K #' the Supreme 6ourt that sectio C have a su#stative as
well as a procedural compoet "Referece re >6 1otor 3ehicle Act% 9K: M S6R LB
">6$
o The ol' form of procedural discrimiatio that couts% therefore% is oe that has
the itetio or effect of discrimiatig agaist persos
As forsection !!ad its guaratees of 7a idepedet ad impartial tri#ual%7 of o
ureasoa#le dela' i the coduct of proceedigs% ad of presumptios of iocece% its
direct effect has #ee cofied to crimial proceedigs ad those with 7true
peal 7 cosequeces7
7ection 4
7ingh v. Canada 9inister of 'mployment and 6mmigration% 2!3">5 ! 7C(!44JCan.%
W2.SON J "0ic(so 6J ad .amer J cocurrig& Ritchie J too( o part i the )udgmet$
#%
8/12/2019 Administrative Minor F05
13/68
2 summar'% 2 am of the view that the rights which the appellats are see(ig to assert are
oes which etitle them to the protectio of s* C of the 6harter*
o 2 am prepared evertheless% to accept for preset purposes that writte
su#missios ma' #e a adequate su#stitute for a oral hearig i appropriate
circumstaces*
o 9undamental justice must include procedural fairness
Uni!ed %&e n o##ortunity to 9e their c!e
o In particular$ I am of the view that where a serious issue of credi!ility is
involved$ fundamental justice reuires that credi!ility !e determined on the
!asis of an oral hearing./
2t seems to me that% as a matter of fudametal )ustice% a refugee
claimat would #e etitled to discover' of the 1iister+s case prior to
such a hearig*
o 2 am accordigl' of the view that the procedures for determiatio of refugee
status claims as set out i the 2mmigratio Act% KCB do ot accord refugeeclaimats fudametal )ustice i the ad)udicatio of those claims ad are thus
icompati#le with s* C of the 6harter*
>EETQ J "Este' ad 1clt're JJ cocurrig$4o 2t violates theprinciples of fundamental +ustice under s. ;e% of the Bill of (ights
to not allow an oral hearing in this case,
o /ut s. 2(e) does not impose an oral hearing in all cases&he most important
factors in determining the procedural content of fundamental justice in a given
case are
(1)the nature of the legal rights at issue and
(2)the severity of the conseuences to the individuals concerned. ...
o @lso, When there the case will turn on the findings of fact and credibility, need to
have the right to make oral submissions.
o E;tet of applicatio of priciple 0epeds o legal rights at issue ad
cosequeces to applicat
Chiare66i v. Canada 9inister of Hustice% 2!33;5 7C( 4!! Can.%
/A6TS
o As a result% 6 ad his cousel were e;cluded whe detailed evidece was give
#' the R61P as to 6+s ivolvemet i orgaiFed crime* While a summar' of that
evidece was later provided% it was without referece to the R61P+s sources of
iformatio*
,O.02N5
o ,owever% the state also has a cosidera#le iterest i effectivel' coductig
atioal securit' ad crimial itelligece ivestigatios ad i protectig police
sources*o 7ince he had
information that disclosed the investigation of his involvement in drug
trafficking and a summary of surveillance regarding the murder
allegation
the procedural opportunities to respond such as calling a witness or
cross-examining the (C9)
o and the competing interests at play 2security of informant5, 6 conclude that the
procedures followed by the (eview Committee in this case did not violate
principles of fundamental +ustice*
#)
8/12/2019 Administrative Minor F05
14/68
5od#out v* .ogueuil "KKC% S6R$
/acts 4 6it' of .ogueuil made a coditio of emplo'met to live withi cit' #ouds% ad whe
respodet moved to aother muicipalit'% she was fired*2ssue4 Are muicipalities #oud #' the 6harter 0id this particular actio violate s* C of the6harter
,eld 4 Appeal upheld* es to #oth questios*
Re!trictin* n Indi&idu$! choice of re!idence ffect! her !. ri*ht! to $ierty
@uthorson =itigation Auardian of% v. Canada @ttorney Aeneral% 7upreme Court of Canada
Hudgment Huly !4, ;::$
,O.02N54
7ection ;e% of the Bill of (ights applies only to guarantee the fundamental +ustice of
proceedings before any court, tribunal, or administrative body that determines individualrights and obligations.
7ection ;e% does not impose upon )arliament the duty to provide a hearing before the
enactment of legislation.
The >ill of Rights protects ol' those rights that e;isted at the time of its passage i
KB* At that time it was udisputed% as it cotiues to #e toda'% that Parliamet had the
right to e;propriate propert' if it made its itetio clear*
RE6ENT 0E3E.OP1ENTS
5osseli
o S*C dG give protectio for su#sistece ad welfare rightso Procedural protectio dG appl' to ecoomic rights% icludig social welfare
1a' #e commo law procedural rights% #ut ot rights from 6harter s* C
6haoulli
o ,ealth care waitlist for surger'
o 0G violate securit' of perso
What life, liberty, and security of the person rights are protected by the CharterK
o 6ustod' matters
o 6rimial matters
o
1etal health matterso Priso disciplie
o Parole
o The courts #ega to icrease what was protected
Wilson v. BC medical services commission!3"" 2BC C@5
/A6TS
o New doctors were required to appl' for a practitioer!s um#er which allowed
them to #ill the provice
#+
8/12/2019 Administrative Minor F05
15/68
o The tie/ #$ce/ nd #ur#o!e of #rctice cou$d e re!tricted
,O.02N5
o The $e*i!$tion '! not in ccordnce 'ith PF it '! !ed u#on the
##$iction of &*ue nd uncertin criteri nd $eft !u!tnti$ !co#e for
ritrry conduct
Blencoe v. BC 1uman (ights Commission ;::: 7CC
,O.02N51a)orit' "1c.achli% .!,0% 5othier% 1a)or% >astarache$4
Applicatio of 6harter
o &he harter applies to the actions of the /: . Otherwise% oe could have
tri#uals set up #' the govermet i order to avoid the 6harter*
o Furtherore/ !. cn e0tend eyond criin$ $'% at least where there is state
actio which directl' egages the )ustice s'stem ad its admiistratio*
=iberty 6nterest
o ;i!erty< is engaged where state compulsions or prohi!itions prevents freedom
from maing important and fundamental life choices.
o ,owever% the state has ot preveted > from ma(ig a' ?fudametal persoal
choices@*
o Therefore% the iterests sought to #e protected i this case do ot fall withi the
?li#ert'@ iterest protected #' s* C*
o urthermore, the s. 4 rights of Lliberty and security of the personM do not
include a generaliIed right to dignity.
Ps'chological Stress
o Oe does have a right to #e free from serious state imposed ps'chological stress
o in order for !tte2induced #!ycho$o*ic$ !tre!! to e rech of !ecurity of
the #er!on/ it u!t eet t'o re+uireent!"
the #!ycho$o*ic$ hr u!t re!u$t fro the ction! of the !tte nd
it u!t e !eriou!o ,ere% the ma)or harm to the respodet was caused ot #' the govermet #ut #'
the pu#licit' surroudig the allegatios themselves*
0ela' i the hearig4
o There is o costitutioal right outside of the crimial cote;t to #e ?tried@
withi a reasoa#le amout of time*
o The ma)orit' of the 6ourt of Appeal erred i trasplatig s* "#$ priciples set
out i the crimial law cote;t to huma rights proceedigs uder s* C*
o In order to de$y to e n u!e of #roce!! t for n dini!trti&e $'
!tnd#oint/ there u!t e #roof of !i*nificnt #re1udice (in n e&identiry
!en!e) 'hich re!u$t! fro n uncce#t$e de$y
o deterintion of 'hether de$y i! inordinte i! not !ed on the $en*th of
the de$y $one/ ut on contextual factors" conte0tu$ n$y!i!"
nture of the c!e nd it! co#$e0ity/
the #ur#o!e nd nture of the #roceedin*!/ nd
'hether the re!#ondent contriuted to the de$y or 'i&ed the de$y/
'! there #re1udice
0isset 2 Part "2aco#ucci% >iie% Ar#our% .e#el$4
C899'*/
o S* C will ol' #e applied i e;treme circumstaces
#,
8/12/2019 Administrative Minor F05
16/68
o /or e;ample% compellig testimo' or forcig the productio of documets
"iv$ Procedural Propriet'4 The Stadard of Review ad Some
5eeral Thoughts
(&) The Content of Procedur$ Firne!!() Introduction nd An$ytic$ Fre'or9
Baker v. Canada 9inister of CitiIenship and 6mmigration% 2!3335 ; 7C( "!4 Can.%
/A6TS
o 0ecisio4 isufficiet humaitaria ad compassioate grouds to warrat
processig
o This letter cotaied o reasos for the decisio*
/his does not use the word Ndiscretion, but the court interpreted it thus
The Statutor' Scheme ad the Nature of the 0ecisio
PRO6E0-RA. /A2RNESS
o The fact that a decisio is admiistrative ad affects 7the rights% privileges
or iterests of a idividual7 is sufficiet to trigger the applicatio of the dut' of
fairess4 6ardial v* 0irector of =et 2stitutio 9K: M S6R BL "6a*$%
applica#le to this case
"$ /actors Affectig the 6otet of the 0ut' of /airess
o NATURE OF DECISION AND T%E PROCESS
/he more the process resembles +udicial decision making, the more
likely it is that procedural protections closer to the trial model will bereuired by the duty of fairness.
In e&$utin* the #roce!!/ con!ider
the function of the triun$/
the nture of the deci!ion29in* ody/
the deterintion! tht u!t e de to rech deci!ion
o STATUTOR SC%EME AND STATUTE CREATIN= T%E 7OD
5reater procedural protectios% for e;ample% will #e required whe o
appeal procedure is provided withi the statute% or whe the decisio is
determiative of the issue ad further requests caot #e su#mitted
fialit'
o SI=NIFICANCE OF DECISION FOR RECIPIENT"
The more importat the decisio is to the lives of those affected ad the
greater its impact o that perso or those persos% the more striget the
procedural protectios that will #e madatedo 8E=ITIMATE EGPECTATIONS"
The legitimate e;pectatios of the perso challegig the decisio ma'
determie what procedures the dut' of fairess require i give
circumstaces*
Our 6ourt has held that% i 6aada% this doctrie is part of the doctrie of
fairess or atural )ustice% ad that it does ot create su#stative rights*
o TRI7UNA8S C%OICE OF PROCEDURE"
The dut' of fairess should also ta(e ito accout ad respect the choices
of procedure made #' the agec' itself%
#-
8/12/2019 Administrative Minor F05
17/68
particularl' whe the statute leaves to the decisio8ma(er the
a#ilit'
o to choose its ow procedures% or
o whe the agec' has a e;pertise i determiig what
procedures are appropriate i the circumstaces
o list of factors is ot e;haustive*
"M$ .egitimate E;pectatios "$ Participator' Rights
(H)The Pro&i!ion of Re!on!
o 2 cases such as this where the decisio has importat sigificace for the
idividual% whe there is a statutor' right of appeal% or i other circumstaces%
some form of reasos should #e required*
() Re!on$e A##rehen!ion of 7i!
o Re!on$e A##rehen!ion of 7i! ##$ie! to $$ ii*rtion officer! 'ho
#$y !i*nificnt ro$e in the 9in* of deci!ion!/ 'hether they re
!uordinte re&ie'in* officer!/ or tho!e 'ho 9e the fin$ deci!ion
o The test for reasoa#le apprehesio of #ias 4
9T:he apprehesio of #ias must #e a reasoa#le oe% held #' reasoa#lead right mided persos% appl'ig themselves to the questio ad
o#taiig thereo the required iformatio* ***
3T4ht te!t i! @'ht 'ou$d n infored #er!on/ &ie'in* the
tter re$i!tic$$y nd #rctic$$y nd h&in* thou*ht the tter
throu*h conc$ude. ?ou$d he thin9 tht it i! ore $i9e$y thn not tht
3the deci!ion29er4/ 'hether con!ciou!$y or uncon!ciou!$y/ 'ou$d
not decide fir$y.@
The !tndrd! for re!on$e ##rehen!ion of i! y
&ry/ $i9e other !#ect! of #rocedur$ firne!!/ de#endin* on the
conte0t nd the ty#e of function #erfored y the dini!trti&e
deci!ion29er in&o$&ed"
The i! doe! not h&e to e ctu$/ it on$y need! to ##er to re!on$e out!ider tht there i! i!
RE32EW O/ T,E E
8/12/2019 Administrative Minor F05
18/68
o 6n my opinion the standard of review of the substantive aspects of discretionary
decisions is best approached within this framework
o /he pragmatic and functional approach takes into account considerations such
as5/i!eault6
!%the wording of the enactment conferring +urisdiction on the
administrative tribunal, 2privative clause, whether it is an entitlement5
;%the purpose of the statute creating the tribunal, the reason for thetribunals existence,
$%the area of expertise of its members and
&%the nature of the problem before the tribunal.
It includes factors such as whether a decision is =polycentric= and the
intention revealed !y the statutory language.
&he amount of choice left !y 'arliament to the administrative decision*
maer and the nature of the decision !eing made are also
important considerations in the analysis
o After >a(er% ow 'ou appl' the P/ test for eve discretioar' measure
"M$ The Stadard of Review i This 6ase
o The fir!t fctor i! the #re!ence or !ence of #ri&ti&e c$u!e/ nd the
'ordin* of tht c$u!e
Pushpaatha shows that the e;istece of this provisio meas there
should #e a lower level of deferece o issues related to the certified
questio itself*
o The !econd fctor i! the e0#erti!e of the deci!ion29er.
o The third fctor i! the #ur#o!e of the #ro&i!ion in #rticu$r/ nd of the Act
! 'ho$e.
o The fourth fctor out$ined in Pu!h#nthn con!ider! the nture of the
#ro$e in +ue!tion/ e!#eci$$y 'hether it re$te! to the deterintion of $'
or fct!.
o The appropriate stadard of review is reasoa#leess simpliciter*
Was This 0ecisio -reasoa#leo >n unreasona!le decision is one that$ in the main$ is not supported !y any
reasons that can stand up to a somewhat pro!ing examination.
o Deterinin* 'hether the ##roch t9en y the ii*rtion officer '!
'ithin the oundrie! !et out y the 'ord! of the !ttute nd the &$ue! of
dini!trti&e $' re+uire! conte0tu$ ##roch/
o The O#)ectives of the Act
o 2teratioal .aw
o The 1iisterial 5uidelies
6ON6.-S2ONS AN0 02SPOS2T2ON
o Therefore% #oth #ecause there was a violatio of the priciples of procedural
fairess owig to a reasoa#le apprehesio of #ias% ad #ecause the e;ercise of
the , 6 discretio was ureasoa#le% 2 would allow this appeal*
2A6O>-662 J "6or' J cocurrig$4
o 2 agree with .+,eureu;80u#e J+s reasos ad dispositio of this appeal% e;cept
o 2 do ot agree with the approach adopted #' m' colleague% wherei referece is
made to the uderl'ig values of a uimplemeted iteratioal treat' i the
course of the cote;tual approach to statutor' iterpretatio ad admiistrative
law%
#
8/12/2019 Administrative Minor F05
19/68
7uresh v. Canada 9inister of CitiIenship and 6mmigration% 2;::;5 ! 7C( $ Can.%
>a(er
o =reter #rocedur$ #rotection! ... 'i$$ e re+uired 'hen no ##e$
#rocedure i! #ro&ided 'ithin the !ttute/ or 'hen the deci!ion i!
deterinti&e of the i!!ue nd further re+ue!t! cnnot e !uitted
o The *reter the effect on the $ife of the indi&idu$ y the deci!ion/ the *reter
the need for #rocedur$ #rotection! to eet the coon $' duty of firne!!nd the re+uireent! of fundent$ 1u!tice under !. of the Chrter.
() Sttutory Po'er! Procedure Act nd Other =ener$ Procedur$
Code!7tatutory )owers )rocedure @ct (78 !33:, c. 7.;;, as amended !33$, c. ;4, 7ched.0 !33&,c.;4,s.
>#0 !334,c.;$,s. !$0!333,c. !;, 7ched. B., s. !# Opage $:; to $$;
*"$
*L"$
*
K*
*
*"l$
*"$
B*
K*"$
M*M"$
M*"$ "M$
M*"$ "M$
NOTES
E;clusio of the SPPA is ot ecessaril' a e;clusio of atural )ustice* /or the purpose of this course% the SPPA will most pro#a#l' #e e;cluded #' statute*
0oes NOT appl'
o where there is o oral hearig
o where it is ol' a recommedatio "ot a decisio$
o whe it is doe #' legislator
o where the rules of civpro appl' "mediatio$
o o8ad)udicative decisio
(c) Or$ %erin*! /raditionally, an oral hearing was usually reuired as an element of natural +ustice
although not always* =omo 6ostructio 2c* v* 6ommissio des Relatios de Travai duDue#ec% 9KB:
*icholson4 clearl' left the discretio o whether to proceed #' wa' of oral or writte
hearig i the hads of the >oard of 6ommissioers of Police*
0ingh" An or$ herin* i! not nece!!ri$y uni&er!$ co#onent of the @#rinci#$e! of
fundent$ 1u!tice@ under !ection of the Chrter/
o $thou*h there i! need for !uch #rocedure @'here !eriou! i!!ue !
to credii$ity i! in&o$&ed.@:confired in Sure!h.
#$
8/12/2019 Administrative Minor F05
20/68
6laims to a oral hearig are also oes that are situatio sesitive i the sese that their
ecessit' ma' deped o the matters that are at issuei the particular proceedigs as
opposed to #eig a feature of all e;ercises of the relevat statutor' power
9asters v. 8ntario !33&%, !" 8( $d% >>! Div. Ct.%
The fct tht it '! #o$itic$ office t #$e!ure inf$uenced the fct tht he did not
h&e certin ri*ht!:therefore $$ he de!er&ed i! $o' !tndrd of firne!!o 1asters is ol' etitled to hear ?the #road grouds7 of the accusatios #ut ot
7ever' detail7
/urthermore% 1asters was i fact give the opportuit' #' the Premier to ma(e legal
a statemet ad to respod to all additioal detailsot requirig a oral hearig
?han v. Eniversity of 8ttawa !334%,$&:($d%>$>C@%
1AJOR2T
o 0eial of Procedural /airess
/irst% ad most importat% the 6ommittee should have give a oral
hearig #ecause her credi#ilit' was a critical issue o her appeal*
7y n or$ herin*/ I en herin* in 'hich !he hd no##ortunity to ##er in #er!on efore the Coittee nd
n o##ortunity to 9e or$ re#re!enttion! to it.
Note4 ot li(e a trial hearigo opportuit' to cross8e;amie%
questio
Third% the 6ommittee should have give 1s* =ha a opportuit' to
correct or cotradict the three 7factors7 it relied o i its decisio*
o /ecause s. @han8s appeal turned on her credi!ility and !ecause of the
serious conseuences to her of an adverse finding$ fairness reuired an oral
hearing.
o She doe! not h&e to h&e !ho'n ctu$ #re1udice22She need on$y !ho' tht
the CoitteeJ! rech of it! duty of firne!! y re!on$y h&e#re1udiced her
02SSENT "/ila'so$4
o Or$ %erin* 'ou$d h&e not chn*ed the outcoe
o This was ot a matter which tured o credi#ilit'* There were o allegatios
made agaist the appellat ad the proceedigs were ot adversarial i ature*
RE1E02ES4
o Need to !ho' tht the conc$u!ion 'ou$d h&e een different outcoe if the
#rocedure '! different if you e0#ect to o&erturn deci!ion.
o >ut if the outcome was ot pre)udiced #' appl'ig the wrog procedure% the the
court will ot overtur the rulig
(d) The Ri*ht of Coun!e$ 2 most hearig situatios% the right of the parties to represetatio #' cousel or a
aget is assumed ad% ideed% i ma' cases will #e provided for statutoril'*
2volves
o Right to cousel
o Right to particular cousel
o Participator' rights of cousel
o /udig of cousel through legal aid
%/
8/12/2019 Administrative Minor F05
21/68
1a' ot wat law'ers
(e 9ens Clothing 9anufacturers @ssociation of 8ntario and /oronto Hoint @malgamated
Clothing and /extile WorkersG Enion !343%, ;; =@C ;d% $;", uashed !:& D=( $d% &&! 8nt.
Div. Ct.%
2troducig law'ers would mea a loss of efficiec' ad e;pediec'
SO-T,E J4
o A atural perso i the idustr' i questio does ot have a a#solute right to
represetatio #' legal cousel*
o /urthermore% such represetatio would alwa's #e permissi#le #' agreemet% or
wheever the ar#itrator e;ercised his discretio i favour of permittig it*
o In view of the vital importance of the controversy to the applicant company$
and the apparent complexity of the matter !oth in fact and in law$ natural
justice$ in my view$ reuires that the applicants !e represented !y legal counsel
at the ar!itration hearing without any limitation$ even if the applicants had no
a!solute right thereto.
6O11ENT
o /hey can cut the lawyer off on certain points if the tribunal is sufficiently
knowledgeablethis would not violate the right to counselthis depends on the*ature of the )rocess and what is intended from participation
(e )arrish 2!33$5;C#:/D%
,O.02N5
o -dou#tedl' the scope of the fairess priciple depeds o the cosequeces
ad ature of the iquir' as well as the repercussios o the idividuals
ivolved*
o 6n this particular case, a witness could be faced with a negative report seriously
or adversely affecting his rights and his reputation without being given a fair
opportunity to present his case with the assistance of counsel.
o The duty to ct fir$y i#$ie! the #re!ence of coun!e$ 'hen cointion of
!oe or $$ of the fo$$o'in* e$eent! re either found 'ithin the en$in*
$e*i!$tion or i#$ied fro the #rctic$ ##$iction of the !ttute *o&ernin*
the triun$"
(1) where an individual or a witness is su!poenaed$ reuired to attend and
testify under oath with a threat of penalty7
(2) where a!solute privacy is not assured and the attendance of others is
not prohi!ited7
(") where reports are made pu!lic7
(#) where an individual can !e deprived of his rights or his livelihood7 or
(A) where some other irrepara!le harm can ensue.
I do not intend thi! $i!t to e e0hu!ti&eo The >oard ma' #e perfectl' free to prohi#it the attedace of more tha oe
cousel ad it would #e up to the ivestigator to determie if the presece of
more tha oe would seriousl' impede the progress of the ivestigatio.
o 2 these circumstaces the procedural fairess requires that the witess #e
permitted to #e accompaied #' cousel whe at the iquir'*
o E;pediec' does ot outweigh the eed for cousel
Dehghani v. Canada 9inister of'mployment and 6mmigration%, 2!33$5 ! 7C(
!:>$ Can.%.
%#
8/12/2019 Administrative Minor F05
22/68
o /he principles of fundamental +ustice do not include a right to counsel in these
circumstances of routine information gathering.
ederal Court of Canada was influenced by an 'nglish +udgment, ( v. 7ecretary of 7tate
for the 1ome Department, ex p. /arrant, 2!3"&5 ! @ll '( 433 FB%.
o We#ster J said4 the followig are cosideratios which ever' #oard should ta(e
ito accout whe e;ercisig its discretio whether to allow legal representation
some are only applicable to prison context, but amend as needed% !. /he seriousness of the charge and of the potential penalty.
2. +hether any points of law are liely to arise
$. Capacity of a particular prisoner to present his own case.
#. 'rocedural difficultieswhen prisoners are not allowed to call
witnesses and directly cross*examine or test evidence
A. &he need for reasona!le speed in maing their adjudication
#. /he need for fairness as between prisoners and as between prisoners
and prison officers.
1oward v. 7tony 9ountain 6nstitution !3">%, !3 D=( &th% >:; C@% 2SS-E4 What is i issue is thus solel' whether the appellat had a udeia#le right to
cousel ad% more particularl'% whether s* C of the 6aadia 6harter of Rights ad
/reedoms guarateed him that right*
T,-R.OW 6J4 ,O.02N5
o 6 am of the opinion that the enactment of s. 4 has not created any absolute
right to counsel in all such proceedings.
o Whether or ot a imate+s request for represetatio #' cousel ca lawfull' #e
refused is ot properl' referred to as a matter of discretio #ut is a matter of right
where the circumstaces are such that the opportuit' to preset the case
adequatel' calls for represetatio #' cousel
o &he right to representation !y counsel will depend on
(1) the circumstances of the particular case$
(2) its nature$
(") its gravity$
(#) its complexity$ (particularly if dealing with legal issue)
(A) the capacity of the inmate himself to understand the case and
present his defence.
3xpeditiousness too.
&he list is not exhaustive.
APP.26AT2ON
o ;#4 days of earned remission was in +eopardy6n my view, that alone suggests
his need of counsel.
lack of particulars of offences Conviction on the two of the charges to which he pleaded not guilty
might result in consecutive losses of $: daysG remission without
reference to the
vague and difficult charge
*ew Brunswick 9inister of 1ealth and Community 7ervices% v. A. H.% 2H.A.5 2!3335 $
7C(*B%
.A1ER 6J "5othier% 6or'% 1c.achli% 1a)or ad >iie JJ cocurrig$4
%%
8/12/2019 Administrative Minor F05
23/68
o 6 would like to make it clear that the right to a fair hearing will not always
reuire an individual to be represented by counsel when a decision is made
affecting that individualGs right to life, liberty, or security of the person 7.4
rights%. 6n particular,
o +hether it is necessary for the parent to !e represented !y counsel is directly
proportional to the seriousness and complexity of the proceedings$
and inversely proportional to the capacities of the parent.o Sectio Aal'sis4 O the #asis that the o#)ective of this polic' cotrollig legal
aid e;peditures is pressig ad su#statial% that the polic' is ratioall'
coected to that o#)ective% ad that it costitutes a miimal impairmet of s* C% 2
fid that the deleterious effects of the polic' far outweigh the salutar' effects of
a' potetial #udgetar' savig
(e) Di!c$o!ure nd Offici$ NoticeNOT26E
'ht con!titute! !ufficient di!c$o!ure (79er):the nture of the deci!ion nd 'ht
i! t !t9e
Notice must #e reasoa#le Peo#$e de!er&in* notice re the #rtie! on 'ho the deci!ion 'i$$ h&e effect
2f 'ou do!t have sufficiet otice% 'ou ca raise a request to ad)our the tri#ual
02S6.OS-RE
Beneral principles4 a party is entitled to now what evidence and representations have
!een given and is entitled to an adeuate opportunity to respond!e a!le to mae the
case against him
isclosure is the disclosure to parties of information that the agency has
a!out the decision to !e made7 official notice is the extent and manner in which an
agency may$ maing its decisions$ use material that is not introduced in evidence. 7titchcombe2see te;t for more details:
C!e! re+uirin* fu$$ di!c$o!ure
o Mi!conduct
o D*ed re#uttion
o Profe!!ion$ de!i*ntion
C!e! 'here there i! $o'er $e&e$ of di!c$o!ure
o 'hen it i! #o$icy deci!ion
o ?hen it i! !oeone u# t co$$e*e of !ur*eon!
o M!ter!" !e0u$ !!u$t
=ook at Baker to determine the appropriate level of disclosure
?ane v. Board of Aovernors of the Eniversity of British Columbia, 2!3":5 ! 7C( !!:> BC%.
,O.02N5
o :ights were infringed !y having a meeting !ehind closed doors$ not telling him
a!out it$ and not allowing him to respond.
o The >oard was uder a o#ligatio to postpoe util =ae hear the additioal
facts adduced& at the ver' least the >oard should have made 0octor =ae aware
of those facts ad afforded him a real ad effective opportuit' to correct or meet
a' adverse statemet made*
%)
8/12/2019 Administrative Minor F05
24/68
6O11ENT
o %e didnt need to !ho' tht the outcoe 'ou$d h&e certin$y een
different/ he on$y needed to !ho' tht there cou$d h&e een different
outcoe to ern the reedy
A66ESS TO 2N/OR1AT2ON STAT-TES @ccess to 6nformation @ct, (7C !3">, c. @-l, s. ;;%%
"$ A66ESS TO A5EN6 2N/OR1AT2ON
(e *apoli and WorkersG Compensation Board !3"!%, !;# D=( $d% !43 BC C@%
Fctor! #re!!in* for di!c$o!ure
o The nature of the conseuenceswere importat% ad therefore there is a higher
stadard of disclosure
o redi!ility issue4 The reports stated that it was a eurotic pro#lem ad that he
was e;aggeratigwhich is e;actl' the t'pe of iformatio that should #e cross8
e;amied
o Cone of these experts is named,o 7ummary is insufficient to determine the case against himA effective
challengewould require productio of the origial reports*
The argumet that doctors will #e restraied if the' (ow their otes will #e disclosed
glosses over the valid cotrar' view that the' will prepare them with greater care ad
diligece% ad% more importat% that fairess requires that the origial reports #e disclosed
i order that the claimat ca effectivel' aswer the case agaist him*
6O11ENT
o 0istiguish from 1asters
Nature of the tri#ual4 it was a ad hoc tri#ual for 1asters% more of a
ad)udicative #od' hereloo(ig more at the facts
2terests at sta(e8it was a positio at pleasure for 1asters% whereas it wasa compesatio claim here
The iterests of the victim
The summar' i 1asters was more sufficiet
"M$ 20ENT2T O/ SO-R6ES O/ 2N/OR1AT2ON
The !econd !itution in&o$&e! c$i! to di!c$o!ure of !ource! of infortion/
nd there i! no *ener$ ru$e eyond @re!on$ene!!.@
Recall% 6hiarrelli
Aallant v. Canada Deputy Commissioner, Correctional 7ervice Canada% !3"3%, $# @dmin. =(;#! C@%
,O.02N5"ma)orit'$o The priciples of fudametal )ustice "s*C$ do ot have% therefore% the same
fle;i#ilit' as the rules of atural )ustice ad of fairess*
Thu!/ the deci!ion to trn!fer the re!#ondent to
S!9tche'n Penitentiry '! not de in ccordnce 'ith the
#rinci#$e! of fundent$ 1u!tice !ince the re!#ondent '! not *i&en
re$ o##ortunity to n!'er the $$e*tion de *in!t hi.
o Sectio Aal'sis4 o#vious that i a free ad democratic societ'% it is reasoa#le%
perhaps eve ecessar'% to cofer such a wide discretio opeitetiar' authorities*
%+
8/12/2019 Administrative Minor F05
25/68
1AR6EA- JA "cocurrig i the result$4
o In $i*ht of the i#ortnce of the con!e+uence!/
&he inmate is not entitled (!y the audi alteram partem principle) to
more information !efore asing for his representations
Thi! i! due to the nture of the #ro$e nd hi!
re!#on!ii$ity to'rd tho!e entru!ted to hi! cre .
o 8n the one hand, the information given is definitely more substantial includingthe inmateGs )rogress 7ummary (eport in its entirety, the extent of the concern
of the Warden, and cogent reasons for non-disclosure of further particulars.
0ESJAR02NS JA "dissetig$4
o (eliability may be demonstrated in a number of ways, as for instance, by an
independent investigation or by corroborating information from
independent sourcesot doe here
Aough v. Canada *ational )arole Board% !33:%, &> @dmin. =( $:& C /D%
REE0 J4
o It i! c$er tht the re+uireent! of fundent$ 1u!tice o#erte on
!#ectru. The content of !uch re+uireent! &ry 'ith the circu!tnce! ofthe c!e.
o Sectio C Requiremets i the Parole Peitetiar' 6ote;t
There is o dou#t that the applicat% i the preset case% is etitled to
sufficiet detail respectig the allegatios #eig made agaist him to
ea#le him to respod itelligetl' thereto uless therespodet ca demostrate otherwise*
o Sectio
The issue is whether the Natioal Parole >oard is required to either
release iformatio to the applicat "whe disclosure will ecessaril'
reveal the source of that iformatio$ or forego reliace o that
iformatio i ma(ig a decisio o the applicat+s parole*
admiistrative coveiece does ot )ustif' a deial of fudametal
)usticeSigh v* 1iister of Emplo'met 2mmigratio 9K:
S6R CC
the pael cocluded there is o covicig evidece that disclosure
would threate the safet' of the iformats
The re!#ondent '! offered n in cer herin* for ore info on
the !!ertion!/ nd tht coun!e$ 'ou$d not re&e$ thi! info to hi!
c$ient:the Pro$e 7ord re1ected thi! ! it 'ou$d h&e !eriou! nd
d&er!e effect on the 'or9in* of the #ro$e !y!te:Court !id thi!
i! !i#$y not credi$e.
2 ote% first of all% that Reg* C"$ is too #roadl' framed*
ot saved #' s* aal'sis* 02ST2N5-2S, 5A..ANT AN0 5O-5,
o The perso was at large here% was ot i 5allat
2mpact is differetoe is the impact to the idividual% here it his li#ert'
o The Natioal Parole >oard refused to have disclosure i camera
)ritchard v. 8ntario 1uman (ights Commission 2;::&5 7CC $! 2get from supplement5
0 said that -: advice is solicitor*client privilegesacrosanctonly
compromised in exceptional cases
%,
8/12/2019 Administrative Minor F05
26/68
o Cot su!ject to disclosure
6O11ENT
o 2s it a legal questio% or a factual questio
The $'yer! for the coi!!ion re not $i9e tho!e in n d&er!ri$
c!e/ !ince the $'yer! 'ere not nece!!ry co#onent of the
deci!ion #roce!! nd !he did not 9no' of their e0i!tence
Minor thin9! tht thi! y e the e0ce#tion to !o$icitor2c$ient#ri&i$e*e
Sla'to% The Ati80umpig Tri#ual A Stud' Prepared for the .aw Reform 6ommissio of
6aada "KCK$% at LC
REE0 J4
6ofidetial #riefs% documets ad e;hi#its are made availa#le #' the Tri#ual ol' to
cousel who are appearig for parties represeted at the hearigs% ad those cousel are
required to give a uderta(ig ot to reveal cofidetial iformatio to their cliets*
/oshiba Corporation v. @nti-Dumping /ribunal !3"&%, " @dn ! =( !4$ C@%, &he analysis and opinion in staff memoranda are irrelevant to the ascertainment of the
/oard8s reasons for decision !ecause they cannot !e assumed to have !een adopted !y
it as its reasons. /he BoardGs reasons for decision are those which it chooses to
express or which can otherwise be clearly shown from its own words or actions to have
been its reasons.
>ut a agec' head ma' ofte #e the itellectual iferior of a agec' specialist ad rel'
o the staff memorada of the specialistso we eed disclosure
Speight J cocluded #' drawig a distictio #etwee a 7factual summar'7 ad
7commet*7
o e was persuaded that any comment on the merits and demerits of
particular points of o!jection had to !e disclosed.
o >s for purely factual summaries$ he expressed that it might !e !etter that there
!e disclosure in the interests of accuracy in a complex area where it is only
natural that errors may creep in.
Hanisch commentsget from bookcomments allows collaboration
o )roblem is too much collaborationand no strict review by one decision-maker
(f) E&idence nd Cro!!2e0intion
A012SS2>2.2T O/ E320EN6E
A*encie! (Triun$!) re not *o&erned y the ru$e! of e&idence u!ed y court! un$e!!
!oe !ttutory #ro&i!ion re+uire! the/ nd !uch #ro&i!ion! re rre.
SPPA "sectio "$$disregardig of the ormal rules of evidece is sactioedthis
does ot ecessaril' ma(e the commo law rules of evidece irrelevat or geerall'
iapplica#le*
rules of evidece are looser i tri#ual tha that of trials uless idicated i the statute
overridig cocer is fairess to idividual ad a#ilit' to support their case
=ha v* 6ollege of Ph'sicias ad Surgeos of Otario "KKM$% KL 0.R "Lth$ K4 "Ot*
6A$%
o the Ontrio Court of A##e$ !u!tined the di!!ion of her!y e&idence
%-
8/12/2019 Administrative Minor F05
27/68
o The her!y e&idence '! not on$y nece!!ry ut there 'ere !ufficient
indici of it! re$ii$ity.
%o'e&er/ e0c$u!i&e re$ince on her!y nd o#inion e&idence y h&e the
con!e+uence of $edin* to deni$ of ntur$ 1u!tice.
o >od v* New >ruswic( "1aagemet >oard$ "KKM$% K 0.R "Lth$ C "N>
6A$%
o the N> 6ourt of Appeal set aside a ar#itrator+s sustaiig of a dismissal forse;ual assault #ecause it ol' relied o hearsa' ad opiio
The ph'sicia ad the allergist% with their special s(ills ad (owledge% might have added
a dimesio of critical importace>' refusig to hear their evidece the #oard deied
the applicat atural )ustice*
&he fact that such evidence might not have assisted the applicant was not a valid
reason for refusing to hear it.
?offici$ noticeB
o *ener$ ru$e in court 1ud*e! re entit$ed to t9e 1udici$ noticeB of fct!
tht re uncontro&erted/ !oci$$y cce#ted fct!
0ispute over what is ?-cotrovertedG6ommo Sese@
6ROSS8E
8/12/2019 Administrative Minor F05
28/68
In 79er it!e$f/ it '! o&iou!$y the i#ortnce of the intere!t t !t9e tht tri**ered the
o$i*tion.
o ot all e;ercises of statutor' or prerogative power ow ivolve the givig of reasos
S66
&he judgment$ echoing earlier authority$ also seems to accept that the existence of
a statutory right of appeal from the decision will normally generate an entitlement to
reasons
The 6otet of the 0ut' To 5ive Reasos
the reasos should show that the it addressed itself to the parties argumets o a' sigificat
questio of law relevat to the case% ad should idicate the #asis o which it resolved the
dispute% i order to assure the parties that the hearig has give them a meaigfulopportuit' to respod
Whe the tri#ual+s applicatio of a statutor' stadard depeds o this e;istece of certai
facts% the reasos should iclude the fidigs of fact made #' the tri#ual ad idicate the
evidece o which the tri#ual #ased its fidigs*
Ceed to now how the issues were framed and why it chose one view over another.
P6@ (ail Canada 6nc. v. *ational /ransportation @gency 2;::!5 ; C ;> C@% footnotes
omitted%
RAT2O
o =standard of adeuacy for duty to give reasons must ultimately reflect the purposes
served !y a duty to give reasons.reach of the 0ut' To 5ive Reasos If it is apparent from the reasons for a decision$ whether given voluntarily or under legal
o!ligation$ that the decision maer misinterpreted the legislation or committed some other
error of law$ the decision may !e set aside.
1owever, if the tribunalGs reasons, read in a realistic manner, indicate that it applied its
mind to the most important issues, a court will not necessarily infer from its silence about
others that it ignored them altogether ?indler v. @ttorney Aeneral of Canada, 2!3"45 ; C!&> C@%.
%
8/12/2019 Administrative Minor F05
29/68
2t is more usual% though% for a court to declie to speculate whether the tri#ual would have
decided the dispute i the same wa' if it had realiFed that it could ot i law rel' upo the
reasos give
(h) 7i!
B6@7 @*D =@C? 8 6*D')'*D'*C'
2NTRO0-6T2ON
nemo judex in causa propria sua de!et esse" 8iter$$y trn!$ted/ thi! h! it tht no one
ou*ht to e 1ud*e in hi! or her o'n cu!e
The court refuses to ivestigate the decisio ma(er+s actual state of mid
PE6-N2AR AN0 OT,ER 1ATER2A. 2NTERESTS
If #er!on h! direct finnci$ intere!t in the triun$% the' are disqualified
The state of mid of the decisio8ma(er is irrelevat
If it i! indirect:then they $oo9 t re!on$e ##rehen!ion of i!spectrum>wG
ad)udicative ad polic'.i#ert' case
'nergy )robe v. Canada @tomic 'nergy Control Board% !3"&%, " D=( &th% 4$> C /D%.
affGd. !3"&%, !> D=( &th% &" C@%
REE0 J ",eal ad Stoe agreed with this trial level statemet$4
o But, 6 can find no direct pecuniary interest, as that concept has been defined in the
+urisprudence. /here was no contract conditionally in effect pending the outcome of
the new licences to 8ntario 1ydro.
o &he most that could !e said of r -lsen as of the date of the hearing was that he
could entertain a reasona!le expectation of pecuniary gain as a result of approval
of the licencesnot enough to constitute a reasona!le apprehension of !ias.
1AR6EA- J4o :esasona!le >pprehension of /ias
&he only rational reuirements are that the !enefit come from the decision
itself and that it !e a liely enough effect to =colour= the case in his eyes.
&he presence of an immediate possi!ility$ not to say pro!a!ility$ of gain to
!e coming to him directly or indirectly as a result of his decision would !e
enough to render someone unfit to mae it.
o The mere possi#ilit' that a profit could #e realiFed i the future out of other
cotracts awarded i the course of costructio of other uits was o dou#t too alie%
cotiget ad remote to costitute pecuiar' #ias with respect to the decisio to #e
made at that time
o /he standard of ob+ectivity in a tribunal does not have to be as high as that reuired
of an ad+udicative tribunal and the rules applicable should therefore be less strict the pecuiar' iterest ought to #e more immediate ad certai ad the o8
pecuiar' iterest must give rise to ver' su#statial grouds for
apprehedig lac( of o#)ectivit'*
NOTES
o 7upreme Court of Canada sustained the position that classification of the function as
+udicial or uasi-+udicial was no longer a prereuisite to a challenge on the basis of
biasbut the standards of detachment varied according to the nature of the role
being performed
o Canadian )acific =td. v. 9atsui 6ndian Band, 2!33>5 ! 7C( $ Can.%,
%$
8/12/2019 Administrative Minor F05
30/68
income raised through the tax assessment scheme does not accrue to any
individual, but rather to the community as a whole.
>2AS4 T,E 5ENERA. TEST
Reasoa#le Apprehesio of >ias
27CC5 Committee for Hustice and =iberty v. *ational 'nergy Board, 2!34"5 ! 7C( $#3Can.%,
o 5&6he apprehension of !ias must !e a reasona!le one$ held !y reasona!le and
right*minded people$ applying themselves to the uestion and o!taining thereon
the reuired information. In the words of the ourt of >ppeal$ that test is =what
would an informed person$ viewing the matter realistically and practicallyhaving
thought the throughconclude.
8/12/2019 Administrative Minor F05
31/68
o But, when there is added to those strong statements the actual decision of !3"$, ...
made without +urisdiction and contrary to natural +ustice, based upon the evidence of
!34# without regard for any change in circumstances in the intervening seven-year
period and, in particular, without evidence of population pro+ections, the government
policy having lost its relevancy, the reasonable apprehension of bias by Pespra is
inevitable in our view.
2 the realm of appeals% the most o#vious possi#ilit' is that perso ma(es the iitial decisioad the hears the appeal% either aloe or as part of the appeal tri#ual*
=aw 7ociety of Epper Canada v. rench 2!34>5 7C(
,O.02N5 "Spece for ma)orit'$
o -ne argument for the 0ociety was even if the proceedings were an appeal$
the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius permitted the mem!ers to
participate. 0ection "D prohi!ited committee mem!ers from participating in one
ind of appeal$ therefore implicitly permitting them to participate in others. 0pence
E$ writing for the majority of the court$ accepted this argument7
o Spece J cocluded that 6ovocatio was ot cosiderig a appeal* ,e said that the
disciplie process was 7a sigle proceedig i which there are two stages4 /irst% the
iquir' ad ivestigatio ito the complait #' the disciplie committee% the resultsof which are em#odied i a report to the >echers& ad secodl'% the cosideratio
ad dispositio of the report #' the >echers i 6ovocatio*@
.as(i "disset$4 Whe there was a serious offese% the there was #ias
STAT-TOR A-T,OR2QAT2ON
Brosseau v. @6berta 7ecurities Commission% 2!3"35 ! 7C( $:! @lta.%
.+,E-RE-E%
o Reasoa#le Apprehesio of >ias
o In assessing !ias of administrative tri!unals$ the courts must !e sensitive to thenature of the !ody created !y the legislator.
o 5eeral Rule4 someoe should ot sit as a ivestigator ad decider
o ;Cemo Eudex< 3xception4 If a certain degree of overlapping of functions is
authoriFed !y statute$ then$ to thee extent that it is authoriFed$ it will not generally
!e su!ject to the doctrine of =reasona!le apprehension of !ias= per se.
assuming the constitutionality of the statute is not in issue
o 0u#i JA foud that the structure of the Act where#' commissioers could
#e ivolved i #oth the ivestigator' ad ad)udicator' fuctios did ot% #'
itself% give rise to a reasoa#le apprehesio of #ias*
'.@. 9anning =td. v. 8ntario 7ecurities Commission iy3&%, !" 8( $d% 34 Div. Ct.%, affGd.
!33>%, !;> D=( &th% $:> 8nt. C@%
1ONT5O1ER J "0uet ad ,owde JJ cocurrig$trial*
o 'ven if 87C staff tried to separate their investigative role from the CommissionersG
role as ad+udicators, the roles have become so interwoven that there is a reasonable
apprehension of bias against all Commissioners because
the creation and adoption of )olicy !.!:
mass of complaints specifically regarding 9anning =imited and others in the
staff report
)#
8/12/2019 Administrative Minor F05
32/68
the material led by the 87C in @insley
o 6n a press interview, the Chair of the 87C, 9r. WaitIer, stated that their +ob is to get
rid or regulate penny stock dealers O9r. WaitIer cannot sit on either hearing
because of a reasonable apprehension of bias.
o /he 87C both staff and Commissioners% were acting within the ambit of
their statutory duties in assembling and considering information in respect of a
certain segment of the securities market. But in using that information to concludethat the securities dealers including 9anning =imited% were in fact engaging in the
practices alleged in )olicy !.!:, and now in the notices of hearing, the
Commissioners pre+udged the case.
0->2N 6JO ".a#rosse ad 0ohert' JJA cocurrig$4
o 0isqualificatio #' Reaso of 6orporate Tait
o &here was no evidence of prejudgment on the part of the new ommissioners since
they were not involved in the consideration and adoption of the 'olicy 0tatement
o r. +aitFer8s comment a!out getting the penny stoc dealers into the self*
regulating system is clearly a reflection of his ideal solution$ which is a solution he
advocates for all players in the maret.
In maing the comments complained of here$ r. +aitFer was fulfilling
his mandate as hair of the ommission /herefore, no biasWaitIer and other commissioners can sit on the hearing
o >ias Resultig from 6ommissio+s 0efece i the Aisle' Actio
o It '! the Coi!!ion !tff/ $on* 'ith coun!e$/ 'ho 'ere re!#on!i$e for
!!e$in* the teri$! tht fored the !i! of the Coi!!ionJ! re!#on!e to
the #$intiff!J $$e*tion! in the Ain!$ey ction!o no i! for coi!!ioner!o Eve thoughthe tribunal believed that the assertions in the defences were true, it is
not reasonable to fear that the members of the tribunal will not decide the caseimpartially when they hear the evidence and arguments for the appellant at the s. !4c
inuiry.
NOTES
o Caccamo v. Canada 9inister of 9anpower < 6mmigration% 2!34"5 ! C $## C@%
at $4$
if all eligi!le adjudicating officers are su!ject to the same potential
disualification !ased on financial !ias$ the law must !e carried out
notwithstanding that potential disualification
;4&4-$!4& Fuebec 6nc. v. Fuebec (egie des permis dGalcool% 2!33#5 $7C(3!3
RAT2O
o Duasi86ostitutioalism ad Statute
2f there is a legislative provisio% the we must loo( to see whether there are
a' costitutioal or quasi8costitutioal protectios that eed to #e made
So eve if there is e;press legislative authorit' "Regie$% it must stillot violate the rights edowed i costitutioal or quasi8
costitutioal documets "Due#ec 6harter$
o 2stitutioal >ias
etermination of institutional !ias4 a well*informed person$ viewing the
matter realistically and practically and having thought the matter
through would have a reasona!le apprehension of !ias in a su!stantial
num!er of cases.
>lways$ the informed person8s assessment will always depend
the circumstances.
)%
8/12/2019 Administrative Minor F05
33/68
the nature of the dispute to !e decided$
the other duties of the administrative agency and
how the operational context as a whole will of course affect the
assessment.
Stricter ##$iction in criin$ tri$/ 'here! *reter f$e0ii$ity u!t
e !ho'n to'rd dini!trti&e triun$!.
APP.26AT2ONo "iii$ Role of the 0irectors
O(a' for Regie to participates i the process of ivestigatio%
summoig ad ad)udicatio
But the possibility that a particular director could, following the
investigation, decide to hold a hearing and could then participate in
the decision-making process would cause an informed person to
have a reasonable apprehension of bias in a substantial number of
cases.
2N0EPEN0EN6E
!#ectru" the ore d1udicti&e the ore inde#endence tht i! 'rrnted/ the ore
#o$icy dri&en/ the $e!! inde#endence in&o$&ed
If the !tte i! c$er out the #o'er!/ then it o&erru$e! the coon $'/ of cour!e/
!u1ect to con!titution$ #ro&i!ion!
Palente Decision
Three criteri of 1udici$ inde#endence
o (1) 0ecurity of &enure
lifetime appoitee)udges ca ol' #e dismissed #' legislature
o (2) 9inancial 0ecurity
PE2 Referece4 eed a idepedet committee to settle )udges salar' to esure that )udges dG rule i favour of gov!ts
also to esure that )udges are ot #ri#ed
o (")Institutional Independence
Assigmet of )udges to cases is doe idepedetl'
,ee# in ind tht thi! 'ht 'e ##$y for 1ud*e!/ 'e need to ##$y to triun$!
ccordin* to e0tent re+uired
/rom Regieif chair appoited% there ma' #e lac( of idepedece
Canadian )acific =td. v. 9atsui 6ndian Band 2!33>5 ! 7C($Can.%
.A1ER 6J6 "6or' J cocurrig$"0isset o This issue$4
o RAT2O
o To determie whether a reasoa#le ad right8mided perso% viewig the whole
procedure as set out i the assessmet #'8laws% would have a reasoa#le
apprehesio of #ias o the #asis that the mem#ers or me appeal tri#uals are ot
idepedet/ the V$ente #rinci#$e! u!t e con!idered in $i*ht of
the nture of the ##e$ triun$! the!e$&e!/
the intere!t! t !t9e/ nd
other indice! of inde#endence (!uch ! oth!)
o strict applicatio of the 3alete priciples ma' #e warrated where
))
8/12/2019 Administrative Minor F05
34/68
Tri#ual 0ecisios affect the securit' of the perso of a part' "such as
2mmigratio$
o In thi! c!e/ 'e re de$in* 'ith n dini!trti&e triun$ d1udictin*
di!#ute! re$tin* to the !!e!!ent of #ro#erty t0e!ore f$e0i$e ##roch i!c$er$y 'rrnted.
SOP2N=A J ".+,eureu;80u#e% 5othier ad laco#ucci JJ cocurrig$"ma)orit' o this
issue$4o 2 do ot disagree with the 6hief Justice that the #ad ta;atio tri#uals
must compl' with the priciples of atural )ustice "procedural fairess$% #ut without a
clear uderstadig of the relevat% operatioal cote;t% these priciples caot #e
applied*
o Criteri of 'ht $e&e$ 'i$$ ##$y
8oo9 t nture of triun$
Nture of i!!ue t !t9e
?ht re the other indici of inde#endent thin9in*
o Mu!t inter#ret !ttute! in rod nner #ro&i!ion! tht re ied t
intinin* Indin ri*ht!/ nd to inter#ret nrro'$y #ro&i!ion! ied t
$iitin* or ro*tin* the.
o 6 conclude that effectively, the provincial authorities, as a policy matter, haverelinuished their historical field of taxation over reserve lands, have given the force
of law to the by-laws, have clothed the respective 6ndian band councils with the
mantle of legitimacy in running their own system of taxation.
o Although i this appeal% teure ad remueratio ma' #e esta#lished #' the #ads o
appoitmet of the ta;atio tri#uals*
;4&4-$!4& Fuebec 6nc. v. Fuebec (egie des permis dGalcool% 2!33# 5$ 7C( 3f3
5ONT,2ER J4
Judicial 2depedeceSecurit' of Teure
o
In my view$ the directors8 conditions of employment meet the minimumreuirements of independence. &hese do not reuire that all
administrative adjudicators$ lie judges of courts of law$ hold office for life. 9ixed*
term appointments$ which are common$ are accepta!le. owever$ the removal of
adjudicators must not simply !e at the pleasure of the executive.
o .e 0ai J i 3alete4
&he judge can !e remova!le only for cause$ and that cause !e su!ject to
independent review and determination !y a process at which the judge
affected is afforded a full opportunity to !e heardcannot remove judge in
an ar!itrary manner.
2stitutioal 2depedece
o e ain E in Galente4 &he essential elements of institutional independence may !e
summed up as judicial control over the administrative decisions that !ear directlyand immediately on the exercise of the judicial function.
o 6t has not been shown how the 9inister might influence the decision-making process.
The fact that the 1iister of Pu#lic Securit' is ultimatel' resposi#le for
#oth the Regie ad the various police forces coductig ivestigators would
ot i m' view cause a iformed perso to have a reasoa#le apprehesio
with respect to the idepedece of the directors*
Appeal allowed*
)+
8/12/2019 Administrative Minor F05
35/68
Bell Canada Case---7/6== *''D /8 ('@D
Hpheld the chair%s power to extend$ or refuse to extend$ the term of tri!unal mem!er
since the chair is only remova!le for causeso he cannot !e influenced in such a
manner
S-PRE1E 6O-RT
o The #o$icy i! #eri!!i$e
-)C$er$y e!t$i!hed y rod #ur#o!e! of $e*i!$ture Re!on! re!t not on inde#endence/ ut on !co#e #eritted to
ini!ter in $e*i!$ture in choice of ritrtor!
5)not u!ed #rctic$$y in ny 'y tht i! i#ro#er
reasonable and practical to allow tribunal chair to renew
uestioning during course of hearing
8cean Court Case at least get proper case not read scannedperhaps in textbook%
S66 reversed the >66A
o /ribunals are created for implementing governmental policythe' ma(e quasi8
)udicial decisios
o -ltimatel'% it is govermets that set the rules ad appoitmets
o >oard is ot a court% it is a licesig #od'withi prov* gov!t authorit'
o 6ommo law ol' applies where the statute is silet or am#iguous
6n this particular case, there was no doubt in the statute that the board
members were to serve at pleasurenot ambiguous
o 6ostitutioal requiremets did ot appl'ecoomic righto sectio C%
issues
o 5overmets ca appoit who the' wat% as log as the' have a ope mid*
(&i) In!titution$ Deci!ion!" C!e Studie! in Procedur$ Choice2stitutioal 0ecisios
() De$e*tion" The 8e*$ Doctrine 7!ic Ru$e" annot delegate authority unless the statute provides for it
%&e $!o con!tructed the need to h&e dini!trti&e efficiency/ con!iderin* the
&o$ue of 'or9/ nd rn*e nd co#$e0ity of i!!ue!
Need to $oo9 t con!i!tency of deci!ion! nd the #o'er of the chirn to ffect the
outcoe
/or ad)udicative decisios% less li(el' to accept delegatio tha for polic' decisios*
Willis, JDelegatus *on )otest DelegareJ !3&$%, ;! Can. Bar (ev. ;>4-#! delegatus non potest delegare% a delegate ma' ot re8delegate
2f the authorit' amed i the statute has ad retais a geeral cotrol over the activities of
the perso to whom it has etrusted% it is still delegatio
If/ ho'e&er/ the uthority e0erci!e! !uch !u!tnti$ de*ree of contro$ o&er
the ctu$ e0erci!e! of the di!cretion !o entru!ted nd it cn e !id to direct it!
o'n ind to it/ there i! in $' no @de$e*tion@ nd the 0i doe! not ##$y.
o The word 7persoall'7 is to #e read ito the statute
),
8/12/2019 Administrative Minor F05
36/68
Pine v. *ational Dock =abour Board 2!3>45@C&""'ng.1=%
.OR0 SO1ER3E..
o 0iscipliar' powers% whether 7)udicial7 or ot% caot #e delegated
32S6O-NT =2.1-2R .64 2
o It i! nece!!ry to con!ider the i#ortnce of the duty 'hich i! de$e*ted
nd the #eo#$e 'ho de$e*te.
thi! duty in thi! !chee i! too i#ortnt 3out$'ed fro #rofe!!ionfor $ife4 to de$e*te un$e!! there i! n e0#re!! #o'er.
it '! #eri!!i$e if it hd !tted !o in the !ttute/ ut tht i! !ent
here.
to have authorit' to appoit someoe% it eeds to #e e;plicitl' provided
NOTES
The #rinci#$e of non2de$e*tion $!o re+uire! tht $$ eer! of the
triun$ herin* di!#ute #rtici#te in !u!tnti&e !en!e in the 9in* of the
deci!ion.
o 6B9 Canada v. Deputy 9inister of *ational (evenue, Customs and 'xcise,
2!33;5 ! C ##$ C@%,
?ht u!t e done/ ho'e&er/ i! tht t !oe #oint in tie/ the #ne$u!t rech deci!ion co$$ecti&e$y nd ech eer u!t
@#rtici#te@ indi&idu$$y in tht co$$ecti&e deci!ion in *reein* 'ith
it or di!!entin* fro it. There h! to e eetin* of the ind! / ech
eer ein* infored t $e!t in *ener$ 'y of the #oint of &ie'
of ech of hi! co$$e*ue!.
9organ v. @cadia Eniversity !3">% *7 7C% p.&3!% see text for details%
2t would #e too much to e;pect the dea to determie these himself
The' costructed power to delegate the decisio
0E6202N5 W2T,O-T ,EAR2N5
only those mem!ers of an agency who hear a particular case may decide it
0elegatig the 0ut' To ,ear
=ocal Aovernment Board v. @rlidge 2!3!>5@C!;: 'ng.1=%
32S6O-NT ,A.0ANE4
o inister at the head of the !oard is expected to o!tain his materials vicariously
through his officials$ and he has discharged his duty if he sees that they o!tain
these materials for him properly. &o do everything personally would !e to
impair his efficiency.
.OR0 S,AW4
o 9inisterial is responsible to parliament, but the minister must be able to
delegate
NOTE
o 2 6aada% some decisios e;ceptioall' require the miister+s persoal decisio
(amm !3>4% 8nt C@% details missing%
RAT2O
o elegation doctrine and the rule that only those who hear may decide lead to4
)-
8/12/2019 Administrative Minor F05
37/68
8/12/2019 Administrative Minor F05
38/68
Second/ tht the c!e i! decided t $e!t in #rt on the !i! of
teri$! 'hich 'ere not di!c$o!ed t the herin* nd in re!#ect of
'hich there '! no o##ortunity to 9e !ui!!ion!
o /he second deprived the appellant of a full opportunity to present evidence and
submissions and constituted a denial of natural +ustice.
o Not certai that the full >oard iflueced the pael% #ut it is fatal to the decisio
of the >oard that this is what might ver' well have happeed*o /urthermore% whe the rules of atural )ustice collide with a practice of the
>oard% the latter must give wa'*
5ONT,2ER J "Wilso% .a /orest% .+,eureu;80u#e% ad 1c.achli JJ cocurrig$4
o &o determine permissi!ility of full !oard meeting
Importance of pu!lic issue
+hether there was concern for having consistent decisions
'ros and cons of having these discussions in the a!sence of the parties
o the dager that full #oard meetigs ma' fetter the )udicial idepedece of pael
mem#ers does ot create a reasoa#le apprehesio of #ias or lac( of
idepedece ".i#ert' test$
o &he criteria for independence is not a!sence of influence !ut rather the
freedom to decide according to one8s own conscience and opinions.
o /ull >oard 1eetigs ad the Audi Alteram Partem Rule
o I therefore conclude that full !oard meeting cons