Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1!
TABLE&OF&CONTENTS&
Procedural*Fairness ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3!Overview*of*Procedural*Fairness .............................................................................................................................................. 3!Components!of!Procedural!Fairness ...........................................................................................................................................................3!Natural!Justice!–!2!Components ....................................................................................................................................................................3!Natural!Justice!and!Procedural!Fairness ...................................................................................................................................................3!Common!Law!Principles!of!Procedural!Fairness ...................................................................................................................................3!Statutory!Sources!of!Procedural!Fairness.................................................................................................................................................4!Common!Law!Procedural!Fairness!vs!Statutory!Procedural!Fairness .........................................................................................4!Administrative!Tribunal!Act!ss!11................................................................................................................................................................4!
Intro*to*Duty*of*Fairness............................................................................................................................................................... 5!What!is!the!duty!of!fairness?...........................................................................................................................................................................5!When!Does!Duty!of!Apply? ..............................................................................................................................................................................5!Determining!the!Content!of!the!Duty!of!Fairness ..................................................................................................................................5!5!Points!from!Baker!(Spectrum!Analysis).................................................................................................................................................5!Hearing/Participatory!Rights .........................................................................................................................................................................6!
Threshold*for*Duty*of*Fairness .................................................................................................................................................. 6!Understanding!the!Threshold ........................................................................................................................................................................6!Threshold!Question:!When!does!duty!of!fairness!apply? ...................................................................................................................6!Limits!on!the!Scope!of!the!Duty!of!Fairness .............................................................................................................................................7!Spectrum!of!Duty!of!Fairness..........................................................................................................................................................................8!Duty!of!Fairness!+!Legislative!Decisions....................................................................................................................................................8!Duty!of!Fairness!+!Administrative!Decisions...........................................................................................................................................9!Legislative!Decisions!vs!Administrative!Decisions ...............................................................................................................................9!Authorson!v!Canada!(AG)!SCC!|!No!DoF!in!Legislative!Decisions ................................................................................................10!AG!v!Inuit!Tapirisat!|!No!DoF!in!Legislative!Decisions .....................................................................................................................10!
Cases*>**Scope*+*Threshold*of*Duty*of*Fairness ...................................................................................................................10!Nicholson!v!Haldimand ..................................................................................................................................................................................11!Cardinal!v!Kent!|!CL!Standard!for!DoF!+!Applicability!of!DoF.......................................................................................................11!Knight!v!Indian!Head!School!Div!no!19!|!DoF!+!!Employment!Contracts!–!Public!vs!Private ..........................................13!Dunsmuir!v!New!Brunswick!1!S.C.R.!190,!2008!SCC!9!|!DoF!+!Public!Employment!Contracts!–!Public!vs!Private14!Knight!vs!Dunsmuir .........................................................................................................................................................................................16!Inuit!Tapirisat!1980!|!DoF!+!Legislative!Decisions.............................................................................................................................16!Ref!re!CAP!1991|!Legitimate!Expectations,!DoF!in!Legislative!Decisions ................................................................................17!Homex!Realty!v!Wyoming!Village!1980!|!DoF!+!Regulations!as!Legislation...........................................................................18!
Content*of*the*Duty*of*Fairness................................................................................................................................................20!What!do!we!mean!by!content? ....................................................................................................................................................................20!What!content!should!be!considered!towards!procedural!fairness? ...........................................................................................20!Five!Factors!from!Baker!“Spectrum!Analysis” .....................................................................................................................................20!Duties!limited!by!enabling!statute.............................................................................................................................................................21!Specific!Components!of!the!Duty!of!Fairness .......................................................................................................................................21!What!do!we!mean!when!we!say!legitimate!expectations?..............................................................................................................22!Legitimate!Expectations!as!a!Filler ...........................................................................................................................................................22!
Cases*:*Content*of*Duty*of*Fairness .........................................................................................................................................23!Baker!v!Canada ..................................................................................................................................................................................................23!Mavi!v!AG!(Canada)..........................................................................................................................................................................................24!Agaira!v!Canada!(Immigration) ..................................................................................................................................................................25!Relevance!of!Reasons!towards!Procedural!Fairness.........................................................................................................................26!Nfld!and!Labrador!Nurses!|!Procedural!Fairness!+!Reasons .........................................................................................................26!Temoins!de!Jehovah!v!St!Jerome!–!Lafontaine!|!Legitimate!Expectations,!Reasons ............................................................27!
Constitutional*Sources*of*Procedural*Rights.......................................................................................................................30!Quasi!Constitutional!Sources!of!Procedural!Rights ...........................................................................................................................30!Authorson!v!Canada!(AG)!SCC!| ..................................................................................................................................................................31!Constitutional!Sources!!of!Rights ...............................................................................................................................................................31!Charter!Section!7...............................................................................................................................................................................................31!Charter!7!Frame!of!Analysis.........................................................................................................................................................................32!Section!7!Types!of!Hearing!Rights .............................................................................................................................................................32!Section!7!Security!of!person!threshold....................................................................................................................................................32!Common!Law!vs!Section!7 ............................................................................................................................................................................32!
2!
Constitutional!Duty!to!Consult!and!Accommodate ............................................................................................................................37!Is!there!a!Duty!to!Consult? ............................................................................................................................................................................38!Duty!to!Consult!+!Types!of!Legislative!Decisions ...............................................................................................................................38!Issues:!Duty!to!Consult!vs!Duty!of!Fairness...........................................................................................................................................39!Haida!Nation!v!BC!(Minister!of!Forests)!![2004]!3!S.C.R.!511!|!Procedural!Fairness!in!Duty!to!Consult....................40!Duty!to!Consult!from!Haida ..........................................................................................................................................................................41!Beckman!v!Little!Salmon![2010]!3!SCR!103|!Modern!Treaty!Interpretation .........................................................................41!
Independence,*Impartiality*and*Bias .........................................................................................................................................42!Institutional*Independence.......................................................................................................................................................42!Nemo!judex!in!sua!causa................................................................................................................................................................................42!What!is!institutional!independence? ........................................................................................................................................................42!Three!components!of!impartiality.............................................................................................................................................................42!Relationship!btwn!Independence!+!Impartiality ................................................................................................................................43!Judicial!vs!Institutional!independence ....................................................................................................................................................43!Institutional!Independence!+!Application!to!Administrative!Tribunals...................................................................................44!Extent!of!independence..................................................................................................................................................................................44!Structure!of!administrative!scheme .........................................................................................................................................................45!Cdn!Pacific!v!Matsqui!Indian!Band!|Common!Law!Application!of!Judicial!Independence ...............................................45!Ocean!Port!Hotel!|!Judicial!Independence!as!Constitutional..........................................................................................................46!Saskatchewan!Federation!of!Labour!v!SK!2013!|!Judicial!Independence!in!Tribunals ......................................................47!Keen!v!Canada!|!Institutional!Independence!+!PF!for!Employees!‘at!Pleasure’.....................................................................48!Administrative!Tribunals!Act!ss!1l10 ......................................................................................................................................................49!
Rule*Against*Bias*in*Decision*Making....................................................................................................................................49!The!Rule!Against!Bias......................................................................................................................................................................................49!What!is!Reasonable!Apprehension!of!Bias? ..........................................................................................................................................50!When!is!RAB!Reasonable?.............................................................................................................................................................................50!The!Reasonable!Apprehension!of!Bias!Test ..........................................................................................................................................50!Application!of!Test............................................................................................................................................................................................51!Standard!for!Reasonable!Apprehension!of!Bias ..................................................................................................................................51!
Personal*Bias*in*Decision*Making ...........................................................................................................................................51!Understanding!Individual!of!Bias ..............................................................................................................................................................51!Types!of!Personal!Bias....................................................................................................................................................................................52!Parameters!of!the!rule!against!bias...........................................................................................................................................................52!Preljudgment!vs!Personal!Interest............................................................................................................................................................53!Tensions!in!Individual!Bias ..........................................................................................................................................................................53!Old!St!Boniface!Residence!Association!v!Winnipeg!|!Close!Mind!Test ......................................................................................53!Closed!Mind!Test ...............................................................................................................................................................................................54!Newfoundland!Telephone!Co!|!Variability!in!Admin!Contexts .....................................................................................................55!Variable!Standard!in!Admin!Contexts......................................................................................................................................................56!Teroczi!v!Canada!2012|!Stats!Giving!Rise!to!Bias ...............................................................................................................................56!Chretien!v!Canada.............................................................................................................................................................................................57!
Institutional*Bias...........................................................................................................................................................................57!What!is!institutional!bias?.............................................................................................................................................................................57!Adjudicative!independence ..........................................................................................................................................................................57!Test!for!institutional!bias ..............................................................................................................................................................................58!Common!Areas!of!Institutional!Bias .........................................................................................................................................................58!Impartiality:!Judicial!vs!Bureaucratic ......................................................................................................................................................58!Policy!Making!in!Admin!Tribunals ............................................................................................................................................................59!Adjudicative!Independence!and!the!Legislative!Process.................................................................................................................59!Overlapping!of!functions!in!Institutions .................................................................................................................................................60!Int’l!Woodworkers!of!American!v!Consolidated!Bathurst ..............................................................................................................60!Geza!v!Canada!|!Proving!RAB!+!RAB!vs!Bad!Decision!Making.......................................................................................................61!Thamotharem!v!Canada .................................................................................................................................................................................62!
!
3!
PROCEDURAL&FAIRNESS&
Overview&of&Procedural&Fairness&Components&of&Procedural&Fairness&Where!a!duty!to!act!fairly!applies,!it!includes!at!least!two!components:!the!right!to!be!heard!(the!audi!alteram!partem!rule)!and!the!right!to!an!impartial!and!perhaps!independent!decisionAmaker!(the!nemo!judex!in!sua!causa!rule).!The!nature!and!extent!of!the!duty!may!vary!with!the!specific!context!and!the!various!fact!situations!dealt!with!by!the!administrative!body,!as!well!as!the!nature!of!the!disputes!it!must!resolve!!
Natural&Justice&–&2&Components&The!common!law!principle!of!natural!justice!includes!two!important!elements!1. Audi%Alteram%Partem%
- Translation!A!!to!hear!the!other!side!- The!procedural!fairness!associated!with!this!principle!are!A!hearing!rights/participatory!rights!- Sources!supporting!this!right!are!
o Statutory!o Common!Law!(Threshold!+!Content)!!o Constitution/Bill!of!rights!
2. Nemo%judex%in%sua%causa%- Translation!A!no!one!should!be!a!judge!in!his!own!case!- The!procedural!fairness!associated!with!this!principle!is!the!right!to!!an!impartial!decision!maker!!The!purpose!of!the!participatory!rights!contained!within!the!duty!of!procedural!fairness!is!to!ensure!that!administrative!decisions!are!made!using!a!fair!and!open!procedure,!appropriate!to!the!decision!being!made!and!its!statutory,!institutional,!and!social!context,!with!an!opportunity!for!those!affected!by!the!decision!to!put!forward!their!views!and!evidence!fully!and!have!them!considered!by!the!decisionAmaker.!!
Natural&Justice&and&Procedural&Fairness&Both!are!procedural!rights!which!must!be!met!for!a!!decisionAmaker!to!act!fairly!and!thus!intra!vires!!The!two!terms!evolved!over!time!!Serve!as!gradations!on!a!continuum!determined!by!the!type!of!decision!and!its!impact!on!individual!Originally!natural!justice!applied!only!to!judicial!or!quasiAjudicial!decisions!A!did!not!apply!to!administrative!decisions!(CASE)!No!no!longer!necessary!to!differentiate!between!the!types!of!decisions!The!distinction!was!eliminated!in!favour!of!an!assessment!on!the!impact!of!the!decision!on!individuals!(CASE)!!
Common&Law&Principles&of&Procedural&Fairness&In!any!administrative!proceeding,!the!types!of!procedural!protections!to!which!one!is!entitled!vary!widely!depending!on!the!context.!!
Does%procedural%fairness%require%a%full%oral%hearing?%%
Or%are%the%affected%party’s%rights%are%protected%by%the%ability%to%make%written%submissions?%%
What%level%of%disclosure%is%required?%%
Has%the%administrative%body%created%legitimate%expectations?%%
Does%the%right%to%state%one’s%case%require%cross@examination%and%representation%by%counsel?%%
None!of!these!questions!can!be!answered!in!the!abstract.!They!all!require!a!careful!examination!of!the!type!of!interest!at!stake,!the!regulatory!context,!and!the!impact!of!the!decision.!
4!
!One!of!the!chief!duties!of!an!administrative!advocate!is!to!consider!what!level!of!procedural!protections!should!be!sought!pursuant!to!commonAlaw!principles!of!procedural!fairness.!!
Statutory&Sources&of&Procedural&Fairness&- Procedural!fairness!is!in!a!sense!a!set!of!rules!that!apply!to!statutory!interpretations!- Some!provinces!have!statutory!procedural!codes!that!establish!procedural!requirements!for!administrative!
proceedings!!- These!procedural!codes!are!important!in!administrative!law!- Specific!procedural!provisions!are!often!set!out!in!a!tribunal’s!enabling!legislation!- The!federal!govnt!does!not!have!a!statutory!procedural!code!- Alberta!A!Administrative!Procedures!and!Jurisdiction!Act!(APJA)!
o Alberta’s!procedural!code!does!not!contain!a!provision!that!provides!for!its!general!applicability!o Tribunals!that!are!subject!to!it!are!designated!by!regulation!!o Its!provisions!are!not!comprehensive!A!in!contrast,!Quebec’s!procedural!code!is!detailed!(different!
procedural!requirements!for!adjudicative!vs!administrative!tribunals)!- B.C.!A!Administrative!Tribunal!Act!(ATA)!
o ATA!!approach!is!to!empower!tribunals!to!make!their!own!rules!!o There!are!few!procedural!requirements!prescribed!by!the!ATA!o Reference!must!be!had!to!the!tribunal’s!enabling!statute!!o Or!!if!applicable!must!reference!statutes!containing!the!procedural!provisions!!
- It!is!important!to!note!that!a!tribunal!may!be!established!under!one!statute,!but!its!proceedings!may!be!governed!by!another!
- There!may!be!applicable!procedural!provisions!in!both!statutes!- The!Province’s!procedural!codes!often!provide!direction!in!these!situations!!- However!the!relationship!created!by!procedural!code!(btwn!the!establishing!statute!+!procedural!statute)!
can!be!different!depending!on!what!provincial!code!you!are!under!!!
Common&Law&Procedural&Fairness&vs&Statutory&Procedural&Fairness&The!procedural!codes!represent!minimum!rules.!!The!common!law!may!operate!to!require!greater!procedural!protections!than!those!set!out!in!the!procedural!codes.!!
Administrative&Tribunal&Act&ss&11&General!power!to!make!rules!respecting!practice!and!procedure!11!!(1)!Subject!to!this!Act!and!the!tribunal's!enabling!Act,!the!tribunal!has!the!power!to!control!its!own!processes!and!may!make!rules!respecting!practice!and!procedure!to!facilitate!the!just!and!timely!resolution!of!the!matters!before!it.!(2)!Without!limiting!subsection!(1),!the!tribunal!may!make!rules!as!follows:!
[%Lists%extensively%a%variety%of%areas%including:%prehearing%conferences,%dispute%resolution%
processes,%receipt%and%disclosure%of%evidence,%exchange%or%records%and%documents,%filing%
of%admissions,%notice,%filling%procedures,%service,%addition%of%parties%to%an%application,%
adjournments,%time%extensions,%establishment%of%forms,%joining%of%applications,%witness%
exclusion,%non%compliance%of%tribunal%rules,%witness%fees%etc.%]%
(3)!In!an!application,!the!tribunal!may!waive!or!modify!one!or!more!of!its!rules!in!exceptional!circumstances.!(4)!The!tribunal!must!make!accessible!to!the!public!any!rules!of!practice!and!procedure!made!under!this!section.!!
5!
!
Intro&to&Duty&of&Fairness&What&is&the&duty&of&fairness?&- Duty!of!fairness!has!been!recognized!through!out!case!law!and!is!a!common!law!standard!- Bc!it!is!a!CL!standard!!it!must!yield!to!contrary!legislation!Duty!of!fairness!is!a!concept!associated!with!procedural!fairness!(not!considered!in!substantive!I!don’t!think)!- Duty!of!fairness!doctrine!affords!only!procedural!protection!and!does!not!require!particular!outcomes!
(Reference!re!Canada!Assistance!Plan,!Baker)!!- This!must!be!done!through!express!language!or!necessary!implication!(Ocean!Port).!!- Courts!will!presume!that!parliament!intends!to!protect!the!common!law!duty!of!fairness!in!it!legislation!
unless!otherwise!expressed/implied.!!- This!presumption!acknowledges!the!supremacy!of!the!legislature!and!at!the!same!time!confers!quasiAjudicial!
protection!on!the!common!law!DoF!Fairness!requires!compliance!with!some,!but!not!necessarily!all,!of!the!requirements!of!natural!justice.!!Fairness!is!a!minimum!duty!that!must!be!met—a!floor!for!procedural!protection!rather!than!a!ceiling.!In!determining!whether!the!duty!of!fairness!has!been!met,!courts!ask:!whether&the&procedural&protection&provided&in&particular&circumstances&was&adequate,¬&ideal.&!!
When&Does&Duty&of&Apply?&Once!an!individual’s!“rights,!privileges!or!interests”!are!at!stake!!the!duty!of!fairness!applies!and!the!question!then!becomes!one!of!degree.!!!
Determining&the&Content&of&the&Duty&of&Fairness&The!content!of!the!duty!of!fairness!is!informed!by!several!sources!- Baker!Criteria!–!SCC!sets!forth!principles!relevant!to!the!determination!of!the!content!of!the!DoF,!this!list!is!
not!exhaustive,!these!principles!were!set!forth!to!help!a!court!determine!whether!the!procedures!that!were!followed!resepected!the!DoF!
- International!treaties!–!this!is!not!always!a!strong!point,!but!we!see!it!come!up!at!times!(Baker!–!Convention!Rights!of!the!Child,!Suresh!A!some!tones!of!it!in!Human!Rights!obligations!para!120)!!
- Constitution!–!charter!sets!out!procedural!protections!under!section!7!(!Re:!BC!MVA,!Suresh)!!
5&Points&from&Baker&(Spectrum&Analysis)&&Baker!has!become!the!common!law!approach!to!the!DoF!Baker!speaks!much!about!both!the!applicability!of!DoF!as!well!as!the!content!of!DoF!Five!criteria!to!determining!the!CONTENT!of!the!duty!of!fairness!in!particular!circumstances:!
1.!the!nature!of!the!decision!being!made!and!the!process!followed!in!making!it;!2.!the!nature!of!the!statutory!scheme!and!the!terms!of!the!statute!pursuant!to!which!the!body!operates;!3.!the!importance!of!the!decision!to!the!individual!or!individuals!affected;!4.!the!legitimate!expectations!of!the!person!challenging!the!decision;!and!5.!the!choices!of!procedure!made!by!the!agency!itself.!
[Promislow!calls!this!the!spectrum!analysis!as!it!relates!to!the!continuum!associated!with!natural!justice/duty!of!fairnessA!See!A!Application!of!DoF!below]!!
6!
Hearing/Participatory&Rights&As!we!see!in!Baker!the!approach!towards!DoF!is!flexible!and!contextual!As!such!there!are!a!variety!of!different!rights!that!a!court!may!recognize!!- Notice!- Disclosure!- Oral!hearings!- Right!to!Counsel!!- Right!to!call!evidence!!- Timeliness!and!delay!- Duty!to!give!reasons!!!!
Threshold&for&Duty&of&Fairness&&Understanding&the&Threshold&When!we!approach!decisions!made!in!admin!law!we!must!ask:!!Is!the!person!entitled!to!procedural!fairness!in!any!respect?!!- This!implies!there!is!a!threshold.!!- If!we!have!a!threshold!question!it!means!that!DoF!doesn’t!apply!to!all!situations!!Why!doesn’t!DoF!apply!to!all!situations?!!- If!DoF!applies!to!every!situation,!it!would!overburden!system!and!lose!efficiency!in!bureaucracy.!!- When!we!look!to!the!content!of!the!DoF!!it!is!then!that!we!start!to!see!a!!balance!of!procedural!fairness!with!
bureaucratic!efficiency.!!Well!then!why!do!we!even!have!DoF?!Why!establish!a!threshold?!- There!is!a!distinction!btwn!administrative!decisions!which!often!affect!individuals!and!policy!decisions!which!
are!felt!on!a!broader!field.!(This!raises!the!issue!of!determining!if!the!decision!maker!making!an!administrative!decision!or!is!this!a!policy!decision)!
- Additionally!the!level!of!discretion!often!informs!the!required!level!of!procedural!fairness.!A!decision!that!involves!discretion!by!the!decision!maker!requires!a!high!level!of!procedural!sanctity.!!
Do!we!need!a!threshold!test?!- “The!ultimate!goal!of!crafting!the!procedural!framework!appropriate!to!each!decision!made!can!be!better!
achieved!if!we!totally!abandon!the!threshold!stage.!The!presumption!would!be!that,!in!the!case!of!legislative!silence,!fairness!applies!to!all!decisions!made!by!the!administration,!unless!specifically!modified!by!statute!or!contract,!and!then!the!remaining!task!is!the!determination!of!the!specifics!of!procedure!in!any!given!case,!from!full!procedural!protection!to!‘nothingness.’…!Dropping!the!threshold!stage!would!ensure!asking!the!real!question:!in!the!circumstances!of!the!case!and!given,!notably,!the!consequences!of!the!decision!for!the!individual,!what!is!the!appropriate!set!of!procedures!to!be!adopted?”!!
Threshold&Question:&When&does&duty&of&fairness&apply?&Once%an%individual’s%“rights,%privileges%or%interests”%are%at%stake%%the%duty%of%fairness%applies%and%the%question%
then%becomes%one%of%degree.%%
- Affect!on!the!individual!!A!As!a!general!common!law!principle,!a!duty!of!procedural!fairness!lying!on!every!public!authority!making!an!administrative!decision!which!is!not!of!a!legislative!nature!and!which!affects!the!rights,!privileges!or!interests!of!an!individual!(CardinalA!1985)!!
- Baseline!for!DoF!A!The!existence!of!a!general!duty!to!act!fairly!will!depend!on!the!consideration!of!three!factors:!1)!the!nature!of!the!decision!to!be!made!by!the!administrative!body;!2)!the!relationship!existing!
7!
between!that!body!and!the!individual;!and!3)!the!effect!of!that!decision!on!the!individual's!rights.!(Knight!A!1990)!
- Flexible!+!contextual!A!The!duty!of!procedural!fairness!is!flexible!and!variable!and!will!depend!on!an!appreciation!of!the!context!of!the!particular!statute!and!the!rights!affected.!!(Baker!A!1999)!!
- Not!a!Fixed!Standard!A!The!duty!of!procedural!fairness!is!not!a!fixed!standard!in!all!cases.!(MaviA!2011)!- Legitimate!expectations!A!The!doctrine!of!legitimate!expectations!expands!the!application!of!DoF!based!on!
the!conduct!of!public!officials!in!certain!contexts;!is!there!expectation!a!public!body!retain!a!longAstanding!practice!or!keep!a!promise!(Mavi!–!2011)!!
- Rights!Interests!and!Privileges!A!DoF!applies!to!decisions!of!public!authorities!acting!pursuant!to!stat!authority!where!an!individuals!rights,!privileges!or!interests!are!at!stake.!As!a!result!of!this!designation!there!is!very!little!that!falls!outside!an!individual’s!right,!privileges,!interest!
- Section!7!!A!life,!liberty!and!security!of!person!is!protected!except!when!against!principles!of!fundamental!justice!which!subsumes!procedural!fairness.!This!doesn’t!constitutionalize!the!duty!of!fairness!per!se;!only!applies!in!context!of!deprivation!AA!has!a!higher!threshold!than!rights!interests!and!privileges!
!
Limits&on&the&Scope&of&the&Duty&of&Fairness&In!decision!making…!The!duty!of!fairness!applies!in!decision!making!only!where!actual!decisions!are!being!made.!A!duty!of!fairness!is!not!applicable!to!investigations,!advisory!processes!or!any!of!the!preliminary!stages!leading!up!to!the!decision!being!made.!!The!requirement!to!observe!the!duty!at!the!formal!decision!making!stage!should!make!up!for!the!lack!of!DoF!in!the!prelim!phases.!!In!cabinet!decisions…!The!duty!of!fairness!does!not!apply!to!cabinet!decisions.!These!decisions!are!typically!considered!legislative.!However,!where!the!cabinet!is!making!decisions!involving!a!particular!individual!there!may!be!a!duty!of!fairness!owed.!Idziak!however!shoes!that!even!in!this!context!the!court!may!be!reluctant!to!require!procedural!requirements!for!numerous!reasons.!!!In!passing!subordinate!legislation…!In!practice!sub!leg!avoids!a!duty!of!fairness,!however!in!theory!there!is!no!good!reason!for!this.!Whereas!primary!legislation!has!its!own!procedure!(readings)!which!subsumes!a!duty!of!fairness,!suborindate!legislation!is!often!able!to!be!passed!without!consultation.!In!such!instances!the!argument!for!a!duty!of!fairness!to!apply!is!in!fact!strong;!subordinate!legislation!is!made!pursuant!to!executive!authority!and!democratic!accountability!may!be!minimal.!In!practice!however,!few!courts!have!applied!this!duty!to!sub!legislation.!!In!policy!decisions…!A!duty!of!fairness!is!not!owed!in!policy!decisions.!This!exemption!can!also!apply!to!general!decisions.!Many!admin!bodies!have!been!required!to!assume!duties!traditionally!held!by!the!legislature.!Rationale!for!exempting!policy!is!similar!to!legislative!decisions!–!both!are!inherently!political!in!nature,!subject!to!political!accountability!(Imperial!Oil!Ltd!v!QC).!However!policy!decisions!are!different!from!legislation!as!legislation!has!its!own!process.!!Moreover!given!the!diff!perspectives!the!courts!have!taken!on!admin!bodies,!roles,!accountability,!legitimacy!–!easy!for!a!court!to!characterize!a!decision!as!a!policy!decision!if!it!doesn’t!want!to!interfere.!SCC!distinguished!“decisions!of!a!legislative!and!general!nature”!from!“acts!of!a!more!administrative!and!specific!nature.”!(Knight!v!Indian!Head)!!In!public!employee!dismissals…!!Although!the!duty!of!fairness!developed!in!the!context!of!public!office!holders!(Nicholson,!Dunsmuir,!Indian)!things!have!changed.!In!dismissal!cases!the!law!will!no!longer!draw!a!distinction!between!public!office!holders!and!other!employees!!Individual’s!employment!are!governed!by!contractA!ordinary!private!law!contractual!remedies!will!apply!in!the!event!of!his!or!her!dismissal.!Moving!away!from!this!distinction!allows!the!matter!to!be!simplified!!In!emergencies…!!
8!
Duty!of!fairness!requires!certain!duties/procedures!to!be!observed!before!a!decision!can!be!made.!Sometimes!circumstances!arise!in!which!procedural!requirements!cannot!be!met!without!risking!harm!of!one!sort!or!another.!DoF!may!be!suspended!until!after!the!decision!has!been!made!(Cardinal!v!Director!of!Kent)!!
Spectrum&of&Duty&of&Fairness&
!!
One!of!Baker’s!legacies!is!that!administrative!decision!making!is!now!seen!as!falling!somewhere!on!a!spectrum!between!quasiAjudicial!and!legislative!decision!making,!with!procedural!entitlements!varying!according!to!placement!on!the!spectrum.!Once!an!individual’s!“rights,!privileges!or!interests”!are!at!stake,!the!duty!of!fairness!applies!and!the!question!then!becomes!one!of!degree.!(page!191)!!
Duty&of&Fairness&+&Legislative&Decisions&- Absent!a!statutory!provision!to!the!contrary,!DoF!does!not!!apply!to!the!exercise!of!legislative!powers!!- Courts!replaced!the!judicial/quasiAjudicial/administrative!distinction!!legislative/any!other!type!distinction!- To!be!considered!a!“legislative”!decision,!the!exercise!of!the!power!must!generally!consist!of!two!elements:!
1. Generality:!the!power!is!of!a!general!application!and!will!not!be!directed!at!a!particular!individual;!2. Its!exercise!must!be!based!on!broad!public!policy!grounds.!
- Reasons!for!Legislative!Exemption!!o Where!the!decision!is!taken!by!a!Minister!or!other!elected!official,!they!are!accountable!to!
Parliament!and!the!electorate.!!o Practicality!A!bodies!may!be!exempt!from!the!duty!of!fairness!where!the!potential!to!adversely!
affect!interests!is!too!diverse!or!too!numerous!to!permit!each!individual!to!participate.!!!Should!duty!of!fairness!apply!to!legislative!decisions?!Argument!against!extending!the!duty:!- This!limit!is!necessary!to!the!preservation!of!the!integrity!of!legislative!process!under!formal!model!of!
separation!of!powers.!- Maintaining!formal!separation!of!powers!critical!to!democratic!legitimacy.!Argument!for!extending!duty:!!- Classification!doesn’t!work;!institutions!are!not!amenable!to!formal!definitions.!- Classification!is!a!source!of!injustice:!
9!
- “To!endow!some!with!procedural!protection!while!denying!others!any!at!all!would!work!injustice!when!the!results!of!statutory!decisions!raise!the!same!serious!consequences!for!those!adversely!affected,!regardless!of!the!classification!of!the!function!in!question.”!(Laskin!in!Nicholson,!text!p.!110)!
- Democracy!better!served!by!contextual!approach,!i.e.!Did!the!decisionAmaker!act!fairly!in!the!circumstances?!&Idziak&v&Canada&(Minister&of&Justice)&The!federal!Minister!of!Justice's!decision!to!extradite!an!individual!was!“at!the!extreme!legislative!end!of!a!continuum!of!administrative!decisionAmaking”.!Justice!Cory!discussed!the!minister!of!justice’s!exercise!of!discretionary!authority!to!issue!a!warrant!of!surrender!in!an!extradition!case!as!follows:!Parliament!chose!to!give!discretionary!authority!to!the!Minister!of!Justice.!It!is!the!Minister!who!must!consider!the!good!faith!and!honour!of!this!country!in!its!relations!with!other!states.!It!is!the!Minister!who!has!the!expert!knowledge!of!the!political!ramifications!of!an!extradition!decision.!In!administrative!law!terms,!the!Minister’s!review!should!be!characterized!as!being!at!the!extreme!legislative!end!of!the!continuum!of!administrative!decisionAmaking.38!!Imperial&Oil&Ltd.&v&Quebec&(Minister&of&Enviro)&Held:!In!exercising!discretionary!power!to!require!an!oil!company!to!undertake!site!decontamination!measures!(at!its!own!expense),!Quebec’s!environment!minster!was!performing!a!political!role!in!choosing!from!among!the!policy!options!allowed!under!provincial!environmental!protection!legislation!and!was!not!subject!to!fairness!obligations!beyond!those!in!the!Act.!Governments!are!elected!to!make!policy!decisions!and!must!be!allowed!to!do!so,!provided!that!they!comply!with!relevant!constitutional!requirements.!!
Duty&of&Fairness&+&Administrative&Decisions&Every!public!authority!making!an!administrative!decision!which!is!not!of!a!legislative!nature!and!which!affects!the!rights,!privileges!or!interests!of!an!individual!is!subject!to!DoF!What’s!qualifies!an!Administrative!decision!for!DoF?!!!- Not!a!preliminary!decision!–!must!be!determinative!- Investigative!decisions!are!generally!not!seen!as!sufficiently!determinative!- Prelim!decision!by!tribunal!about!what!procedural!fairness!applies!whether!it!will!be!oral/written!(Conrad!
Black!issue!–!wanting!an!oral!hearing!not!written!re!loss!of!Order!of!Canada)!!When%do%we%have%a%sufficiently%final%decision%where%PF%is%owed%(this%is%a%interesting%and%legit%question)%
&Legislative&Decisions&vs&Administrative&Decisions&Legislative!Decision! Administrative!Decision!Polycentric!problems!Public!interest!litigation!–!ex)!human!rights,!!
Typically!public!interest!litigation!has!various!sorts!of!sociology!evidence,!all!sorts!of!interested!parties,!typically!have!intervenors!!The!concept!has!arisen!that!an!expert!tribunal!is!going!to!be!a!better!place!to!make!those!types!of!decisions.!(Do!I!agree!with!this?!Would!rather!come!from!SCC!which!seems!to!have!more!legitimacy!and!binding!authority)!
Specified!problems,!directed,!constrained!Clear!rules!to!be!applied!!!!!!!!!!!
10!
!NO!DUTY!OF!FAIRNESS!
DUTY!OF!FAIRNESS!APPLICABLE!
- Decisions!of!a!legislative!nature!create!norms!or!policy!- Decisions!of!an!administrative!nature!merely!apply!those!norms!to!particular!situations.!!- Legislative!powers!that!will!not!normally!give!rise!to!DoF!include!laws,!decisions!of!Cabinet,!Crown!
prerogatives,!regulations!or!other!delegated!legislations,!general!policy!statements,!guidelines!and!administrative!rules!structuring!the!exercise!of!statutory!discretion.!
- There!are,!of!course,!exceptions!and!sometimes!it!may!be!difficult!to!determine!whether!a!decision!is!in!fact!“legislative”!rather!than!administrative!or!quasiAjudicial.!
&!
Authorson&v&Canada&(AG)&SCC&|&No&DoF&in&Legislative&Decisions&Facts:!Parliament!passed!legislation!retrospectively!limiting!the!amount!of!money!owed!to!disabled!war!veterans—decades!of!interest!on!pension!and!benefit!funds—to!whom!the!Crown!owed!fiduciary!duties.!The!law!affected!thousands!of!veterans,!none!of!whom!was!given!notice!of!the!proposed!change!to!the!law.!In!class!action!proceedings,!Authorson!argued!that!the!legislation!infringed!the!right!not!to!be!deprived!of!the!enjoyment!of!property!except!by!due!process!of!law!under!the!Canadian!Bill!of!Rights!(s.!1(a)),!as!well!as!the!right!to!a!fair!hearing!in!accordance!with!the!principles!of!fundamental!justice!for!the!determination!of!one’s!rights!and!obligations!(s.!2(e)).!Succeeded!at!trial!and!ONCA.!!Issue:!Does!Parliament!have!a!duty!of!fairness!to!observe!when!passing!legislation?!!Held:!SCC!rejected!the!notion!that!the!Bill!of!Rights!establishes!due!process!with!regards!to!passing!legislation.!Reiterated!that!the!CL!also!did!not!help!the!situation.!!Significance:!!No!duty!in!legislative!decisions.!Makes!sense!bc!if!P!was!responsible!for!looking!out!for!everyone’s!rights!and!interests!in!passing!legislation,!it!would!be!difficult!to!make!a!law!that!made!everyone!happy.!There!is!no!room!in!the!constitution!to!protect!the!right!for!duty!of!fairness!so!the!only!place!this!obligation!can!arise!from!is!CL!(case!law).!!!
AG&v&Inuit&Tapirisat&|&No&DoF&in&Legislative&Decisions&Facts:!The!federal!Cabinet!rejected!an!appeal!from!a!decision!made!by!the!CRTC!without!allowing!the!petitioning!group!(Inuit)!to!be!heard.!The!Cabinet!heard!from!the!utility!and!the!CRTC!and!took!advice!from!ministerial!officials,!but!the!petitioning!group!was!essentially!left!out!of!the!proceedings.!!Issue:&&Held:!The!Cabinet’s!power!is!legislative!in!nature.!!1)!Legislation!authorized!Cabinet!to!overturn!a!decision!of!the!CRTC!on!its!own!motion.!This,!he!said,!was!“legislative!action!in!its!purest!form.”!2)!There!are!practical!difficulties!inherent!in!extending!the!duty!of!fairness.!SCC!did!not!want!to!burden!the!Cabinet!with!hearing!requirements!and!expressed!concern!about!undermining!the!Cabinet’s!public!policyAmaking!role.!Significance:!!Example!of!what!legislative!bodies!look!like!(defined!as)!and!their!subsequent!exclusion!from!duty!of!fairness.!Decision!subject!to!extensive!criticism!on!the!basis!that!it!overstates!the!difficulties!inherent!in!applying!the!duty!of!fairness!to!Cabinet!decisions.!After!all,!the!duty!is!flexible!and!its!content!could!be!tailored!to!address!some!of!the!concerns!raised!by!SCC.!Ex!A!it!is!difficult!to!think!of!examples!in!which!the!Cabinet!would!be!required!to!hold!an!oral!hearing.!The!case!for!exempting!Cabinet!decisions!from!the!duty!of!fairness!may!be!thought!weaker!than!the!case!for!exA!empting!primary!legislation,!because!Cabinet!decision!making!is!not!subject!to!political!scrutiny!in!the!same!way.!&
Cases&\&&Scope&+&Threshold&of&Duty&of&Fairness&Pre&Nicholson!–!Natural!justice!applied!to!quasiAjudicial!
11!
Nicholson!–!Natural!justice!continues!to!apply!to!quasiAjudicial,!but!DoF!now!applies!to!administrative!decisions!Cardinal!–!Duty!of!fairness!applies!across!all!admin!decisions!(subject!to!threshold),!line!moves.!Court!replaced!the!judicial/quasiAjudicial/administrative!distinction!!legislative/any!other!type!distinction.!Post\Knight&\&Duty!of!fairness!extended!to!public!office!holders,!including!those!appointed!“at!pleasure”&Post\Dunsmuir&\&Duty!of!fairness!no!longer!applies!to!public!office!holders!who!have!contracts!governing!terms!of!employment&&
Nicholson&v&Haldimand&Facts:!Police!officer!in!dismissal!situation.!15!months!of!service.!18!month!probation!period.!Let!go!without!hearing!or!any!statement!as!to!why!he!was!dismissed.!!Made!a!call!to!the!wrong!person,!and!supervisor!got!angry!and!told!not!to!come!back.!Question!of!whether!there!should!have!been!some!sort!of!hearing!rights.!!Issue:!Held:&(Laskin)!Under!the!traditional!approach,!natural!justice!protection!did!not!apply!b/c!the!decision!was!non!judicial!Extends!concept!of!procedural!fairness.!Don’t!have!to!have!quasi!judicial!decision!for!PF!to!apply.!Presumption!that!P!is!assumed!to!intend!act!fairly.!Fairness!depends!on!context.!Presumption!of!statutory!interpretation!applied!everywhere!unless!there!is!a!clear!exclusion!or!intent!that!shows!there!is!an!exclusion!for!PF!in!legislation.!Not!the!same!hearing!rights!apply!as!set!forth!in!statutory!scheme!but!the!threshold!is!there!for!some!level!of!procedural!fairness.!!Three!ways!to!understand!an!absence!of!statement!for!PF!and!where!courts!will!apply!common!law!for!PF.!!1)!Legislature!was!forgetful!–!supplying!omission!2)!Legislature!spoke!indirectly!3)!Common!law!constitutionalism/common!law!bill!or!rights!–!idea!of!presumption!that!legislature!intended!all!powers!to!be!exercised!fairly.!Although!Nicholson!could!not!claim!the!procedural!protection!that!the!regulations!afforded!those!with!18!months!of!service,!he!was!entitled!to!be!treated!fairly,!not!arbitrarily;!he!was!entitled!to!an!opportunity!to!make!submissions!(orally!or!in!writing)!before!he!was!dismissed.!Overall!there!is!a!general!attachment!btwn!the!rule!of!law!and!procedural!fairness.!Procedural!fairness!serves!the!rule!of!law.!There!is!a!jurisdictional!problem!when!you!don’t!follow!PF!–!exceeds!legal!authority,!violates!legal!authority!given.!!Dissent!(Martland):!No!statutory!protection!therefore!no!protection.!Strong!interpretation!on!statute,!excluded!hearing!rights!in!language!therefore!they!don’t!apply.!!Significance:!Before!this!decision!the!threshold!test!concerned!natural!justice!and!asked!what!was!judicial!quasiAjudicial.!An!expectation!of!natural!justice!applied!only!to!quasi!judicial!decisions.!After!this!decision!threshold!centered!on!the!question!of!what!is!appropriate!in!the!context.!Establishes!general!duty!of!fairness!in!administrative!decisionAmaking:“[I]n!the!sphere!of!the!soAcalled!quasiAjudicial!the!rules!of!natural!justice!run,!and!that!in!the!administrative!or!executive!field!there!is!a!general!duty!of!fairness.”!This!duty!of!fairness!involves!“something!less!than!the!procedural!protection!of!traditional!natural!justice.”!&
Cardinal&v&Kent&|&CL&Standard&for&DoF&+&Applicability&of&DoF&Facts:!Cardinal!is!a!petitioner!for!inmates!at!Kent!institution.!Inmates!alleged!to!have!been!involved!in!a!hostage!taking.!Inmates!!transferred!to!another!institution!and!placed!in!isolation!to!secure!prison!order.!!Review!board!makes!recommendations!re!matters!related!to!inmates/penitentiaries.!Board!recommends!end!of!segregation.!Director!has!authority!to!take!or!leave!recommendation.!Director!decides!to!refuse!recommendation.!Inmates!petition!to!SCC.!!Issue:&Procedural!fairness/duty!of!fairness!applicable!in!emergency!situations?!Adequate!opportunity!for!prisoners!to!speak!with!director?!!Held:!Decision!by!director!brings!procedural!fairness!into!question.!Recognizes!that!SCC!affirmed!there!is!(as!a!general!CL!principle)!a!duty!of!procedural!fairness!lying!on!every!public!authority!making!an!administrative!
12!
decision!which!is!not!of!a!legislative!nature!and!which!affects!the!rights,!priv,!interest!of!individual.!Although!the!duty!of!fairness!applies!to!imposing!segregation/isolation!AA!in!urgent/emergency!circumstances!there!could!be!no!requirement!of!prior!notice!and!an!opportunity!to!be!heard!before!the!decision.!The!process!of!prison!administration,!because!of!its!special!nature!and!exigencies,!should!not!be!unduly!burdened!or!obstructed!by!the!imposition!of!unreasonable!or!inappropriate!procedural!requirements.!That!said,!when!the!review!body!approved!the!end!of!segregationAA!the!duty!of!fairness!applied.!Para!17!!“The!Director!had!jurisdiction!to!disregard!the!recommendation!of!the!Review!Board,!but!to!do!so!with!fairness,!it!seems!to!me,!the!Petitioners!ought!to!have!been!informed!of!the!reasons!of!the!Director!for!continued!segregation,!and!they!should!have!been!given!a!fair!opportunity!to!answer!the!case!against!them.”!The!prison!director!was!required!to!inform!the!inmates!of!his!intended!decision!to!reject!the!recommendation.!Should!provide!reasons,!and!afford!them!an!opportunity!to!contest!his!intended!decision.!This!minimal!amount!of!fairness!that!would!not!undermine!the!administration!of!the!prison.!Significance:&Good!example!of!procedural!vs!substantive!rights.&Moves!us!further!than!Nicholson!in!terms!of!where!DoF!is!owed!in!admin!decisions.!No!longer!looking!at!quasi!judicial!vs!administrative!decisions.!Here!we!have!a!clearly!administrative!decision!set!forth!clearly!in!statute.!!Demonstrates!CL!standard!for!Procedural!Fairness.!!Para!14!“This!Court!has!affirmed!that!there!is,!as!a!general!common!law!principle,!a!duty!of!procedural!fairness!lying!on!every!public!authority!making!an!administrative!decision!which!is!not!of!a!legislative!nature!and!which!affects!the!rights,!privileges!or!interests!of!an!individual.”!Prisoners!did!not!have!right!to!be!reinserted!into!general!prison!population,!but!they!do!have!a!right!to!the!procedure!and!participate!in!the!process!which!affects!their!interests.!Right!to!expect!rule!of!law!to!apply.!Doesn’t!dictate!the!contents!of!the!decision.!!Demonstrates!concept!that!DoF!is!a!stand!alone!ground!of!review.!!Para!23!“[T]he!denial!of!a!right!to!a!fair!hearing!must!always!render!a!decision!invalid,!whether!or!not!it!may!appear!to!a!reviewing!court!that!the!hearing!would!likely!have!resulted!in!a!different!decision.!The!right!to!a!fair!hearing!must!be!regarded!as!an!independent,!unqualified!right!which!finds!its!essential!justification!in!the!sense!of!procedural!justice!which!any!person!affected!by!an!administrative!decision!is!entitled!to!have.!It!is!not!for!a!court!to!deny!that!right!and!sense!of!justice!on!the!basis!of!speculation!as!to!what!the!result!might!have!been!had!there!been!a!hearing.”!!!Discussion:!What%kind%of%decision%is%the%director%making?%%
Discretionary!%
What%kind%of%context%is%this%decision?%Law%vs%Policy?%%
Policy!decision.!Prisons!are!a!place!where!it!is!difficult!to!bring!law!into!play.!Foucauult.!Don’t!want!to!interfere!to!much!with!what!director!wants!to!do.!!In!this!decision!we!see!clear!separation!btwn!substance!and!procedure.!!There!are!a!few!actual!exceptions!to!this—doesn’t!always!work!out!this!way.!!See!it!in!the!discussion!of!Cardinal.!!All!easily!distracted!by!what!might!have!beenA!expense!of!sending!decision!back!for!review.!!Often!parties!making!procedural!arguments!raise!substantive!points!–!hard!to!resist.!!Hard!to!ignore!justice!of!situation!in!making!procedural!decision.!!Legally!however,!when!client!is!completely!unsympathetic,!have!to!rely!strongly!on!law!–!if!procedural!fairness!is!denied!it!doesn’t!matter!what!the!outcome!is.!!Hearing!rights!may!have!not!made!any!diff!at!all!but!they!were!required.!!This!concept!may!be!hard!to!hold!upAAA!whats!the!point!if!the!decision!is!the!same?!!We!must!as!lawyers!stand!by!this!principle!and!what!grounds!this!principle.!!
13!
If!not!done!right!public!authority!is!basically!acting!illegally.!Need!to!exercise!public!authority!properly!over!lives.!!This!is!a!very!lawerly!princple.!!!
Knight&v&Indian&Head&School&Div&no&19&|&DoF&+&&Employment&Contracts&–&Public&vs&Private&Facts:!!Knight!Director!of!education.!Indian!Head!is!employer.!Knight!was!dismissed!by!the!appellant!on!three!months'!notice.!He!took!action!against!the!!Board!for!wrongful!and!unlawful!dismissal,!alleging!the!absence!of!procedural!fairness.!!Issue:!Scope!of!the!general!duty!of!fairness!resting!on!a!public!body!in!context!of!employerAemployee!relationship.!Raises!questions!about!the!relationship!between!the!employment!contract,!The!Education!Act!of!Saskatchewan!and!the!existence!and!scope!of!the!general!duty!of!fairness!resting!on!a!public!body!in!the!context!of!an!employerAemployee!relationship.!Held:&DoF!applies!to!public!office!holders!including!those!at!pleasure.!Applies!threshold!analysis!throughout!decision.!In!the!same!vein!as!Nicholson,!the!duty!to!give!reasons!need!not!involve!a!full!and!complete!disclosure!by!the!administrative!body!of!all!of!its!reasons!for!dismissing!the!employee,!but!rather!the!communication!of!the!broad!grounds!revealing!the!general!substance!of!the!reason!for!dismissal.!!Court!finds!Knight!as!being!employed!by!crown!at!pleasure.!Older!law!gave!no!protection!for!at!pleasure.!Court!deals!with!this!by!stating!that!position!is!sufficiently!public!and!anything!public!(extension!of!Nicholson/Cardinal)!have!a!duty!of!fairness.!The!duty!to!act!fairly!does!not!depend!on!doctrines!of!employment!law,!but!stems!from!the!fact!that!the!employer!is!a!public!body!whose!powers!are!derived!from!statute,!powers!that!must!be!exercised!according!to!the!rules!of!administrative!law.!!Statute!has!a!public!flavor!to!it,!the!public!position!is!fortified!by!statute,!whether!dismissed!for!cause!of!pleasure,!there!is!a!statutory!element!at!place.!Position!is!created!and!described!in!statute!as!well!as!contract.!Hybrid!position.!The!powers!exercised!by!the!board!are!delegated!statutory!powers!and!should!be!put!only!to!legitimate!use.!Public!authorities!should!be!acting!with!DoF!no!matter!what!they!are!doing.!Don’t!want!arbitrary!exercise!of!Crown!power.!Application!of!third!branch!of!threshold!test!and!finds!that!there!is!a!genuine!case!for!individual!concern.!Significance:!This!case!raises!questions!about!the!relationship!between!the!employment!contract,!statute!vis!a!vis!the!existence!and!scope!of!the!general!duty!of!fairness!resting!on!a!public!body!in!the!context!of!an!employerAemployee!relationship.!!!What!is!employment!at!leisure?!Lord!Reid!classified!the!possible!employment!relationship!between!an!employer!and!an!employee!into!three!categories!(at!pp.!71A72):!(i)!the!master!and!servant!relationship,!where!there!is!no!duty!to!act!fairly!when!deciding!to!terminate!the!employment;!(ii)!the!office!held!at!pleasure,!where!no!duty!to!act!fairly!exists,!since!the!employer!can!decide!to!terminate!the!employment!for!no!other!reason!than!his!displeasure;!and!(iii)!the!office!from!which!one!cannot!be!removed!except!for!cause,!where!there!exists!a!duty!to!act!fairly!on!the!part!of!the!employer.!These!categories!are!creations!of!the!common!law.!They!can!of!course!be!altered!by!the!terms!of!an!employment!contract!or!the!governing!legislation,!!Test&for&Duty&of&Fairness&–&Threshold&(Knight)&&The!existence!of!a!general!duty!to!act!fairly!will!depend!on!the!consideration!of!three!factors!
1) Nature!of!decisions!2) Relationship!btwn!decision!making!body!and!individual!3) Effects!of!decision!on!individual!rights!
!
14!
Dunsmuir&v&New&Brunswick&1&S.C.R.&190,&2008&SCC&9&|&DoF&+&Public&Employment&Contracts&–&Public&vs&Private&&Facts:!Court!clerk/legal!officer!for!Crown.!Position!was!established!in!statute!–!Civil!Service!Act.!Also!had!contractual!element.!Civil!Service!Act,!sets!out!termination!of!employment!to!be!governed!by!contract.!Gets!fired,!goes!up!to!SCC!on!PF!issue.!!Issue:&&Held:&Bastarche!+!Lebell:!Courts!have!been!trying!to!devise!the!right!approaches!to!judicial!review.!The!existing!system!is!diff!to!implement.!Although!the!matter!at!hand!is!directed!at!administrative!tribunal!decisions,!the!court!will!address!the!broader!judicial!review!process.!In!the!wake!of!Baker,!Suresh,!Mount!Sinai,!CUPE,!Chamberlain,!the!system!must!become!simplified.!!Reasonableness!A!Move!towards!a!single!reasonableness!standard.!Deference!is!both!an!attitude!of!the!court!and!a!requirement!of!the!law!of!judicial!review.!Deference!imports!respect!for!the!decisionAmaking!process!of!adjudicative!bodies!with!regard!to!both!the!facts!and!the!law.!The!notion!of!deference!“is!rooted!in!part!in!a!respect!for!governmental!decisions!to!create!administrative!bodies!with!delegated!powers”.!Deference!in!the!context!of!the!reasonableness!standard!therefore!implies!that!courts!will!give!due!consideration!to!the!determinations!of!decision!makers.!Deference!requires!respect!for!the!legislative!choices!to!leave!some!matters!in!the!hands!of!administrative!decision!makers.!!Correctness!A!The!standard!of!correctness!must!be!maintained!in!respect!of!jurisdictional!and!some!other!questions!of!law.!This!promotes!just!decisions!and!avoids!inconsistent!and!unauthorized!application!of!law.!When!applying!the!correctness!standard,!a!reviewing!court!will!not!show!deference!to!the!decision!maker’s!reasoning!process;!it!will!rather!undertake!its!own!analysis!of!the!question.!Court!to!decide!whether!it!agrees!with!the!determination!of!the!decision!maker;!if!not,!the!court!will!substitute!its!own!view!and!provide!the!correct!answer.!From!the!outset,!the!court!must!ask!whether!the!tribunal’s!decision!was!correct.!Binnie:!The!relationship!btwn!Dunsmuir!and!NB!is!contractual.!Terminated!employee!without!alleging!cause.!The!subsequent!tribunal!adopted!an!unreasonable!interpretation!of!the!Civil!Service!Act!and!Public!Service!Labour!Relations!Act.!Dunsmuir!however!was!an!nonAunionized!employee!whose!job!was!terminated!in!accordance!with!contract!law.!DoF!does!not!apply!in!such!a!case.!At!this!point!case!can!be!tossed!touches!on!approach!to!judicial!review.!Changing!the!criteria!for!review!from!“functional!+!pragmatic”!to!“standard!of!review”!with!!3!criteria!to!2!critera!doesn’t!do!much.!Stilll!the!same!analysis.!Need!for!a!larger!reappraisal.!Previous!system!functional!meant!generally!speaking!courts!have!the!last!word!on!what!they!consider!the!correct!decision!on!legal!matters.!Pragmatic!essentially!meant!that!a!conceptually!tidy!division!of!functions!has!to!be!tempered!by!practical!considerations!like!a!labour!board!is!more!versed!and!experienced!in!specific/targeted!labour!issues!such!as!in!CUPE.!!On!the!other!hand,!a!court!is!right!to!insist!that!its!view!of!the!correct!opinion!(i.e.!the!“correctness”!standard!of!review)!is!accepted!on!questions!concerning!the!Constitution,!the!common!law,!and!the!interpretation!of!a!statute!other!than!the!administrator’s!enabling!statute!or!a!rule.!!!Three!limits!of!decision!making!1)!can’t!make!admin!tribunals!with!powers!of!section!96!courts!2)!Administrative!action!must!be!founded!on!statutory!or!prerogative!(i.e.!common!law)!powers.!3)!!Fair!procedure!is!the!handmaiden!of!justice.!Accordingly,!procedural!limits!are!placed!on!administrative!bodies!by!statute!and!the!common!law.!!When!the!applicant!for!judicial!review!challenges!the!substantive!outcome!of!an!administrative!action,!the!judge!is!invited!to!cross!the!line!into!secondAguessing!matters!that!lie!within!the!function!of!the!administrator.!This!is!controversial!because!it!is!not!immediately!obvious!why!a!judge’s!view!of!the!reasonableness!of!an!administrative!policy!or!the!exercise!of!an!administrative!discretion!should!trump/be!preferred.!Judicial!intervention!in!administrative!decisions!on!grounds!of!substance!(in!the!absence!of!a!constitutional!challenge)!has!been!based!on!presumed!legislative!intent.!Judicial!review!proceeds!on!the!justified!presumption!that!legislators!do!not!intend!results!that!depart!from!reasonable!standards.!These!circumstances!have!aroused!the!desire!for!more!clarity!and!precision!in!judicial!review!of!admin!decisions.!Complexity!is!part!of!all!legal!principles.!Judicial!review!
15!
needs!to!be!pruned.!Distinction!found!in!reasonableness!simpliciter!vs!patent!unreasonableness!is!in!the!magnitude!or!immediacy!of!the!defect!of!the!admin!decision.!This!principle!also!recognized!that!admin!decisions!should!be!treated!uniquely!–!diff!degrees!of!deference!depending!on!who!is!deciding!what.!Question!of!who?!Contrast!Idziak!vs!Baker!vs!Suresh.!Diff!specializations!and!diff!levels!of!expertise!which!command!respect.!Question!of!what?!Tribunal!deciding!on!pipeline!corridor!vs!tribunal!deciding!on!appropriate!sanction!for!a!members!misconduct.!The!repeated!attempts!to!define!and!explain!the!difference!between!reasonableness!simpliciter!and!“patent”!unreasonableness!can!be!seen!with!the!benefit!of!hindsight!to!be!unproductive!and!distracting.!Privitive!clauses!should!not!be!seen!as!removing!jucidial!review.!!It!is!certainly!a!relevant!contextual!circumstance!that!helps!to!calibrate!the!intrusiveness!of!a!court’s!review.!It!signals!the!level!of!respect!that!must!be!shown.!”!A!system!of!judicial!review!based!on!the!rule!of!law!ought!not!to!treat!a!privative!clause!as!conclusive,!but!it!is!more!than!just!another!“factor”!in!the!hopper!of!pragmatism!and!functionality.!!Dechamps:!Judicial!review!needs!to!be!revamped.!Superior!courts!are!the!only!courts!that!possess!inherent!jurisdiction.!They!are!responsible!both!for!applying!the!laws!enacted!by!Parliament!and!the!legislatures!and!for!insuring!that!statutory!bodies!respect!their!legal!boundaries.!Judicial!review!of!administrative!action!is!rooted!in!these!fundamental!principles!and!its!boundaries!are!largely!informed!by!the!roles!of!the!respective!branches!of!government.!Whether!deference!is!owed!to!an!administrative!body!based!on!four!factors:!(1)!the!nature!of!the!question,!(2)!the!presence!or!absence!of!a!privative!clause,!(3)!the!expertise!of!the!administrative!decision!maker!and!(4)!the!object!of!the!statute.!The!process!of!answering!this!preliminary!question!has!become!more!complex!than!the!determination!of!the!substantive!questions!the!court!is!called!upon!to!resolve.!!Questions!before!the!courts!have!consistently!been!identified!as!either!questions!of!fact,!questions!of!law!or!questions!of!mixed!fact!and!law.!Whether!undergoing!appellate!review!or!administrative!law!review,!decisions!on!questions!of!fact!always!attract!deference.!Therefore,!when!the!issue!is!limited!to!questions!of!fact,!there!is!no!need!to!enquire!into!any!other!factor!in!order!to!determine!that!deference!is!owed!to!an!administrative!decision!maker.!Questions!of!law,!by!contrast,!require!more!thorough!scrutiny!when!deference!is!evaluated.!Although!superior!courts!have!a!core!expertise!to!interpret!questions!of!law,!Parliament!or!a!legislature!may!have!provided!that!the!decision!of!an!administrative!body!is!protected!from!judicial!review!by!a!privative!clause.!Privative!clauses!cannot!totally!shield!an!administrative!body!from!review.!Stopped!at!para!164!Significance:!Also!authority!on!Rule!of!Law!+!Judicial!Review.!Reorganized!admin!law!to!one!standard!of!reasonableness.!Add!on!to!issue!in!MacDonald!(public!vs!private).!Cuts!back!on!Cardinal!(scope).!Following!Dunsmuir,!it!will!be!assumed!that!a!contract!of!employment!covers!procedural!fairness!issues.!If!it!does!not,!the!normal!commonA!or!civilAlaw!principles!will!govern.!In!either!event,!protection!from!wrongful!dismissal!will!be!governed!by!private!law!contract!principles.!The!Court!conceived!of!two!exceptions.!First,!employees!not!protected!by!employment!contracts,!or!subject!to!employment!at!pleasure,!will!still!be!protected!by!the!duty!of!fairness.!Second,!the!duty!of!fairness!may!arise!by!necessary!implication!in!some!statutory!contexts.!Doesn’t!quite!overrule!Knight!but!brings!more!clarity.!Asks!questions!about!what!body!of!law!(statute/private)!should!govern!when!looking!to!procedural!fairness?!!Creates!limit!at!threshold!for!DoF—a!position!that!is!governed!by!contract!is!in!effect!governed!by!private!law.!!Discussion!What%is%on%the%line%in%Dunsmuir?%%%
Difference!of!remedies!available!!Private!law!has!specific!remedy!–!breach!of!contract,!!or!termination!pursuant!to!contract!!A!notice!is!what!CL!implies—remedy!can!dismiss!without!cause,!dispute!over!wrongful!dismissal!that!comes!to!court!is!often!bout!period!of!notice!!Public!law!!remedy!isn’t!reinstatement,!but!quashing!decision!to!dismiss!which!is!effectively!a!reinstatement,!reinstatement!until!next!decision!can!be!made,!not!an!available!option!in!private!law!!A!this!option!is!very!expensive!for!public,!if!you!quash!decision!at!SCC!there!is!reinstatement!back!to!date!that!dispute!began!and!
16!
then!the!entire!procedural!approach!begins!again.!A!lot!more!time!(notice)!than!what!the!adjudicator!gave!him!in!the!first!place!(3months)!Burdensome!to!public!sector!
ContractA!that!we!will!look!to!terms!of!contract!and!not!imply!public!law!duties!!“A!public!authority!cannot!contract!out!if!its!statutory!duties.!But!where!a!dismissal!decision!is!properly!within!the!public!authority’s!powers!and!is!taken!pursuant!to!a!contract!of!employment,!there!is!no!compelling!public!law!purpose!for!imposing!a!duty!of!fairness.”!(para!106)!! Why%not?%
Draws!the!line!on!rule!of!law,!turning!it!into!a!private!employment!relationship!even!though!employment!wouldn’t!happen!without!statute!!Civil!service!act!!Public!service!employees!are!subject!to!some!additional!legality!involved!with!acting!for!crown!!A!few!exceptions!to!this!new!rule!–!public!sector!employees!–!rights!governed!by!contract,!where!there!isn’t!contract!still!have!procedural!fairness!(Knight)!guard!against!capricious!behavior!of!crown.!Keen!(no!contract)!Very!diff!from!regular!employment!contract!!When!there!is!a!contract!–!treat!the!govnt!as!a!private!sector!!!!
Knight&vs&Dunsmuir&&See!line!differently!drawn!in!Dunsmuir.!Officer!holders!at!pleasure!vs!oficer!holders!who!can!be!dismissed!for!cause.!Court!essentially!brings!this!category!of!public!decision!making!into!applicable!scope!of!DoF.!Draws!upon!reasoning!found!in!Cardinal!for!standalone!DoF.!Focus!on!individual!A!makes!a!diff!to!the!person!who!is!affected.!Important!to!the!individual!–!need!to!have!decision!explained!–!part!of!the!idea!of!DoF.!!Good!discussion!of!those!principle!moving!in!admin!law!in!this!case.!Hearing!rights!and!reasons!as!requirement!of!procedural!fairness!in!this!case.!!Look!for!the!similar!reasoning!found!Nicolson!in!applying!DoF!into!status.!Weird!move!is!that!she!goes!to!the!contract!to!see!if!there!is!a!DoF!!(a!contract!can!never!alter!statute!unless!statute!gives!power!to!the!contract!to!dictate!terms).!!Contrast!this!with!Dunsmuir!where!court!finds!that!statute!makes!provisions!towards!dismissal!but!not!to!hearing!rights.!Dunsmuir!upholds!ability!for!crown!to!dispose!at!pleasureAA!seems!to!be!at!odds!with!PF.!If!someone!can!just!be!dismissed!without!reason!then!whats!the!point!of!a!hearing?!Why!give!them!a!procedural!right!even?!References!procedure!for!termination.!In!spite!of!that!Dube!read!that!statute!doesn’t!preempt!presumption!of!fairnessA!doesn’t!displace!CL!presumption!of!fairness.!To!displace!it!it!would!have!to!be!very!clear.!Not!willing!to!see!that!clarity!in!the!language.!!Question!of!when!CL!fills!the!gaps!A!!How%do%we%understand%contractual%fairness%Dunsmuir%v%Knight%
Court!didn’t!have!to!make!a!new!rule!from!Knight!to!Dunsmuir!Statutory!Language!in!Knight!is!not!that!diff!than!Dunsmuir!Dunsmuir!however!is!a!departure!from!Knight!!Should%the%employment%contract%be%public%or%private?%%
!!
Inuit&Tapirisat&1980&|&DoF&+&Legislative&Decisions&&Facts:!CRTC!monopoly.!Bell!Canada!wanted!to!hike!up!rates!and!organization!repping!Inuit!–!protest!rights.!Norther!indigenous!group!concerned!about!service!in!an!already!difficult!area!to!have!phones.!CRTC!has!significant!power/responsibility!as!admin!tribunal.!Applicable!legislation!was!National!Transportation!Act.!Created!different!routes!for!Tapirisat!to!pursue:!sec!64!to!petition!cabinet,!or!limited!appeal!to!court!of!appeal!–!need!
17!
leave!from!fed!court!of!appeal.!Second!option!is!nixed!bc!there!is!not!a!real!question!of!law.!Must!use!cabinet!approach!to!be!able!to!have!decision!reviewed.!Petition!to!cabinet!and!cabinet!upholds!rate!increase.!Inuit!Tapirisat!didn’t!feel!that!the!proper!procedure!was!followed.!Tapirisat!originally!pissed!that!CRTC!did!not!have!a!hearing!–!there!was!no!prior!notice,!or!any!notice.!Tapirisat!now!choked!that!Tapirisat!did!not!get!to!have!a!chance!to!respond!to!petition!put!to!cabinet!by!Bell.!Concerns!that!there!is!involvement!by!administrative!staff.!If!we!are!going!to!understand!fairness!we!need!to!be!able!to!respond!in!writing!and!be!aware!of!all!the!info!that!is!before!the!decision!maker.!Lack!of!opp!to!respond.!Lack!of!opp!to!know!entire!record!before!cabinet!–!breach!of!procedural!fairness.!!Ratio!Issue:!Applicable!!Held:!No!duty!applies.!Decision!didn’t!effect!individual,!broader!public!generally.!What!makes!this!decision!legislative!–!cabinet!can!of!it’s!own!motion!review!decisions.!Legislatvie!in!the!purest!form.!Can!take!decision!back!on!its!own!motion.!At!the!end!of!the!day!the!policy!nature!of!the!decision!applies.!The!fact!that!it!is!cabinet!making!the!decision.!Whether!it’s!beyond!the!review!is!a!diff!matter.!Let!it!be!said!at!the!outset!that!the!mere!fact!that!a!statutory!power!is!vested!in!the!Governor!in!Council!does!not!mean!that!it!is!beyond!review.!If!that!body!has!failed!to!observe!a!condition!precedent!to!the!exercise!of!that!power,!the!court!can!declare!that!such!purported!exercise!is!a!nullity.!Essentially!says!that!decision!can!bounce!back!to!legislation!on!its!own!motion.!If!this!wasn’t!there!would!that!change!the!nature!of!the!decision?!Unanswered.!More!importantly!in!this!case!the!cabinet!did!not!take!it!back!on!its!own!motion.!Lots!of!cases!that!have!legislative!characteristics!and!that!come!from!cabinet!that!are!indeed!reviewable.!This!situation,!cabinet!was!delegated!the!power.!So!it!was!subject!to!procedural!review!but!procedural!review!for!duty!of!fairness!is!a!diff!question.!The!court!takes!a!completely!diff!approach!from!Nicholson!which!was!2!years!prior.!IN!Nicholson!it!was!about!15!month!to!18!month!dismissal!and!hearing!rights!applicability.!Assumption!that!duty!of!fairness!applies!even!though!it!is!not!specifically!stated!in!legislation.!In!Nicholson!the!silence!is!the!opp!for!the!court!to!intervene!and!include!procedural!fairness.!In!Inuit!Tap!–!the!silence!is!meant!to!be!exclusion!of!procedural!fairness!and!state!that!the!statute!needs!to!state!whether!the!duty!applies!or!not.!!Creates!confusion!about!where!CL!is!to!be!applied!to!fill!in!the!gaps!towards!whether!or!not!there!should!be!procedural!right!to!duty!of!fairness.!If!we!want!to!find!some!sense!of!reconciliation!it!will!be!found!in!the!nature!of!the!decision!being!made!Nicholson!is!individual!impacting,!Tapisirat!is!a!policy/generalized!decision.!When!this!is!the!line!we!use!for!duty!of!fairness!we!have!issues!–!characterization!of!decision!made!vs!statutory!interpretation!!Significance&!As!we!sort!this!out!ask!Who%is%the%decision%maker?%Does%this%influence?%
What%kind%of/form%is%this%decision?%
Where%do%we%place%it?%%
…..That!is!what!our!cases!are!doing.!
&Ref&re&CAP&1991|&Legitimate&Expectations,&DoF&in&Legislative&Decisions&&Facts:!BC!government!argues!that!Feds!have!acted!illegally!in!changing!the!funding!to!the!Canadian!Assistance!Plan.!CAP!is!a!program!for!the!reallocation!of!funds!to!have!not!provinces.!There!is!a!provision!in!place!that!allows!for!notice!to!be!given!to!the!provinces!should!there!be!any!change.!Special!procedure,!has!to!be!introduced!by!Gov!General!in!thrown!speech.!!Fiscal!restraints!in!govnt!arise!resulting!in!Federal!cut!backs!in!program.!!No!notice.!BC!brings!matter!to!SCC!in!reference!argued!that!the!federal!government!acted!illegally!in!invoking!the!power!of!Parliament!to!amend!the!Plan!without!obtaining!the!consent!of!British!Columbia.!The!action!was!illegal!because!it!violated!a!legitimate!expectation!of!British!Columbia.!!
18!
Issue:&Does!the!convention!support!a!legitimate!expectation?!!Held:&No.!The!formulation!and!introduction!of!a!bill!are!part!of!the!legislative!process!with!which!the!courts!will!not!meddle.!So!too!is!the!purely!procedural!requirement!in!s.!54!of!the!Constitution!Act,!1867.!That!is!not!to!say!that!this!requirement!is!unnecessary;!it!must!be!complied!with!to!create!fiscal!legislation.!But!it!is!not!the!place!of!the!courts!to!interpose!further!procedural!requirements!in!the!legislative!process.!!If!there!is!no!DoF!cannot!have!a!legit!expectation,!don’t!get!passed!threshold!bc!it!is!a!legislative!decision.!No!reasonable!expectations.!Court!will!not!touch!constitutional!convention!issue.&Decision!by!executive!to!table!bill!is!legislative!–!no!duty!to!consult.&Legislative!decision!is!that!it!is!general!in!nature,!not!directed!to!individuals.!About!policy.!Polycentric,!balances!diff!govnt!policies.!Decision!is!coming!from!cabinet,!makes!it!look!like!it’s!more!legislative.!Court!strongly!ties!the!cabinet!to!the!legislative!process!(gives!a!clear!line!to!find!legislative!exemption).!Executive!did!not!make!decision!based!on!delegation!–!executive!functioned!within!it’s!role!to!create!legislation.!The!courts!do!not!intervene,!however,!during!the!legislative!process!in!Parliament!and!the!legislatures.!They!have!no!interest!as!such!in!parliamentary!procedure.!They!have!made!this!clear!in!certain!decisions.!They!respect!the!lex!parliamenti.!“A!cabinet!is!a!combining!committee!AAA!a!hyphen!which!joins,!a!buckle!which!fastens,!the!legislative!part!of!the!state!to!the!executive!part!of!the!state.”!Democratic!accountability!serves!the!rule!of!law—does!it!make!sense!to!exempt!the!role!of!the!executive!in!coming!up!with!legislation!from!a!duty!of!fairnessA!particularly!when!it!has!made!specific!commitments!to!other!govnts!who!are!also!democratically!accountable.!!Court!says!you!have!to!respect!parliament!–!can’t!bind!an!existing!parliament!in!defense!of!a!future!parliament.!!Significance:&In!having!an!elected!system!of!govnt!you!need!to!rely!on!your!electorate!more!so!than!the!court,!if!you!always!let!the!judiciary!intervene!then!undermines!the!system!AAA!issue!arises!that!both!parties!are!representative!bodies.!Did!executive!commit!itself!in!a!way!that!it!has!to!respect!the!procedure!in!place!–!duty!to!consult/provide!notice?!&Dyzenhaus!is!critical!of!CAP!!“It!does!not!follow!from!the!fact!that!executive!action!is!required!to!initiate!legislation!that!that!kind!of!executive!action!is!legislative.!That!a!device!is!needed!to!ignite!an!internalAcombustion!engine!does!not!make!the!ignition’s!function!that!of!an!engine.”!!!
Homex&Realty&v&Wyoming&Village&1980&|&DoF&+&Regulations&as&Legislation&Facts:!Dealing!with!municipal!bylaw!that!Wyoming!passes!req!new!sub!division!to!be!registered.!Homex!is!developer.!Dispute!about!who!pays!for!the!cost!of!municipal!services.!Homex!not!original!developer.!Bought!lots!from!previous!developer!who!had!an!agreement!with!the!city!that!it!would!absorb!the!cost!of!providing!municipal!services.!Matter!of!agreement!and!former!developer!and!part!of!registered!plan!of!subdivision.!When!Homex!acquires!these!costs!are!not!covered!in!agreement!–!issue!of!whether!the!costs!pass!on!to!Homex.!City!passes!another!bylaw!req!subdivision!to!be!reregistered!midway!through!the!fight.!(sub!division!will!be!denied!unless!it!absorbs!cost)!Homex!was!selling!off!lots!in!checkerboards!–!creates!loop!hole!that!avoids!the!appearance!of!subdivision.!Homex!is!challenging!bylaw!on!hearing!rights!–!bylaw!was!passed!without!Homex!being!heard.!!Issue:&&Held:&Procedural!fairness!applied.!Crux!of!reasoning!is!that!it!appears!adversarial.!Even!though!we!have!municipality!following!matter!and!form!of!legislation.!Duty!of!fairness!can!apply!where!its!non!legislative,!where!it!is!administrative,!judicial!or!quasiAjudicial.!Legislative!in!characterization!is!arguable.!Applies!procedural!fairness!but!does!not!apply!remedy.!Homex!doesn’t!have!clean!hands.!Court!exercises!discretion!to!not!give!remedy!(as!set!forth!in!Harelquin).!!!Finds!DoF!for!hearing!rights.!The!statute!does!not!displace,!in!my!view,!the!very!old!rule!of!audi!alteram!partem!and!the!resultant!duty!in!Council!to!hear!first!and!decide!later.!Council!has!acted!as!the!judge!of!its!own!actions!in!determining!the!outcome!of!the!dispute!between!itself!and!Homex.!!
19!
Finds!that!Homex!had!opportunity!to!make!its!views!heard!through!the!correspondence!with!municipality.!However,!did!not!receive!an!opportunity!to!assess!its!final!position!in!light!of!!any!action!for!example!in!the!municipality’s!passage!of!byAlaw!no.!7.!Therefore,!In!the!full!and!final!sense!Homex!did!not!receive!an!opportunity!to!make!known!its!position!once!fully!aware!of!the!Village's!final!position.!!Court!finds!that!Homex!has!been!avoiding!the!burden!associated!with!land!development.!Have!taken!contradictory!positions!in!avoidance.!Use!of!checkerboarding!lands!to!stay!outside!reach!of!municipality.!While!remedy!is!available!in!this!instance,!on!account!of!the!actions!of!Homex,!no!remedy!given.!!Significance:&How!is!the!bylaw!legislative?!General!in!impact.!Budget!is!a!matter!of!import!to!various!ppl!in!municipality.!How!is!it!not?!Not!legislative!in!functionA!subordinate!legislation!made!through!powers!delegated!down.!Act!still!has!matter!and!form!requirements.!&!
20!
!
Content&of&the&Duty&of&Fairness&What&do&we&mean&by&content?&Once!it!has!been!determined!that!procedural!fairness!applies,!the!level!of!protection!will!vary!depending!on!the!context!and!circumstances!of!the!particular!case!the!interest!of!the!individual,!the!nature!of!the!decision,!the!type!of!administrative!decision!maker!and!the!task!it!performs,!the!language!of!the!enabling!statute!and!whether!the!decision!is!preliminary!or!final.!Given!the!diversity!of!administrative!action,!the!requirements!to!comply!with!procedural!fairness!can!vary!ranging!from!the!full!panoply!of!procedural!rights!comparable!to!normal!court!procedure,!to!the!right!simply!to!be!notified!and!allowed!to!defend!one's!case!appropriately.!It!ranges!from!mere!consultation!at!the!lower!end,!upwards!through!an!entitlement!to!make!written!and!oral!representations,!to!a!complete!judicial!procedure!similar!to!other!judicial!hearings!at!the!other!extreme.!!
&What&content&should&be&considered&towards&procedural&fairness?&&&In!the!absence!of!statutory!rules!prescribing!the!content!of!natural!justice!or!procedural!fairness,!the!task!of!determining!the!exact!procedural!content!is!among!the!most!difficult!issues!in!administrative!law.!A!particular!agency!must!give!affected!individuals!a!fair!opportunity!to!participate!while!at!the!same!time!ensure!effective,!expeditious!and!efficient!decisionAmaking.!The!court!starts!from!the!premise!that!where!Parliament!is!silent!as!to!the!procedure!to!be!used,!it!will!infer!that!Parliament!wanted!the!power!to!be!exercised!fairly.!!The!content!of!procedural!fairness!varies!depending!on!the!case!because!if!all!the!rules!of!procedural!fairness!were!allowed,!the!extra!emphasis!on!procedural!fairness!would!be!at!the!expense!of!the!efficiency!of!the!administrative!decisionAmaking!system!and!of!the!other!values!that!are!important!in!the!delivery!of!government!programs.!!This!in!turn!could!delay!the!making!of!important!decisions,!and!the!delay!may!be!detrimental!to!the!public!interest!and!that!of!the!affected!individuals.!Determining!the!extent!of!procedural!fairness!owed!requires!the!decision!maker,!ultimately!master!of!its!own!procedure,!to!make!a!difficult!costAbenefit!analysis:!would!the!cost!and!inconvenience!of!a!hearing,!for!example,!outweigh!the!benefits!it!could!achieve!particularly!in!light!of!the!interest!at!stake?!On!the!other!hand,!it!may!also!be!asserted!that!the!extra!time!and!money!is!well!spent!if!it!reduces!friction!in!the!machinery!of!government!because!the!extra!protection!afforded!by!the!rules!of!natural!justice!reduces!grievances.!Therefore,!the!addition!of!procedural!protection!promotes!efficiency!rather!than!impeding!it.!!
Five&Factors&from&Baker&“Spectrum&Analysis”&The!duty!of!procedural!fairness!is!flexible!and!variable,!and!its!content!will!depend!on!an!appreciation!of!the!context!of!the!particular!statute!and!the!rights!affected,!including:!1)&Nature&of&the&decision&made&and&process&followed&in&making&it&- Putting!a!precise!name!on!the!type!of!decision!is!no!longer!relevant!when!looking!at!threshold!question!- Nevertheless!judicial/quasAjudicial!are!often!treated!as!having!a!higher!associated!duty!compared!to!admin!
decision!- More!legislative!less!procedural!requirements!+!More!judicial!more!procedural!requirements!!If%DoF%is%required%regardless%of%what%kind%of%decision%it%is,%why%is%that%characterization%relevant%when%looking%at%
the%content%of%the%duty?%%
2)&Nature&of&the&statutory&scheme&which&governs&the&decision&making&body&- Requirements!set!forth!by!a!governing!statute!may!be!minimal!in!the!prelim!stages!!- The!requirements!typically!go!up!as!the!decision!making!process!progresses!- As!well!the!requirements!of!fairness!may!be!upped!if!there!is!a!second!level!of!review!embodied!in!the!
statute!
21!
3)&Importance&to&individual&&- The!more!the!decision!will!impact!the!individual!the!more!relevant!the!content!of!the!duty!of!fairness!
becomes!Is%there%ever%an%instance%where%it’s%not%important?%Seems%like%a%lame%criterion.%
4)&Legitimate&expectations&of&individual&&- Doctrine!of!legit!expectations!often!treated!as!a!separate!consideration!from!the!Baker!5!!- Legitimate!expectations!may!influence/expand!the!content!of!DoF!in!specific!situations!- A!legit!expectation!may!arise!out!of!conduct!made!by!decision!makers!ie)!representations,!promises,!
undertakings,!past!practices!(Mavi)!- As!well!a!legit!expectation!may!also!come!about!if!a!person!is!expecting!a!particular!outcome!ie)!Roncarelli!–!
expected!licence!- Raises!special!set!of!concerns!about!the!autonomy!of!public!officials!to!change!their!mind,!exercise!discretion!5)&Choices&of&procedure&made&by&the&agency&itself&- SCC!has!stated!that!important!weight!should!be!given!to!this!factor–!remains!to!be!seen!how!this!will!play!out&- Can!be!pertinent!in!understanding!the!justification/progression/origin!of!a!decision!&- Decision!makers!must!often!educate!the!court!&!
Duties&limited&by&enabling&statute&- The!decision!maker's!enabling!statute!may!relieve!it!from!procedural!duties!!- Where!no!written!rules!of!procedure!exist,!a!tribunal!may!choose!the!procedure!best!suited!to!the!task!at!
hand,!provided!that!all!parties!are!treated!fairly!- In!a!statutory!context,!the!absence!of!any!right!of!appeal!and!the!inability!of!those!affected!to!seek!any!form!
of!reconsideration!are!identified!as!factors!pointing!in!the!direction!of!a!right!to!a!hearing!!!
Specific&Components&of&the&Duty&of&Fairness&Notice&- Often!put!forth!in!the!tribunal’s!rules!of!procedure!or!in!legislation!governing!hearing!procedures!- Who!is!proposing!to!make!a!decision?!- What!is!the!nature!of!the!decision!to!be!made?!When!will!the!decision!be!made?!- Where!will!the!decision!be!made?!- Why!is!the!decision!being!made?!- How!is!the!decision!to!be!made?!- Ongoing!duty!which!arises!prior!to!making!the!decision!!Disclosure&- Disclosure!must!be!tempered!against!the!realities!of!the!administration!- Disclosure!is!a!tailored!fit!for!every!situation!- Ultimately,!the!duty!of!fairness!is!satisfied!if!a!party!has!sufficient!information!to!make!informed!submissions!
in!regard!to!a!particular!matter!Oral&Hearings&- Often!demanded,!rarely!required!- Not!normally!integral!to!decision!making!- Practical!considerations!limit!this!component!!Right&to&Counsel&- Right!does!not!apply!to!Admin!context!- Historically!the!concept!was!limited!to!criminal!matters!rather!than!something!required!by!rule!of!law!
(Christie)!!
22!
- Even!where!there!is!a!right!to!counsel!this!right!may!be!subject!to!limits!Right&to&call&evidence&&- Normally!coincides!with!right!to!oral!hearing!- Not!an!absolute!right!Timeliness&and&delay&- Delay!is!important!towards!administration!of!justice!!- In!Blencoe!looked!to!!
o The!time!taken!compared!to!the!inherent!time!requirements!!o The!causes!of!delay!beyond!the!inherent!time!requirements!of!the!matter!o The!impact!of!the!delay!
- The!normal!remedy!for!delay!is!likely!to!be!an!order!in!the!nature!of!mandamus,!requiring!the!tribunal!to!perform!its!duty!expeditiously.!
Duty&to&give&reasons&- Reasons!are!not!required!for!all!decisions;!rather,!they!are!required!in!certain!circumstances!- Reasons!are!required!if!a!particular!decision!has!“important!significance”!for!an!individual!!- Public!actors!demonstrate!respect!for!those!affected!by!their!decisions!by!justifying!the!decisions!they!make!- Questions!may!arise!as!to!the!adequacy!of!reasons!given!in!particular!circumstances!- It!may!be!argued!that!inadequate!reasons!are!tantamount!to!no!reasons!at!all,!and!hence!a!violation!of!the!
duty!!
What&do&we&mean&when&we&say&legitimate&expectations?&- The!doctrine!of!legitimate!expectation!is!an!extension!of!the!rules!of!natural!justice!and!procedural!fairness!
(CAP)!!- It!implies!procedural!entitlements!in!relation!to!administrative!decisionAmaking!- When!applicable!it!creates!a!procedural!right!to!make!representations!or!to!be!consulted!with!respect!to!a!
decision!- Conduct!of!a!public!authority!that!is!a!!departure!from!normal!established!practices,!may!induce!a!legitimate!
expectation!that!an!individual!will!be!consulted!before!a!decision!is!taken!contrary!to!their!interests.!(CUPE)!- To!be!viable,!such!a!reasonable!or!legitimate!expectation!must!not!conflict!with!a!statutory!duty!(Mt!Siani,!
CUPE)!!- Legitimate!Expectations!may!come!about!in!
o Express!promises!o Regular!practices!o Soft!law!–!policy!guidelines!(Agraria)!o Expressions!!of!govnt!policy!–!ie)!international!agreements!!
- If!a!decision!maker/body!says!it!will!follow!a!specific!process,!the!individual!is!entitled!to!a!legitimate!expectation!in!this.!Only!exception!given!where!representation!are!not!procedural!and!are!beyond!decision!makers!statutory!duty.!!&
!
Legitimate&Expectations&as&a&Filler&- Legit!expectations!can!be!a!filler!where!procedural!protections!are!not!provided!for!in!legislation!- Embedded!in!content!analysis!but!sometimes!taken!out!and!analysis!on!its!own!!
23!
Cases&:&Content&of&Duty&of&Fairness&Baker&v&Canada&Facts:!Baker!is!Jamaican!woman!who!has!been!living!as!illegal!immigrant!for!many!years.!Has!had!four!children!on!Canadian!soil.!Has!mental!health!issues.!She!gets!busted!for!working!illegally!in!Canada!as!a!maid/cleaner!and!is!given!a!deportation!order.!!She!appeals!decision!to!Immigration!Canada.!Her!case!is!reviewed!by!an!immigration!officer!Lorenz!who!writes!atrocious!report!re:!Baker!which!reads!as!a!personal!attack.!Says!she!is!a!drain!on!the!system!bc!of!her!mental!health!and!suggests!that!Canada’s!generosity!has!reached!its!limits.!The!deciding!immigration!officer!Caden!reviews!the!report!and!denies!the!appeal!without!giving!reason.!Trial!judge!rules!that!legislation!directed!at!child!welfare!is!irrelevant!as!is!Lorenz!report.!She!must!take!it!that!in!absence!of!evidence!to!contrary!Caden!made!his!decision!based!on!good!faith!and!unbias.!Appellate!judge!limits!his!scope!in!the!appeal!towards!answering!the!registered!question!.!Issue:!What!is!the!legal!effect!of!a!stated!question!under!s.!83(1)!of!the!Immigration!Act!on!the!scope!of!appellate!review?!Were!the!principles!of!procedural!fairness!violated!in!this!case?!Participatory!rights?!Failure!of!decision!officer!to!provide!reasons?!Reasonable!apprehension!of!bias?!!Was!this!discretion!improperly!exercised!because!of!the!approach!taken!to!the!interests!of!Ms.!Baker's!children?!Held:&&Legitimate!Expectations!A!The!articles!of!the!Convention!and!their!wording!did!not!give!rise!to!a!legitimate!expectation!of!specific!procedural!rights.!Does!not!suggest!that!beyond!participatory!rights!that!there!are!any!other!rights.!!There!is!no!legitimate!expectation!affecting!the!content!of!the!duty!of!fairness.!!Participatory!rights!–!H&C!decision!an!exceptional!decision!within!the!legislation!and!is!different!from!others!in!that!it!requires!a!substantial!amount!of!discretion.!Baker!did!submit!a!written!application.!These!factors!mitigate!in!favor!of!a!relaxed!requirement!for!duty!of!fairness.!On!the!other!hand!there!is!no!appeal!procedure!and!the!impacts!of!the!decision!have!major!ramifications.!Thus!although!some!of!the!factors!suggest!stricter!requirements!under!the!duty!of!fairness,!others!suggest!more!relaxed!requirements!from!the!judicial!model.!!Para!32!Disagree!that!the!duty!of!fairness!owed!in!these!circumstances!is!simply!"minimal".!Rather,!the!circumstances!require!a!full!and!fair!consideration!of!the!issues,!and!the!claimant!and!others!whose!important!interests!are!affected!by!the!decision!in!a!fundamental!way!must!have!a!meaningful!opportunity!to!present!the!various!types!of!evidence!relevant!to!their!case!and!have!it!fully!and!fairly!considered.!Does!not!agree!that!an!oral!hearing!is!mandatory.!Baker!could!have!written!her!reasons!in!her!application.!!Reasons!–!Previously!held!that!reasons!are!not!a!strict!requirement!and!further!the!traditional!position!at!common!law!has!been!that!the!duty!of!fairness!does!not!require,!as!a!general!rule,!that!reasons!be!provided!for!administrative!decisions.!Weighs!in!debate!about!the!pros!and!cons!of!reasons.!Ultimately!finds!in!certain!circumstances,!the!duty!of!procedural!fairness!will!require!the!provision!of!a!written!explanation!for!a!decision!especially!where!there!is!significance!for!the!individual!when!there!is!a!statutory!right!of!appeal,!or!in!other!circumstances,!some!form!of!reasons!should!be!required.!“It!would!be!unfair!for!a!person!subject!to!a!decision!such!as!this!one!which!is!so!critical!to!their!future!not!to!be!told!why!the!result!was!reached.”!Finds!however!that!the!notes!of!Lorenz!meet!this!requirement!as!they!were!given!to!Baker!when!counsel!asked!for!reasons.!Because!of!this,!and!because!there!is!no!other!record!of!the!reasons!for!making!the!decision,!the!notes!of!the!subordinate!reviewing!officer!should!be!taken,!by!inference,!to!be!the!reasons!for!decision.!Reasonable!apprehension!of!bias!A!the!duty!to!act!fairly!and!therefore!in!a!manner!that!does!not!give!rise!to!a!reasonable!apprehension!of!bias!applies!to!all!immigration!officers!who!play!a!significant!role!in!the!making!of!decisions!whether!they!are!subordinate!officers!or!not.!!I!do!not!believe!that!a!reasonable!and!wellAinformed!member!of!the!community!would!conclude!that!he!had!approached!this!case!with!the!impartiality!appropriate!to!a!decision!made!by!an!immigration!officer.!It!would!appear!to!a!reasonable!observer!that!his!own!frustration!with!the!"system"!interfered!with!his!duty!to!consider!impartially!whether!the!appellant's!admission!should!be!facilitated!owing!to!humanitarian!or!compassionate!considerations.!Demonstratable!RAOB!
24!
Was!the!decision!reasonable?!–!No!consideration!for!Baker’s!children,!officer!completely!dismissive!of!their!situation.!Failure!to!give!serious!weight.!The!reasons!of!the!immigration!officer!show!that!his!decision!was!inconsistent!with!the!values!underlying!the!grant!of!discretion.!They!therefore!cannot!stand!up!to!the!somewhat!probing!examination!required!by!the!standard!of!reasonableness.!Giving!consideration!to!the!children!would!have!been!within!the!objectives!of!the!Act!sec!3(c)!and!would!have!been!considerate!towards!International!Law.!Para!70!Values!reflected!in!international!human!rights!law!may!help!inform!the!contextual!approach!to!statutory!interpretation!and!judicial!review.!Finally!the!ministerial!values!expect!officers!to!act!as!a!reasonable!person,!which!would!have!been!to!give!consideration!to!the!family!of!the!applicant.!!Significance:!Established!the!spectrum!approach!to!the!content!of!the!duty!of!fairness.!Established!a!duty!to!give!reasons!(where!required!on!the!spectrum!analysis)!in!administrative!contexts,!reasons!are!flexible!as!we!saw!in!this!case!(case!notes).!Established!that!discretionary!decisions!are!to!be!reviewed!by!the!same!methodology!as!other!types!of!decisions!(then,!pragmatic!&!functional!analysis;!now,!the!standard!of!review!analysis).!Established!that!international!human!rights!norms!(from!the!Convention)!may!apply!as!“values”!without!the!implementation!of!those!norms!through!statute.!Marked!a!key!moment!in!the!move!away!from!“formalist”!approaches!to!administrative!law!and!brought!together!developments!into!a!more!coherent,!deferential!approach.!A!more!“democratic”!approach!(Dyzenhaus).!Procedural!duty!owed!–!higher!degree!than!minimal!–!full!and!fair!of!decisions,!must!have!meaningful!opp!to!present!info!before!the!decision!maker!!Minimal!standard!would!simply!be!notice!!!
Mavi&v&AG&(Canada)&Facts:!Eight!sponsors!for!immigrants!to!Canada.!Law!says!that!if!as!a!sponsor!you!undertake!support!of!the!person!you!are!sponsoring!and!that!person!arrives!in!Canada!and!claims!social!assistant,!the!govnt!may!recover!the!funds.!Under!old!immigration!act!provision!states!the!the!govnt!can!choose!not!to!recover!money!if!the!Sponsor!is!in!a!situation!of!abuse!or!in!other!appropriate!circumstances.!Sponsors!are!arguing!that!a!legit!expectation!was!created!that!there!would!be!opportunity!for!their!circumstance!to!be!heard.!Argue!that!notice!should!have!been!given!when!relative!signs!up!for!social!assistance.!!Issue:&Whether!if!at!all!the!government!is!constrained!by!considerations!of!procedural!fairness!in!making!enforcement!decisions!in!relation!to!these!statutory!debts.!Held:&Procedural!fairness!met.!While!DoF/Procedural!fairness!it!is!an!over!arching!theme!in!decision!making,!its!content!can!be!flexible!on!a!case!by!case!basis.!Based!on!5!factors!from!Baker.!!Here,!the!content!of!the!duty!requires!that!before!the!govnt!files!a!certificate!of!debt!it!must!1)!notify!the!sponsor!2)!give!opportunity!(within!a!period!of!time)!for!sponsor!to!be!heard!and!give!militating!reasons!3)!take!consideration!of!relevant!circumstances!4)!notify!sponsor!of!resulting!govnts!resulting!decision.!Statute!does!not!give!much!direction!on!procedure.!Reasons!not!needed.!The!fact!that!you!have!debt!is!in!and!of!itself!reason!enough.!Balance!of!fairness!and!efficiency.!!There!is!no!duty!for!the!govnt!to!inform!sponsor!when!relative!obtains!public!assistance.!The!sponsor!is!to!keep!track!of!relative!he/she!has!undertaken!to!support.!The!risk!of!a!rogue!relative!properly!lies!with!the!sponsor,!not!the!tax!payer.!!Legit!expectation!issue!A!Court!holds!that,!the!wording!of!the!government’s!representations!in!the!undertaking!are!sufficiently!vague!to!leave!the!government’s!choice!of!procedure!very!broad.!Clearly!no!promises!are!made!of!a!positive!outcome!from!the!sponsors’!point!of!view.!!Claimant!doesn’t!have!legitimate!expectation!of!debt!forgiviness!in!undertaking,!but!were!right!in!having!a!legit!expectation!that!there!would!be!an!opp!for!them!to!raise!reasons!by!debt!should!be!deferred.!!Significance:&Legit!expectations&\&If!a!decision!maker/body!says!it!will!follow!a!specific!process,!the!individual!is!entitled!to!a!legitimate!expectation!in!this.!Only!exception!given!where!representation!are!not!procedural!and!are!beyond!decision!makers!statutory!duty.!!&
25!
!
Agaira&v&Canada&(Immigration)&&Facts:!Agraria!is!Lybian!national.!In!1997!he!entered!Canada!under!refugee!status!based!on!political!organization.!Organization!worked!towards!democracy!in!Gadafi!times.!Agraira!responsible!for!recruitment.!In!2002!the!organization!becomes!known!as!a!terrorist!group.!Refugee!application!failed!on!account!of!lack!of!credibility!as!the!details!of!his!involvement!in!organization!is!sketchy.!He!starts!out!claiming!refugee!status!as!key!participant!in!group.!!Fails!on!credibility.!In!the!meantime,!he!gets!married!has!kids!and!then!has!wife!sponsor!him.!Now!he!seeks!to!stay!with!claim!of!lack!of!association!with!the!same!group.!!Applies!for!citizen!ship!and!applies!for!relief/discretionary!consideration.!Application!for!citizenship!is!denied.!Rec’s!letter!from!Minister!rejecting!relief!claimed!gives!reasons!in!both!sections!(set!out!in!facts).!!Min!of!Public!Safety!giving!reason!that!it!was!against!national!interest!to!house!terrorists.!Takes!matter!up!on!judicial!review!primarily!on!substantive!grounds!(content),!but!he!also!argues!that!minister!didn’t!meet!standards!of!procedural!fairness.!Legitimate!expectations!were!not!met.!!Issue:!Were!standards!of!procedural!fairness!met?!Were!legitimate!expectations!of!decision!met?!!Held:!Legit!expectation!exists!if!1)!a!public!authority!has!in!the!past!held!to!a!specific!procedural!practice!towards!making!a!decision!2)!if!the!public!authority!has!made!representations!about!this!procedure.!The!scope!of!DoF!will!be!broader!than!it!otherwise!would!have!been.!If!representations!regarding!a!substantive!result!have!been!made!to!an!individual,!the!public!authority!has!a!higher!and!more!onerous!burden!of!procedural!fairness!when!executing!a!contrary!decision.!!Doctrine!of!legit!expectations!doesn’t!give!rise!to!substantive!rights.!!!Clear!guidelines!existed!about!handling!relief!applications.!This!creates!a!legit!expectation!that!these!guidelines!would!be!adhered!toAA!Agraria!has!shown!that!they!were!not.!A!had!a!legitimate!expectation!that!the!Minister!would!consider!certain!factors!in!determining!his!relief!application,!specifically!factors!in!Appendix!1!and!H+C!factors.!From!letter!it!is!clear!that!overall!applicant!is!denied!bc!involved!in!group!which!is!known!to!be!involved!in!terrorist!violence.!(Substantive!expectation!in!that!the!substance!of!what!will!be!reviewed!AA!H&C.)!Howeve!legit!expectation!argument!fails!AA!the!Minister’s!implied!interpretation!of!‘national!interest’!includes!these!factors.!!“Therefore,!if!the!appellant!had!a!legitimate!expectation!that!the!Minister!would!consider!certain!factors,!including!H&C!factors,!in!determining!his!application!for!relief,!this!expectation!was!fulfilled.!In!my!opinion,!there!was!no!failure!to!meet!the!appellant’s!legitimate!expectations!or!to!discharge!the!duty!of!procedural!fairness!owed!to!him.!The!Minister’s!decision!cannot!therefore!be!set!aside!on!this!basis.”!!Significance:&There!was!a!clear!legit!expectation!that!seemed!to!not!matter!at!all.!Lots!of!deference!in!Ministers!view.!Would!have!strengthened!courts!position!on!legit!expectations!if!there!had!been!further!reasons!as!to!H&C!Considerations!in!letter.!!Defect!in!reasons!in!this!case.!Something!that!the!minister!said!it!took!into!acct!vs!something!that!the!statute!said!to!take!into!acct!AAwas!not!clearly!assessed!and!put!forth!in!reasons.!&!Child!consideration!under!s.!25.(1)!….!!The![Minister!of!Citizenship!&!Immigration]!must,!on!request!of!a!foreign!national!in!Canada!who!applies!for!permanent!resident!status!and!who!is!inadmissible!or!does!not!meet!the!requirements!of!this!Act!…!examine!the!circumstances!concerning!the!foreign!national!and!may!grant!the!foreign!national!permanent!resident!status!or!an!exemption!from!any!applicable!criteria!or!obligations!of!this!Act!if!the![Minister]!is!of!the!opinion!that!it!is!justified!by!humanitarian!and!compassionate!considerations!relating!to!the!foreign!national,!taking!into!account!the!best!interests!of!a!child!directly!affected.!(Note!change!that!children!considerations!MUST!now!be!considered.!Change!from!Baker)!The!Denial!Falls!under!34.!(1)![Security]!A!permanent!resident!or!a!foreign!national!is!inadmissible!on!security!grounds!for!
26!
!(a)!engaging!in!an!act!of!espionage!or!an!act!of!subversion!against!a!democratic!government,!institution!or!process!as!they!are!understood!in!Canada;!(b)!engaging!in!or!instigating!the!subversion!by!force!of!any!government;!(c)!engaging!in!terrorism;!(d)!being!a!danger!to!the!security!of!Canada;!(e)!engaging!in!acts!of!violence!that!would!or!might!endanger!the!lives!or!safety!of!persons!in!Canada;!or!(f)!being!a!member!of!an!organization!that!there!are!reasonable!grounds!to!believe!engages,!has!engaged!or!will!engage!in!acts!referred!to!in!paragraph!(a),!(b)!or!(c).!
(2)![Exception]!The!matters!referred!to!in!subsection!(1)!do!not!constitute!inadmissibility!in!respect!of!a!permanent!resident!or!a!foreign!national!who!satisfies!the!Minister!that!their!presence!in!Canada!would!not!be!detrimental!to!the!national!interest.!!
Relevance&of&Reasons&towards&Procedural&Fairness&The!purpose!of!reasons,!when!they!are!required,!is!to!demonstrate!“justification,!transparency!and!intelligibility”!(Dunsmuir)!Thre!is!a!CL!duty!to!give!reasons!The!court!accepted!the!notes!as!reasons.!Expanded!notion!of!what!reasons!might!look!like!and!where!that!obligation!to!give!reasons!arises.!(Baker)!Importance&of&Reasons&- They!communicate!to!person!who!is!affected!- Important!for!appeal!–!give!concept!of!what!process!was!taken!in!arriving!at!decision!- Give!transparency,!hold!decision!maker!accountable!- Increases!public!confidence!in!admin!justice!- Supports!better!decision!making!–!requires!more!thought,!analysis,!until!you!write!you!don’t!know!what!you!
think!- Reasons!connected!to!criminal!law!–!balance!against!adversarial!process!- And!yet!admin!context!is!extremely!different!Concerns&about&Duty&to&Give&Reasons&- Costs/slows!things!down!!- Increases!formality!–!which!undermines!the!purpose!of!admin!bodies!- Increase!lack!of!candour!when!there!is!a!formality,!!Variable%standard%in%admin%context%%
Whenever%we%find%a%duty%to%give%reasons%–%is%this%a%push%for%formality%in%admin%state?%Is%this%an%inevitable%creep?%%
2&Possible&Procedural&Fairness&Arguments&- reasons!are!required!where!no!reasons!given!- reasons!are!inadequate!to!the!point!that!there!was!basically!no!reaons!given!!So%where%do%we%draw%the%line?%
As%soon%as%we%start%to%ask%are%those%reasons%adequate%we%start%to%go%into%substantive%side?%
!
Nfld&and&Labrador&Nurses&|&Procedural&Fairness&+&Reasons&Facts:!Nurses!want!vacation!entitlements!that!takes!into!acct!of!work!when!casual.!Union!take!issue!against!province!to!arbitration.!Does!language!of!collective!agreement!work!in!their!favor?!Nope.!Union!loses!at!arbitration.!Abitrator!gives!reasons!for!denial:!Casual!employees!not!entitled!to!vacation.!Hours!worked!casual!can’t!be!used!to!calculate!vacation!as!a!permanent!employee.!Arbitrator!misses!the!point!in!that!it!fails!to!interpret!the!collective!agreement!in!context!of!a!permanent!employee.!Union!argues!that!horrible!reasons!=!no!reasons.!Using!Dunsmuir!to!say!that!no!reasons!=!no!procedural!fairness.!Twelve!pages!rec’d!from!arbitrator,!but!missed!the!point,!so!no!reason.!Union!won!at!trial.!Overturned!on!appeal!–!while!a!more!comprehensive!explanation!would!have!been!preferred!reasons!given!wee!enough!to!satisfy!Dunsmuir!criteria.!!
27!
Issue:!Are!inadequate!reasons!a!violation!of!procedural!fairness?!Held:!No.!In!assessing!whether!the!decision!is!reasonable!in!light!of!the!outcome!and!the!reasons,!courts!must!show!respect!for!the!decisionAmaking!process!of!adjudicative!bodies!with!regard!to!both!the!facts!and!the!law.!This!means!that!courts!should!not!substitute!their!own!reasons,!but!they!may,!if!they!find!it!necessary,!look!to!the!record!for!the!purpose!of!assessing!the!reasonableness!of!the!outcome.!Reasons!may!not!include!all!the!arguments,!statutory!provisions,!jurisprudence!or!other!details!the!reviewing!judge!would!have!preferred,!but!that!does!not!impugn!the!validity!of!either!the!reasons!or!the!result!under!a!reasonableness!analysis.!!Quotes!Dyzenhaus:!“Reasonable!means!here!that!the!reasons!do!in!fact!or!in!principle!support!the!conclusion!reached.!That!is,!even!if!the!reasons!in!fact!given!do!not!seem!wholly!adequate!to!support!the!decision,!the!court!must!first!seek!to!supplement!them!before!it!seeks!to!subvert!them.”!!The!fact!that!there!may!be!an!alternative!interpretation!of!the!agreement!to!that!provided!by!the!arbitrator!does!not!inevitably!lead!to!the!conclusion!that!the!arbitrator’s!decision!should!be!set!aside!if!the!decision!itself!is!in!the!realm!of!reasonable!outcomes.!Court!says!outcome!here!is!reasonable.!Arbitrator!is!going!to!side!one!or!the!other.!Arbitrator!is!to!fill!gaps!of!collective!agreement.!!Outcome!is!more!important!than!the!reasoning.!!Significance:!Court!says!imperfectness!of!reasons!doesn’t!mean!that!there!are!no!reasons.!Essentially!shuts!down!expansions!of!Baker.!Shuts!down!procedural!review!of!adequacy!of!reasons.!Fine!line!btwn!procedure!and!substance!is!drawn!a!little!clearer.!Call!all!the!review!of!reasons!as!substantiveA!reasonable!standard,!substantive!question.!One!of!the!probs!with!this!case!is!that!when!you!compare!to!JW!there!were!reasons!in!second!and!third!application,!but!the!court!found!that!there!were!no!reasons.!But!in!NFLD!the!court!says!that!there!were!reasons!in!light!of!the!imperfectness….!!!Does%the%union%think%that%their%arguments%were%taken%into%acct?!!No.!Not!even!sure!that!arbitrator!is!certain!that!these!ppl!are!permanent!now.!But!is!the!outcome!within!one!of!the!reasonable!outcomesA!obvi,!its!either!yes!or!no.!At!this!stage!though!the!validity,!clarity!of!reasons!is!no!longer!a!raisable!question.!!What%do%we%do%when%the%reasons%are%not%perfect%or%when%something%is%left%out?%%
Courts!answer!is!that!the!court!can!fill!in!the!gap.!!What%is%the%basis%for%the%union%to%argue%that%there%were%no%reasons?!!The!arbitrator!did!not!address!their!arguments.!!Abritrator!looked!at!casual!employees,!did!not!look!at!permanent!employees!–!argue!that!they!didn’t!look!at!the!right!stuff.!!Premise!premise!premise.!Conclusion.!Doesn’t!meet!up.!!If!review!of!reasons!is!a!substantive!matter,!how!do!we!know!when!the!procedural!requirement!of!giving!reasons!has!been!met?!!Interesting!phenomenon!with!reasons!Where!there!is!an!appeal!route!in!statute!A!result!is!less!procedural!fairness!Where!there!is!no!appeal!route!in!the!statute!A!result!is!more!procedural!fairness!The!fact!that!there!is!an!appeal!route!does!not!guarantee!reasons!to!be!given!!!!
Temoins&de&Jehovah&v&St&Jerome&–&Lafontaine&|&Legitimate&Expectations,&Reasons&Facts:!JW!looking!for!place!to!build!temple.!Only!build!in!T3!zones.!Attempt!three!times!with!diff!areas!for!a!rezoning!application!bc!there!is!no!available!T3!land.!End!of!third!attempt!rec!letter!from!council:!“You!have!made!a!number!of!applications!to!amend!the!zoning!byAlaw.!The!Legislature!has!given!the!municipal!council!the!responsibility!for!exercising!this!power,!which!is!discretionary.!Upon!careful!consideration,!the!municipality!of!Lafontaine!has!decided!not!to!take!action!in!respect!of!your!applications.!The!municipal!council!of!Lafontaine!is!
28!
not!required!to!provide!you!with!a!justification!and!we!therefore!have!no!intention!of!giving!reasons!for!the!council’s!decision.”!JW!argue!procedural!flaws!in!procedure.!!Issue:&Was!municipality’s!denial!of!an!application!for!rezoning!was!lawful?!Held:!Five!factors!applied.!1)!Decision!is!administrative!and!policy.!What!is!in!the!public!interest!is!up!for!council!to!decide!however!councilors!cannot!deny!a!rezoning!application!in!an!arbitrary!manner.!!Where!actions!are!arbitrary!–!invites!intervention!or!review!from!courts.!2)!Act!grants!municipality!authority!to!make!rezoning!decisions.!No!appeal!process.!!According!to!Baker!where!the!decision!is!determinative!and!there!is!no!appeal!process!enhanced!procedural!protections!will!be!required.!3)!Finds!that!decision!is!important!to!congregation.!4)!Legitimate!expectation!is!found!based!on!first!rejection!of!application.!Court!chooses!to!break!up!application!and!finds!that!based!on!first!rejection!JW!had!legit!expectation!that!second!and!third!application!would!be!treated!with!similar!process.!Municipality!followed!an!involved!process!in!responding!to!the!Congregation’s!first!rezoning!application,!in!so!doing!giving!rise!to!the!Congregation’s!legitimate!expectation!that!future!applications!would!be!thoroughly!vetted!and!carefully!considered.!!!Applies!Baker!“Where!prior!conduct!creates!for!the!claimant!a!legitimate!expectation!that!certain!procedures!will!be!followed!as!a!matter!of!course,!fairness!may!require!consistency.”!5)!The!court!will!generally!defer!to!expertise!of!decision!making!body!where!applicable.!In!this!instance!the!municipality!did!not!exercise!its!expertise!and!so!this!factor!does!not!carry!much!weight.!(Oh!snap!)!Significance:!Interesting!interpretation!of!reasons.!Somewhat!contrasts!NFLD.!Court!says!that!second!and!third!application!rec’d!no!reasons!when!second!application!did!indeed!rec’d!a!response!stating!“there!is!T3!land!available”!thus!rejecting!a!rezoning!application.!!Fifth!factor!is!interesting!application.!This!is!discussed!but!it!is!quickly!dismissed!under!grounds!that!municipality!did!not!use!its!expertise!in!this!area.!Court!basically!uses!municipality’s!incompetence!as!a!reason!for!not!deferring.!!The!courts!finding!of!a!legit!expectation!in!the!circumstance!is!unusual.!Not!typical.!!Could!have!also!found!that!it!is!a!legislative!body,!making!laws!on!policy!groundsA!no!duty!of!fairness!.!!!Process%v%Substance%
Decision!flaw!–!arbitrary!exercise!of!power,!lack!of!proper!consideration!of!application!Arbitrary!exercise!of!decision!making!authority!(no!reasons)!!Why%is%the%problem%here%procedural?%%
In!Baker!the!problem!was!substantive.!!!What’s%the%diff%btwn%Baker%and%JW?%%
No!reasons!given!at!all!in!JW!–!procedural!!Reasons!were!inappropriate!in!Baker!in!failing!to!consider!certain!factorsA!substantial!In!second!application!the!city!says!that!there!is!land!–!but!the!court!does!not!accept!that!as!reasons/chooses!to!ignore!%
Is%review%of%reasons%a%matter%of%procedural%or%substantial%review?%Where%do%we%draw%the%line%btwn%the%two?%Why%
does%this%matter?%
Higher!standard!of!review!when!you’re!in!procedural!review!–!correctness!standard!Courts!have!more!scope!to!interfere!under!correctness!standard!Also!important!to!understand!what’s!good!procedure!–!are!reasons!intelligible,!can!you!see!what!decision!maker!did!with!info!you!gave!to!them,!were!you!heard!Substantive!review%A!reviewed!on!reasonableness!standard!(Dunsmuir)%Ask!whether!the!reasons!are!justified!A!is!“justification,!transparency!and!intelligibility”!in!the!reasons!more!important!than!reasonableness!of!the!outcome?%(or!vice!versa)!!!Substantive! Procedural!Were&the&right&things&taken&into&acct?&& Were&you&heard?&&
29!
Is&the&decision&arbitrary?&! Are&these&reasons&adequate?&Is&there&grounds&for&review?&&!
Were!you!heard/were!the!right!things!taken!into!acctAAA!blurry!line!!!Why%is%the%problem%here%procedural?%%
In!Baker!the!problem!was!substantive.!!!What’s%the%diff%btwn%Baker%and%JW?%%
No!reasons!given!at!all!in!JW!–!procedural!!Reasons!were!inappropriate!in!Baker!in!failing!to!consider!certain!factorsA!substantial!!In!second!application!the!city!says!that!there!is!land!–!but!the!court!does!not!accept!that!as!reasons/chooses!to!ignore!!!Is!review!of!reasons!a!matter!of!procedural!or!substantial!review?!Where!do!we!draw!the!line!btwn!the!two?!!Why!does!this!matter?!Higher!standard!of!review!when!you’re!in!procedural!review!–!correctness!standard!Courts!have!more!scope!to!interfere!under!correctness!standard!Also!important!to!understand!what’s!good!procedure!–!are!reasons!intelligible,!can!you!see!what!decision!maker!did!with!info!you!gave!to!them,!were!you!heard!!!Substantive!review!Reviewed!on!reasonableness!standard!(Dunsmuir)!Ask!whether!the!reasons!are!justified!!is!“justification,!transparency!and!intelligibility”!in!the!reasons!more!important!than!reasonableness!of!the!outcome?%(or!vice!versa)!!!Dunsmuir!Justification/transparency/intelligibility!within!the!decision!making!process!Started!with!the!idea!that!we!want!justification!–!procedural!requirement!for!justification,!and!substantive!review!for!reasonable!outcome,!is!the!decision!within!the!range!of!what!we’d!call!reasonableAA!Is!there!logic!that!we!can!follow!“A!court!conducting!a!review!for!reasonableness!inquires!into!the!qualities!that!make!a!decision!reasonable,!referring!both!to!the!process!of!articulating!the!reasons!and!to!outcomes.&…[R]easonableness&is&concerned&mostly&with&the&existence&of&justification,&transparency&and&intelligibility&within&the&decision\making&process.!But!it!is!also!concerned!with!whether!the!decision!falls!within!a!range!of!possible,!acceptable!outcomes!which!are!defensible!in!respect!of!the!facts!and!the!law.”!(at!para!40)!!Before!Nfld!There!were!a!number!of!lower!court!decisions!that!showed!diff!ways!to!approach!sub/prov!review!of!reasons!!Nfld%&%Labrador%Nurses%Union!–!Nfld!CA!rejected!the!distinction!between!procedural!review!&!
30!
substantive!review!of!the!adequacy!of!reasons:!–“a!failure!to!give!reasons,!or!inadequate!reasons,!would!be!decisive!in!the!reasonableness!assessment.!A!complete!lack!of!or!inadequate!reasons!could!not!be!said!to!provide!the!justification,!transparency!and!intelligibility!in!the!decisionAmaking!process!required!to!satisfy!reasonableness!under!the!Dunsmuir!analysis”!(at!para!12)!%
Were%the%right%things%taken%into%acct?%%Is%the%decision%arbirtrary?%Substantive%Versus%
%
Clifford%v%Ontario%Municipal%Employees%Retirement%System,!2009!ONCA!670!A!Preserved!procedural!review!as!distinct!from!substantive!review:!–Procedural!review!proceeds!“from!a!functional!perspective!to!see!if!the!basis!for!the!decision!is!intelligible”!and!that!“reasons!must!be!sufficient!to!fulfill!the!purposes!required!of!them”!(at!paras!29,!31)%Were&you&heard?&&Are&these&reasons&adequate?&Is&there&grounds&for&review?&Procedural&&&Can!this!above!question!not!be!asked!in!the!context!of!substantive!review?!Can!you!not!appeal!something!on!substantive!issue?!!Were!you!heard/were!the!right!things!taken!into!acctAAA!blurry!line!!Would!the!reasons!given!in!the!second!decision!given!by!the!town!to!JW!!enough!to!meet!the!standard!of!procedural!review?!!Are!these!adequate!reasons?!!Problem!nurses!says!–!doesn’t!even!matter!what!is!said,!it!is!a!matter!that!they!were!given!Apply!this!to!Baker!–!was!there!reasons?!Arguably!yes!using!NFLD.!Had!immigration!officers!notes.!Why!did!JW!go!to!SCC?!Arguably!the!third!response!to!application!was!an!open!invitation!to!go!to!SCC.!!!
Constitutional&Sources&of&Procedural&Rights&Quasi&Constitutional&Sources&of&Procedural&Rights&Bill&of&Rights&s.1!!It!is!hereby!recognized!and!declared!that!in!Canada!there!have!existed!and!shall!continue!to!exist!without!discrimination!by!reason!of!race,!national!origin,!colour,!religion!or!sex,!the!following!human!rights!and!fundamental!freedoms,!namely!!! (a)!The!right!of!the!individual!to!life,!liberty,!security!of!the!person!and!enjoyment!of!property,!and!the!right!not!to!be!deprived!thereof!except!by!due!process!of!law.!2.!Every!law!in!Canada!shall,!unless!it!is!expressly!declared!by!an!Act!of!the!Parliament!of!Canada!that!is!shall!operate!notwithstanding!the!Canadian!Bill!of!Rights,!be!so!construed!and!applied!as!not!to!abrogate!or!infringe!or!to!authorize!the!abrogation,!abridgment!or!infringement!of!any!of!the!rights!or!freedoms!herein!recognized!and!declared,!and!in!particular,!no!law!of!Canada!shall!be!construed!and!applied!so!as!to!!! (e)!deprive!a!person!of!the!right!to!a!fair!hearing!in!accordance!with!the!principles!of!fundamental!justice!for!the!determination!of!his!rights!and!obligations.!How&is&this&diff&from&the&common&law?&When&do&we&have&a&duty&of&fairness?&Common!law!–!when!decisions!affect!rights!interests!priveledges…!
31!
Idea!is!basically!the!same,!diff!language!Idea!of!fundamental!justice!–!relates!closely!to!CL!provision!of!procedural!fairness!Scope&of&Bill&of&Rights&- Is!only!“quasiAconstitutional”!–!a!halfway!house!btwn!common!law!and!constitutional!protections!(Note!s.!
2(e)!language)!- But!can!invalidate!legislation!if!not!expressly!precluded!- Only!applies!in!the!federal!domain;!no!application!to!provincial!administrative!agencies!!Trigger/Thresholds:!S!1(a)!A!includes!enjoyment!of!property!!2(e)!–!rights!and!freedoms!as!protected!by!the!Bill;!broader!that!“life,!liberty!&!security!of!person”!!BROADER!than!Charter!s!7!!!
Authorson&v&Canada&(AG)&SCC&|&&Facts:!Parliament!passed!legislation!retrospectively!limiting!the!amount!of!money!owed!to!disabled!war!veterans—decades!of!interest!on!pension!and!benefit!funds—to!whom!the!Crown!owed!fiduciary!duties.!The!law!affected!thousands!of!veterans,!none!of!whom!was!given!notice!of!the!proposed!change!to!the!law.!In!class!action!proceedings,!Authorson!argued!that!the!legislation!infringed!the!right!not!to!be!deprived!of!the!enjoyment!of!property!except!by!due!process!of!law!under!the!Canadian!Bill!of!Rights!(s.!1(a)),!as!well!as!the!right!to!a!fair!hearing!in!accordance!with!the!principles!of!fundamental!justice!for!the!determination!of!one’s!rights!and!obligations!(s.!2(e)).!Succeeded!at!trial!and!ONCA.!!Issue:!Does!Bill!of!Rights!require!due!process!re:!passing!legislation?!!!Held:!SCC!rejected!the!notion!that!the!Bill!of!Rights!establishes!due!process!with!regards!to!passing!legislation.!Reiterated!that!the!CL!also!did!not!help!the!situation.!!Significance:!Bill!of!Rights!is!not!constitutional!so!it!can’t!prevent!the!offending!act!from!going!thru.!Does!not!displace!statute.!Legislature!is!immune.!Bill!of!Rights!is!above!other!statutes!but!can’t!restrict!legislature!from!legislating!in!a!manner!that!is!not!in!accordance!with!Bill!of!Rights.!!Bill!of!rights!only!applies!to!federal!jurisdiction.!!
&Constitutional&Sources&&of&Rights&&Individual!- Charter!7!- Unwritten!const!principles!–!judicial!independence!- Charter!sec!8A14!Collective!- Constitution!s!35(1)!+!Honour!of!the!Crown!- Charter!2(d)!limited!protection!of!collective!bargaining!- Language!rights!(?!Arguable)!found!in!public!law!in!NB!and!QC!!
Charter&Section&7&Every!one!has!the!right!to!life,!liberty!and!security!of!the!person!and!the!right!not!to!be!deprived!thereof!except!in!accordance!with!the!principles!of!fundamental!justice.!(subject!to!s.!1!justification)!Not!just!limited!to!criminal!law!–!although!this!is!a!common!arena!for!the!issue!to!be!raised!!!
32!
Charter&7&Frame&of&Analysis&1. Has!an!interest!in!one!or!more!of!life,!liberty!or!security!of!person!been!engaged?!Has!there!been!a!
deprivation!of!life,!liberty!or!security!of!person!as!a!result!of!state!action?!2. Has!this!deprivation!occurred!in!accordance!with!fundamental!justice?!
a)!Fundamental!justice!as!a!due!process:!- Related!to!natural!justice!and!duty!of!fairness!
b)!Fundamental!justice!as!“substantive”!due!process:!- Some!recognized!principles:!!Arbitrariness,!gross!disproportionality,!overbreadth!
!
Section&7&Types&of&Hearing&Rights&When!section!7!is!triggered!- Disclosure,!right!to!reply,!ex!parte!hearings/xAexam!(national!security!context!cases!–!Charkaoui,!Suresh)!- Reasons!–!Suresh!(application!of!Nfld!&!Labrador!Nurses!in!Charter!context?)!- Right!to!counsel!–!G(J)!–!interest!at!stake!was!security!of!person!in!light!of!forced!separation!from!children,!
this!interest!was!sufficiently!strong!to!say!that!to!deprive!them!of!their!children!requires!the!state!to!provide!counsel!!
- Protection!against!‘undue!delay’!A!Blencoe!!
Section&7&Security&of&person&threshold&Morgentaler!–!includes!psychological!stress!and!physical!integrity!Rodriguez!–!includes!personal!autonomy!G(J)!–!Impact!of!state!must!be!serious!and!profound!!!
Common&Law&vs&Section&7&! Common!Law! Section!7!Threshold! Non!legislative!decisions!that!impact!‘rights,!
interests!and!privileges’!(Cardinal)!Government!actions!within!sec!32!that!meet!sect!7!tests!for!deprivations!of!life,!liberty!and!security!of!person!!
Relationship!to!Legislation!
Where!legislation!does!not!define!the!process!–!Common!Law!fills!gap!Where!legislation!clearly!defines!and!excludes!further!procedures!–!legislation!is!final!!
Where!legislation!does!not!define!or!limit!procedures!–!Section!7!fills!gap!!Where!legislation!clearly!defines!and!excludes!further!procedures!–!Section!7!can!invalidate!legislation!
Content! Defined!by!requirements!of!procedural!fairness,!via!Baker!analysis!
Defined!by!requirements!of!fundamental!justice!via!Baker!analysis!!
Sec!7!can!apply!to!gaps,!and!can!apply!to!invalidate!legislation!–!charkaouiA!sec!7!trumps!suresh!–!sec!7!fills!in!gap!!D!of!F!is!measured!against!natural!justice!(Nicholson)!!DoF!is!something!less!than!natural!justice,!that!less!depends!on!context!(Nicholson)!Seem!somewhat!counter!intuitive!in!a!legal!tradition!to!start!with!Common!Law!(bottom!of!hierarchy)!–!duty!of!fairness!and!then!maybe!move!up!into!more!Sometimes!s7!can!offer!more!protection!than!common!law!–!what!instance!is!this?!!
33!
The!real!difference!is!in!the!remedy!where!it!relates!to!legislation!–!common!law!is!a!gap!filler,!but!where!legislation!is!clear!the!common!law!DoF!is!displaced,!that!is!diff!under!sec!7,!if!legislation!is!not!enough!we!can!see!laws!invalidated!(Signh!–!refugee!claims,!CHarkaoui!–!security!certificate!regime,!not!in!complience!with!FJ)!IN!that!sense!section!7!can!do!more!than!common!law!!Becomes!even!more!problematic!with!duty!of!consult!!Do!I!see!more!in!attaching!section!7!than!I!get!from!common!law?!!Did!the!end!result!the!content!of!FJ!seem!like!it!was!more!than!what!the!common!law!would!offer.!!Analysis!is!def!contextual.!!Can!have!section!7!and!DoF!in!same!case!!!Section!7!constitutionalizes!fundamental!justice,!does!not!constitutionalize!procedural!fairness.!Clear!distinction.!Procedural!fairness!informs!fundamental!justice.!FJ!is!capable!of!saying!in!this!context!this!is!your!right,!DtC!is!not!capable!of!saying!that!nor!does!Procedural!fairness.!!Role!of!DtC!in!terms!of!trumping!legislation!remains!to!be!seen!!Do!I!think!that!DtC!should!have!same!effect!as!s7?!!!Blencoe&v.&British&Columbia&(Human&Rights&Commission)[2000]&2&S.C.R.&307|&Facts:!Blencoe!serving!as!minister!of!BC.!One!of!his!assistants!called!him!out!for!sexual!harassment.!March!95!he!was!kicked!out!of!cabinet!and!dismissed!from!NDP!caucus.!Two!other!women!come!forward!and!file!complaints!of!sexual!harassment.!Blencoe!received!notice!about!the!first!complaint!in!July!95,!the!second!complaint!in!Sept!95.!His!hearing!wasn’t!until!March!98!–!30!months!after!original!complaint!filed.!Incident!rec’d!major!media!coverage.!Caused!depression.!Security!of!person!is!raised!–!psychological!effects.!Next!election!wasn’t!until!1996.!Claiming!that!incident!has!made!him!unemployable!–!filed!for!judicial!review!in!November!97!in!petition!to!BCSC.!BCSC!dismissed!petition.!BCCA!allowed!appeal!and!directed!that!Human!Rights!proceedings!against!him!be!stayed.!Found!that!rights!under!sec!7!was!deprived.!Not!in!accordance!with!principles!of!fundamental!justice.!Section!32!is!raised!as!a!prelim!issue!as!to!whether!adjudication!is!subject!to!the!charter!(Dolphin!Delivery).!&Ratio&Issue:&!Does!charter!apply!to!HR!Commission?!Has!the!delay!by!the!state!resulted!in!a!violation!of!sec!7?!Is!Blencoe!entitled!to!a!remedy!in!admin!law?!If!yes!was!the!stay!of!proceedings!sufficient?!!If!Blencoe!entitled!to!a!remedy!pursuant!to!principles!of!administrative!law?!Held:&Delay!really!isn’t!that!inordinate.&Not!so!bad!as!to!trigger!section!7!although!the!possibility!remains!open!for!other!cases.!Moves!to!admin!law.!Now!must!consider!if!there!was!procedural!!Applicability!of!Section!32!of!Charter:&Section!32!is!applied!in!the!sense!that!it!is!a!government!body!acting.!The!charter!needs!to!apply!to!government!agencies.!To!not!apply!it!would!allow!the!legislature!to!escape!its!charter!responsibilities!by!simply!making!a!body!to!handle!a!specific!matter.!Yes!the!charter!applies.!“Action!taken!under!statutory!authority!is!valid!only!if!it!is!within!the!scope!of!that!authority.!Since!neither!Parliament!nor!a!Legislature!can!itself!pass!a!law!in!breach!of!the!Charter,!neither!body!can!authorize!action!which!would!be!in!breach!of!the!Charter.”!(Eldgridge)!!Applicability!of!charter:!The!Charter!applies!to!the!actions!of!the!British!Columbia!Human!Rights!Commission.!!The!Commission!is!created!by!statute!and!all!of!its!actions!are!taken!pursuant!to!statutory!authority.!!Bodies!exercising!statutory!authority!are!bound!by!the!Charter!even!though!they!may!be!independent!of!government.!!The!Commission!in!this!case!is!both!implementing!a!specific!government!program!and!exercising!powers!of!statutory!compulsion.!!Further,!the!Commission!cannot!escape!Charter!scrutiny!merely!because!it!exercises!judicial!functions.!!The!ultimate!source!of!authority!is!government.!!!Section!7:!!Section!7!can!extend!beyond!the!sphere!of!criminal!law,!at!least!where!there!is!"state!action!which!directly!engages!the!justice!system!and!its!administration"!(G(J))!To!trigger!sec!7!there!must!first!be!a!finding!that!there!has!been!a!deprivation!of!the!right!to!life,!liberty!and!security!of!the!person!and,!secondly,!that!the!
34!
deprivation!is!contrary!to!the!principles!of!fundamental!justice.!The!liberty!interest!protected!by!s.!7!is!no!longer!restricted!to!mere!freedom!from!physical!restraint.!!Includes!important,!fundamental!life!choices!and!personal!autonomy.!!Ppl!should!be!able!to!make!decisions!without!state!intervention.!However!the!state!has!not!prevented!Blencoe!from!making!any!“fundamental!personal!choices”.!Therefore,!the!interests!sought!to!be!protected!in!this!case!do!not!fall!within!the!“liberty”!interest!protected!by!s.!7.!!!Section!7!also!covers!psychological!integrity!of!a!person.!However!for!this!to!apply!the!harm!to!the!claimant!must!be!but!for!state!action.!Section!7!does!not!include!a!right!to!general!dignity!or!to!be!free!from!stigma.!“To!summarize,!the!stress,!stigma!and!anxiety!suffered!by!the!respondent!did!not!deprive!him!of!his!right!to!liberty!or!security!of!the!person.!The!framers!of!the!Charter!chose!to!employ!the!words,!"life,!liberty!and!security!of!the!person",!thus!limiting!s.!7!rights!to!these!three!interests.!While!notions!of!dignity!and!reputation!underlie!many!Charter!rights,!they!are!not!standAalone!rights!that!trigger!s.!7!in!and!of!themselves.”!!Remedy!in!Admin!Law:!Court!concluded!that!the!respondent!is!not!entitled!to!a!remedy!under!the!Charter!but!still!addresses!the!issue!of!whether!the!respondent!is!entitled!to!a!remedy!under!principles!of!administrative!law.!A!delay!in!hearings!without!more!is!not!enough!to!warrant!a!stay!of!proceedings.!To!effect!such!a!policy!would!put!unreasonable!restraints!on!administrative!system!and!judiciary!in!general.!For!there!to!be!a!remedy,!the!delay!must!impair!the!hearing.!“Where!delay!impairs!a!party's!ability!to!answer!the!complaint!against!him!or!her,!because,!for!example,!memories!have!faded,!essential!witnesses!have!died!or!are!unavailable,!or!evidence!has!been!lost,!then!administrative!delay!may!be!invoked!to!impugn!the!validity!of!the!administrative!proceedings!and!provide!a!remedy”!Court!does!not!find!that!the!right!has!been!jeopardized!by!the!delay.!!Dissent:!The!parties!have!fought!this!case!mainly!on!Charter!issues.!In!the!end,!this!approach!turned!into!a!constitutional!problem,!something!that!it!was!not.!HR!Commissions!are!an!admin!law!creation,!the!first!response!should!have!been!to!look!for!solution!in!realm!of!admin!law.!If!this!was!done!the!judge!would!have!found!that!this!delay!was!abusive,!and!that!some!form!of!remedy!should!have!been!granted!to!Blencoe.!The!complainants!against!Blencoe!also!had!a!right!to!have!their!matter!adequately!reviewed.!Abusive!administrative!delay!is!wrong!and!it!does!not!matter!if!it!wrecks!only!your!life!and!not!your!hearing.!Considers!length!of!delay,!cause!of!delay,!impact!of!delay.!Assuming!that!the!Charter!must!solve!every!legal!problem!would!be!a!recipe!for!freezing!and!sterilizing!the!natural!and!necessary!evolution!of!the!common!law!and!of!the!civil!law!in!this!country.!!Significance:!Overall!if!the!court!had!found!that!there!was!a!delay—would!cause!friction!in!the!machinery!of!government.!!Inordinate!and!undue!delay!could!trigger!s!7.!Where!s.!7!claim!fails,!there!may!still!be!a!breach!of!the!duty!of!fairness!at!common!law.!Undue!delay!may!be!a!breach!of!fairness!in!2!distinct!ways!(at!common!law)!1)!By!causing!prejudice!to!hearing!rights!2)!By!causing!the!administration!of!justice!to!fall!into!disrepute!(abuse!of!process,!unfair!process)!&Charter&of&Rights,&Section&32&32.!(1)!This!Charter!applies!(a)!to!the!Parliament!and!government!of!Canada!in!respect!of!all!matters!within!the!authority!of!Parliament!including!all!matters!relating!to!the!Yukon!Territory!and!Northwest!Territories;!and!(b)!to!the!legislature!and!government!of!each!province!in!respect!of!all!matters!within!the!authority!of!the!legislature!of!each!province.!!National&Security&Context&- Security!certificate!process!has!changed!over!time!- Security!certs!are!a!way!of!the!state!acting!quickly!to!detain!someone.!Deportation!is!a!long!process!and!so!
these!certificates!are!often!used!to!segway!that!process.!- Deportation!needs!to!have!a!careful!procedural!process.!!- Baker!was!not!a!certificate!issueA!not!threatening!- Security!certs!have!taken!on!a!new!form!in!post!9/11!word!
35!
- Often!raise!question!of!rule!of!law!into!the!area!of!national!security?!- Does!rule!of!law!govern!these!processes?!How!much!will!the!courts!tolerate?!!!Suresh&v.&Canada&(Minister&of&Citizenship&and&Immigration)&[2002]&1&S.C.R.&3,&2002&SCC&1&|&Section&7&+&PF&Facts:!Suresh!from!Sri!Lanka.!Comes!to!Canada!1990.!Recognized!as!refugee!1991.!Applies!for!landed!immigrant!status.!1995!detained!for!association!with!Tamil!Tigers.!Labeled!terrorist!organization.!These!organization!have!different!arms.!Diff!methodologies.!Suresh!claims!refugee!status.!Detained!on!security!cert.!Issue!rises!as!to!whether!or!not!Suresh!is!danger.!If!he!is!returned!to!Sri!Lanka!however!there!is!a!good!risk!of!torture!to!him.!Deportation!provisions!end!up!not!having!a!lot!of!process!around!them.!Creates!gap!zone.!Statute!hasn’t!dictated!ultimate!process.!&Ratio!Issue:&Are!procedures!set!out!in!Immigration!Act!constitutionally!valid?!!Held:!Deportation!to!torture!may!deprive!a!refugee!of!the!right!to!liberty!security!and!perhaps!life!protected!by!s.!7!of!the!Charter.!Section!7!applies!to!torture!inflicted!abroad!if!there!is!a!sufficient!causal!connection!with!Canadian!government!acts.!The!principles!of!fundamental!justice!of!which!s.!7!speaks,!though!not!identical!to!the!duty!of!fairness!elucidated!in!Baker,!are!the!same!principles!underlying!that!duty.!Hogg:!The!common!law!rules![of!procedural!fairness]!are!in!fact!basic!tenets!of!the!legal!system,!and!they!have!evolved!in!response!to!the!same!values!and!objectives!as!s.!7.!!Applies!Baker.!1)!Decision!is!similar!to!judicial!proceedings!and!requires!discretion!on!part!of!decision!maker.!2)!According!to!statute!decision!is!determinitive!and!no!appeal!process!3)!Importance!is!two!fold,!desire!to!stay!in!Canada!and!desire!to!avoid!torture.!UN!Convention!Against!Torture!explicitly!prohibits!the!deportation!of!persons!to!states!where!there!are!“substantial!grounds”!for!believing!that!the!person!would!be!“in!danger!of!being!subjected!to!torture”.!This!informs!s.!7!of!the!Charter.!Given!Canada’s!commitment!to!the!CAT,!we!find!that!the!appellant!had!the!right!to!procedural!safeguards!4)!Doesn’t!talk!about!legitimate!expectations!AAA?!5)!Need!for!deference!must!be!reconciled!with!the!elevated!level!of!procedural!protections!required!the!serious!situation!of!refugees!A!who!if!deported!may!face!torture!and!violations!of!human!rights!in!which!Canada!can!neither!constitutionally,!nor!under!its!international!treaty!obligations,!be!complicit.!Procedural!protections!required!by!s.!7!don’t!go!as!far!to!required!Minister!to!conduct!a!full!oral!hearing!but!requires!more!than!the!procedure!put!forth!in!the!Act!(which!is!none).!!Special!treatment!for!ppl!facing!torture:!!A!person!facing!torture!should!1)!be!informed!of!the!case!to!be!met!with!accommodation!for!safeguarding!confidential!documents!2)!FJ!requires!that!an!opp!be!provided!to!respond!to!the!case!(in!this!situation!Suresh!had!no!clue!about!what!type!of!factors!he!should!be!addressing)!3)!be!given!an!opp!to!challenge!info!4)!present!evidence.!!Minister!should!provide!reasons!that!articulate!and!rationally!sustain!their!decision.!!!Significance:!Entire!case!rides!on!third!Baker!factor!importance!of!right!affected.!!Completely!takes!over!reasoning.!!Nature%of%decision–%para%16%Judicial%and%discretionary.%How%is%this%found?%How%can%an%admin%body%be%judicial?%%
Similar!to!criminal!context,!person!can!be!detained!and!then!kicked!out.!!Implication!of!danger!is!serious.!!!Normally!we!look!at!nature!of!decision!by!who!is!applying!the!decision!and!what!the!process!is!as!defined!by!statute.!!The!procedure!is!not!set!out!in!statute…!puts!decision!making!in!Minister.!!To!characterize!it!as!judicial!is!very!counter!to!other!principles!of!admin!law.!!This!is!a!rogue!case!to!some!extent.!!Second!factor!of!Baker!–!place!of!decision!in!statutory!scheme.!!
36!
See!all!these!procedural!protections!else!where!but!in!section!taking!same!facts!that!suggest!less!procedure!–!opposite!direction.!!!Para%126%talks%about%reasons.%Compare%to%Nurses%union%(came%after%Suresh)%Is%this%case%a%case%that%shows%that%
section%7%gives%us%more%than%Common%Law?%%
Baker!analysis!looks!a!little!diff!in!SureshA!evolution!of!reasons!from!Nfld!Nurses!!!Singh!v.!Minister!of!Employment!and!Immigration!–!made!oral!hearings!a!central!component!of!refugee!matters!!Certificate&Regime&Before&Charakaoui&- acting!on!info!from!CSIS,!RCMP,!Ministers!of!Immigration!and!Public!Safety!sign!certificate!declaring!person!
“inadmissible”!on!security!grounds!(suspected!involvement!in!terrorism,!or!simply!being!“a!danger!to!the!security!of!Canada”![s.34]).!
- certificate!acts!as!warrant!for!arrest!and!detention!pending!deportation.!- can!be!reviewed!in!Federal!Court!within!48!hours!for!permanent!resident,!or!120!days!for!foreigners.!- detainee!provided!only!a!very!brief!summary!of!allegations!(“of!the!most!general!sort”).!- court!can!admit!a!wide!range!of!info,!hearsay,!etc.,!with!part!of!or!all!of!hearing!in!camera!and!ex!parte!–!no!
ability!to!challenge!person!giving!info,!don’t!even!have!individuals!responsible!for!decision!present!and!there!are!extreme!consequences!for!individual!subject!to!decision!!!
!Charkaoui&v.&Canada&(Citizenship&and&Immigration)2007&SCC&9&|&Section&7&+&Procedural&Fairness&Facts:!Both!the!Federal!Court!and!the!Federal!Court!of!Appeal!upheld!the!constitutional!validity!of!the!Immigration!and!Refugee!Protection!Act!(IRPA)!certificate!scheme.!Certificate!scheme!is!extremely!confidential.!Allows!for!deportation!on!the!basis!of!confidential!information!that!is!not!disclosed!to!the!person!named!or!anyone!acting!on!that!person’s!behalf.!A!certificate!is!issued,!approved!at!Federal!Court!then!a!warrant!is!issued!and!the!person!is!automatically!detained.!If!you!are!a!permanent!resident!your!case!is!reviewed!within!48!hours.!If!you!are!a!foreign!national!you!must!apply!for!review!120!days!after!Federal!Court’s!approval.!Charkaoui!is!a!permanent!resident!the!others!are!foreign!national.!All!were!living!in!Canada!when!they!were!arrested!and!detained!on!the!basis!of!allegations!that!they!constituted!a!threat!to!the!security!of!Canada!by!reason!of!involvement!in!terrorist!activities.!!All!had!lengthy!detentions.!C!and!H!were!released!on!conditions!in!2005!and!2006!respectively,!but!A!remains!in!detention.!!&Issue:!Does!the!IRPA!violate!sec!7?!!Held:&Inconsistent!with!Charter.!Finds!that!IRPA!unjustifiably!violates!sec!7!of!Charter!by!allowing!the!issuance!of!a!certificate!of!inadmissibility!based!on!secret!material!without!allowing!for!an!independent!agent!to!better!protect!the!person’s!interests!at!the!JR!stage.!!Frame!of!Analysis:!Sec!7!does!not!require!a!particular!process!but!requires!a!fair!process!in!regard!to!the!context!of!the!situation.!The!procedural!requirements!that!will!meet!sec!7!are!contextual.!Societal!interest!may!be!taken!into!acct!in!establishing!the!principals!of!FJ.!Unlike!sec!1,!sec!7!is!not!concerned!with!whether!a!limit!on!life,!liberty!or!security!of!the!person!is!justified,!but!with!whether!the!limit!has!been!imposed!in!a!way!that!respects!the!principles!of!fundamental!justice.!Therefore!sec!7!analysis!doesn’t!seek!to!strike!a!balance!in!the!same!way!that!sec!1!does.!The!question!at!the!s.!7!stage!is!whether!the!principles!of!fundamental!justice!relevant!to!the!case!have!been!observed!in!substance,!having!regard!to!the!context!and!the!seriousness!of!the!violation.!“The!issue!is!whether!the!process!is!fundamentally!unfair!to!the!affected!person.!If!so,!the!deprivation!of!life,!liberty!or!security!of!the!person!simply!does!not!conform!to!the!requirements!of!s.!7.!The!inquiry!then!shifts!to!s.!1!of!the!Charter,!at!which!point!the!government!has!an!opportunity!to!establish!that!the!flawed!process!is!nevertheless!justified!having!regard,!notably,!to!the!public!interest.”!(In!other!words!the!issue!isn’t!whether!a!balance!has!been!
37!
met!btwn!individual!liberty!and!national!security!–!that!is!a!sec!1!application.!The!question!is!!whether!the!basic!requirements!of!!procedural!justice!have!been!met)!Sec!7!+!Fundamental!justice:!!FJ!comprises!of!a!right!to!a!hearing!before!an!independent!and!impartial!magistrate,!where!the!decision!is!based!on!the!facts!and!the!law!and!the!person!charged!knows!the!case!against!him!and!has!opportunity!to!answer!to!that!case.!For!sec!7!to!be!met!these!principles!must!be!met!in!substance.!!While!the!IRPA!includes!a!hearing,!the!statute!fails!to!meet!all!the!other!criteria!required.!The!IRPA!system!is!adversarial!and!the!judge!does!not!possess!the!power!to!collect!evidence.!At!the!same!time!the!named!person!does!not!have!opportunity!to!answer!to!the!charges!against!him.!The!result!is!that!a!judge!is!often!making!a!decision!based!on!only!part!of!the!full!evidence.!No!ability!for!the!named!person!to!challenge!evidence!!Sec!1!Analysis:!The!test!to!be!applied!in!determining!whether!a!violation!can!be!justified!under!s.!1,!known!as!the!Oakes!test!requires!a!pressing!and!substantial!objective!+!proportional!means.!A!finding!of!proportionality!requires:!(a)!means!rationally!connected!to!the!objective;!(b)!minimal!impairment!of!rights;!and!(c)!proportionality!between!the!effects!of!the!infringement!and!the!importance!of!the!objective.!IRPA’s!procedures!cannot!be!justified!as!minimal!impairments!of!the!individual’s!right!to!a!judicial!determination!on!the!facts!and!the!law!and!right!to!know!and!meet!the!case.!!Significance:&Section!7!applies!to!anyone!in!Canada!regardless!of!citizen!ship.!Demonstrates!tension!btwn!national!security!and!constitutionalism.!Don’t!see!full!baker!analysis!in!Suresh.!See!security!of!person.!The!court!has!signaled!in!para!22!–!having!regard!to!content!and!seriousness!of!violation!–!factor!three!comes!in!twice!almost.!Concern!that!the!impact!on!the!individual!is!very!high.!See!same!dynamic!in!Suresh!–!third!factor!matters!even!more!in!context!of!sec!!analysis!in!terms!of!what!FJ!will!require.!Maybe!we!can!argue!that!baker!is!slightly!modified!btwn!Suresh!and!CHarkaoui.!Can’t!just!take!Chark!and!apply!to!social!welfare!context!–!this!is!a!special!context.!Leaves!out!question!of!whether!special!advocates!will!satisfy!fundamental!justice…!Special!advocate!can!share!some!stuff!with!the!named!person!who!can’t!be!in!court.!Still!not!full!disclosure.!A!second!Charkaoui!case!arose!in!2008—court!prescribes!special!advocates!and!uses!them.!Includes!a!provision!stating!that!the!prohibition!in!section!269.1!of!Criminal!Code!on!the!use!of!evidence!obtained!by!torture!or!‘inhuman!or!degrading!treatment’!also!applies!to!security!certificate!hearings.!!!Harkat!v!Canada!(Citizenship!and!Immigration),!!- New!regime!does!not!violate!s.!7!(special!advocates!satisfy!requirements!of!fundamental!justice).!- Trial!judge!also!found,!the!scheme!survives!s.!1!analysis!!- CA!found!that!there!was!a!violation!–!sec!1!analysis!was!unnecessary!- Case!heard!at!SCC!on!Oct!11.A!Destruction!of!evidence!–!doesn’t!change!regime!but!violates!FJ!AA!answer!forth!
coming,!re!section!7,!special!advocate!rule!etc.!!Will!supreme!court!uphold!special!advocate!system!under!sec!1!or!sec!7?!!!
Constitutional&Duty&to&Consult&and&Accommodate&&- Associated!with!sec!35!rights!- Accommodate!–!suggests!substantive!tone,!but!mostly!see!it!play!out!as!procedural!obligation!- Have!court!mostly!avoiding!substantive!duty!to!consult!and!obligate!–!treating!it!like!a!procedural!obligation!- This!duty!puts!us!in!the!regulatory!end!–!tends!to!look!lighter,!that’s!bc!A!rights!and!whole!process!is!one!of!
balancing!and!compromise,!justifying!infringement!of!rights!before!DtC!can!accommodate!- This!group!of!ppl!have!constitutional!right!–!may!be!able!to!prove!rights,!those!rights!play!out!often!set!up!to!
be!in!opposition!to!societal!interests!–!not!nec!something!that!is!right!!- Even!though!Enbridge!process!has!lots!of!non!aboriginal!groups!–!we!will!still!see!that!impact,!aboriginal!
concerns!opposing!public!interest!in!expanding!project,!puts!us!in!balancing!right!off!the!top!- Procedural!obligation!that!comes!with!potential!of!substantial!obligation!for!accommodation!!A!not!
developed!in!law!however!
38!
- New!procedural!obligation!was!exciting!to!ppl!in!admin!law!bc!there!is!this!idea!of!consultation!–!hearing!rights!don’t!go!quite!far!with!participatory!consult!rights!
- Like!procedural!fairness!DtC!does!not!result!in!a!particular!result!!- Can!fix!consulation!process!and!arise!at!same!result!and!that!will!be!adequate!consultation!at!a!different!
moment!!
Is&there&a&Duty&to&Consult?&From!Rio!Tinto!Alcan!
1. The!Crown!has!real!or!constructive!knowledge!of!the!potential!existence!of!an!aboriginal!right!2. The!Crown!contemplates!conduct!!
What!is!the!content!of!the!duty?!Has!that!duty!been!met?!“the!scope!of!the!duty!is!proportionate!to!a!preliminary!assessment!of!the!strength!of!the!case!supporting!the!existence!of!the!right!or!title,!and!to!the!seriousness!of!the!potentially!adverse!effect!upon!the!right!or!title!claimed.”!(Haida,!para!39)!
3. With!potential!adverse!affects!on!the!(potential)!aboriginal!right!Trigger!element!is!divided!into!three!steps!!What!do!we!mean!by!crown!conduct!–!making!changes!to!legislation,!issuing!licenses!or!permit,!generally!associated!with!resource!activity!!!Content!of!duty!to!consult!is!in!context!of!Enbridge!to!go!around!Haida!(Island!on!coast)?!- High!duty?!!- Could!argue!both!ways!depending!on!how!you!view!impact!- Depends!on!how!they!also!understand!the!right!–!if!there!are!more!people!on!the!land!impact!on!wildlife,!risk!
of!spill,!!- Can!you!extend!title!over!water!rights?!Likely!no!–!shore!ownership,!but!have!to!show!title!claim!to!shore,!
more!contentious!than!shores!!!
Duty&to&Consult&+&Types&of&Legislative&Decisions&&1. As!passed!by!legislative!assemblies,!in!accordance!with!constitutional!“manner!&!form”!requirements!- No!duty!of!fairness!!- No!duty!to!consult!!
o because!the!duty!is!owed!by!the!Crown!not!the!legislature?!…!!o But!aboriginal!rights!constrain!legislative!decisionAmaking!and!breaches!can!invalidate!legislation.!!o Legislature!doesn’t!have!to!consult!but!has!to!take!into!account!the!duty!to!consult!o And!maybe!inadequate!allowance!for!consultation!in!a!legislative!scheme!can!invalidate!legislation,!
like!s.!7!(Singh)!“Statutory!regimes!that!do!not!allow!for!consultation!and!fail!to!provide!any!other!equally!effective!means!to!acknowledge!and!accommodate!Aboriginal!claims!are!defective!and!cannot!be!allowed!to!subsist.”!(Ross!River!Dena!Council!v!Government!of!Yukon,!2012!YKCA!14!at!para!37,!lv!to!appeal!to!the!SCC!refused)!(Arose!out!of!mineral!rights/!mining!claimsA!old!school,!encourages!mineral!development!without!many!obstacles,!occurs!privately,!no!govnt!regulation!at!begning,!can!already!be!too!late!for!DtC)!
2. Legislative!proposals!by!the!executive,!before!they!reach!the!legislative!assembly!- No!duty!of!fairness!A!we!are!talking!about!process!of!primary!legislation!(CAP);!!- Possibly!a!duty!to!consult!on!part!of!executive!about!the!legislation!to!be!passed—!
o govnt!resists!this,!duty!rests!on!crownA!not!legislative!assembly!!- Sort!of!a!push!to!move!procedural!rights!where!its!not!typical!3. Subordinate!legislation!!
39!
- DoF!depends!on!how!you!characterize!nature!of!decision!(Homex)!- Duty!to!consult!–!yes,!even!if!it!is!legislative!in!character!(ie!a!policy!decision!rather!han!a!judicial!one)(Tsuu!
T’ina)!- Remedy!remains!to!be!seen!–!an!adequate!consultation!- Hesitance!on!remedy!side!to!use!DtC!to!over!turn!even!a!order!in!council!–!Adams!River!vs!Sun!Peaks!desire!
to!incorporate!!become!municipality!!o But!will!inadequate!consultation!invalidate!subordinate!legislation?!i.e,!Is!quashing!a!legislative!
decision!an!appropriate!remedy!for!a!breach!of!the!(procedural)!duty!to!consult?!Remains!undecided….!!
4. Legislative!in!Character!- Really!talking!about!policy!decisions!- Some!policy!decisions!will!end!up!being!included!in!DoF!but!it!is!just!that!content!is!low!!- Duty!of!Fairness?!No!(Inuit!Tapirisat)!- Duty!to!consult?!!Yes.!!
o It!applies!to!!strategic!planning,!policyAmaking!exercises,!including!recommendations!for!subordinate!legislation!such!as!regulations!or!Orders!in!Council!(Tsuu!T’ina,!Rio!Tinto,!Haida!Nation).!
o BUT!adverse!impact!on!rights/claimed!rights!likely!to!be!seen!as!minimal,!so!low!content!(Tsuu!T’ina)!
- Often!DtC!depends!on!what!chain!of!the!decision!making!things!are!at!!!
Duty!of!Fairness!(CL)! A!decision!that!is!not!of!a!legislative!nature!and!that!affects!the!rights,!privileges!or!interests!of!an!individual!!
Fundamental!Justice!(sec!7)!
Decisions!that!impact!the!right!to!“life,!liberty!and!security!of!person”!!!
Duty!to!Consult! Crown!knowledge!(real!or!constructive)!of!the!existence/potential!existence!of!an!aboriginal!or!treaty!right!and!contemplation!of!conduct/decision!that!might!adversely!affect!the!exercise!of!the!right!!
- Duty!to!consult!–!legistlative!aspect!of!CL!threshold!doesn’t!come!into!play,!at!the!same!time!not!quite!in!a!sec!7!area,!!
- Duty!of!consult!rests!on!executive!not!on!parliament!- When!we!have!a!A!right!they!do!constrain!the!decisions!of!legislative!assemblies!!!!
Issues:&Duty&to&Consult&vs&Duty&of&Fairness&If!there!can!be!a!duty!to!consult!on!legislative!decisions!(legislative!in!character,!i.e.,!policy!decisions),!why!can’t!there!be!a!duty!of!fairness!on!such!decisions!as!well?!- Separation!of!powers!btwn!courts!and!legislatures!justifies!why!there!is!no!DoF!A!not!right!for!the!court!to!be!
reviewing!administrative!decisions!!- Honor!of!the!Crown!is!behind!the!DtC,!something!that!engages!Aboriginal!rights!engages!sec!35!and!becomes!
a!constitutional!obligation!–!warrants!additional!role!of!judiciary!in!intruding!to!hold!up!procedural!fairness!- Procedural!fairness!is!a!common!law!–!almost!quasi!consitutional,!doesn’t!have!same!status!as!A!rights!!How!do!we!understand!the!remedial!possibilities!of!the!duty!to!consult!AA!Should!it!be!like!s.!7!fundamental!justice?!(a!breach!of!which!can!invalidate!legislation)!or!should!it!be!like!the!common!law!procedural!fairness!(a!breach!of!which!cannot!invalidate!legislation)?!
40!
- Difficult!question!to!answer!!
Haida&Nation&v&BC&(Minister&of&Forests)&&[2004]&3&S.C.R.&511&|&Procedural&Fairness&in&Duty&to&Consult&&Facts:&The!BC!govnt!issued!a!Tree!Farm!Licence!over!an!area!of!land!to!which!the!Haida!Nation!claimed!title.!Also!claimed!right!to!harvest!red!cedar!in!that!area.!Title!is!not!recognized!at!this!point.!Minister!authorized!a!transfer!of!license!to!Weyerhauser!Co.!Tree!farm!license!is!not!a!licence!to!take!the!trees,!it!is!an!open!invite!to!submit!a!plan!and!then!receive!subsequent!permits!to!harvest!the!land!Done!unilaterally.!No!consent.!!Wasn’t!that!more!resources!were!available!with!was!who!was!going!to!do!logging.!Haida!sues!to!set!transfer!of!licence!aside.!!Negotiations!not!working!out,!so!no!success!in!rights!in!forest.!Court!takes!note!to!say!that!negotiations!are!failing,!court!establishes!that!crown!must!consult!with!Abo!without!established!right.!SCC!sets!up!architecture!which!is!the!biggest!step.!!Issues:!Does!the!crown!have!a!duty!to!consult!in!transferring!tree!licences?!To!what!extent!does!this!duty!apply?!!Held:!!Court!finds!that!there!is!a!DtC!in!this!case.!Existing!Abo!interest!at!play.!Court!determines!the!scope!of!consultation!required!by!weighing!the!strength!of!the!case,!seriousness!of!potential!impact,!and!whether!crown!fulfilled!its!duty.!Court!finds!that!the!Province!failed!to!meet!its!duty!to!engage!in!something!significantly!deeper!than!mere!consultation.!It!failed!to!engage!in!any!meaningful!consultation!at!all.!Foundation!for!DtC:!Duty!to!consult!rests!in!fiduciary!obligation!of!crown!and!the!principle!of!honour!of!the!crown.!The!duty!to!consult!and!accommodate!is!part!of!a!process!of!fair!dealing!and!reconciliation!that!begins!with!the!assertion!of!sovereignty!and!continues!beyond!formal!claims!resolution.!The!duty!to!consult!arises!when!the!Crown!has!knowledge,!real!or!constructive,!of!the!potential!existence!of!the!Aboriginal!right!or!title!and!contemplates!conduct!that!might!adversely!affect!it.!!Content!of!DtC:!The!content!of!the!duty!to!consult!and!accommodate!varies!with!the!circumstances.!While!it!is!not!useful!to!classify!situations!into!watertight!compartments,!different!situations!requiring!different!responses!can!be!identified.!In!all!cases,!the!honour!of!the!Crown!requires!that!the!Crown!act!with!good!faith!to!provide!meaningful!consultation!appropriate!to!the!circumstances.!In!discharging!this!duty,!regard!may!be!had!to!the!procedural!safeguards!of!natural!justice!mandated!by!administrative!law.!!Duty!to!Consult:!There!is!no!duty!to!agree;!rather,!the!commitment!is!to!a!meaningful!process!of!consultation.!As!for!Aboriginal!claimants,!they!must!not!frustrate!the!Crown’s!reasonable!good!faith!attempts,!nor!should!they!take!unreasonable!positions!to!thwart!government!from!making!decisions!or!acting!in!cases!where,!despite!meaningful!consultation,!agreement!is!not!reached.!!Types!of!duties!that!may!arise:!where!title/right!is!limited!or!infringement!is!marginal!–!duty!to!give!notice,!disclose!info!and!discuss!any!issues!raised!in!response!to!the!notice.!Where!title/right!is!strong!or!infringement!is!significantly!impacting!–!deep!consultation,!opp!to!make!submissions,!formal!participation,!written!reasons!that!demonstrate!Abo!concerns!were!considered.!Each!case!must!be!approached!differently!and!flexibly.!!Duty!to!Accommodate:!Consultation!may!result!in!finding!a!duty!to!accommodate.!Accommodation!means!balancing!interests.!Where!accommodation!is!required!in!making!decisions!that!may!adversely!affect!as!yet!unproven!Aboriginal!rights!and!title!claims,!the!Crown!must!balance!Aboriginal!concerns!reasonably!with!the!potential!impact!of!the!decision!on!the!asserted!right!or!title!and!with!other!societal!interests.!This!process!does!not!give!Aboriginal!groups!a!veto!over!what!can!be!done!with!land!pending!final!proof!of!the!claim.!The!Aboriginal!“consent”!spoken!of!in!Delgamuukw!is!appropriate!only!in!cases!of!established!rights,!and!then!by!no!means!in!every!case.!Rather,!what!is!required!is!a!process!of!balancing!interests,!of!give!and!take.!JR:!Where!the!government’s!conduct!is!challenged!on!the!basis!of!allegations!that!it!failed!to!discharge!its!duty!to!consult!and!accommodate!pending!claims!resolution,!the!matter!may!go!to!the!courts!for!review.!Province!has!no!procedure!in!place!for!this.!Raises!concerns!with!standard!of!review.!Deference!will!depend!on!the!nature!of!the!question!the!admin!body!was!reviewing.!Where!there!is!no!error!in!legal!issue,!deference!may!be!required!and!the!standard!of!review!will!be!reasonableness.!Where!the!issue!is!one!of!pure!law,!and!can!be!isolated!from!the!
41!
issues!of!fact,!the!standard!is!correctness.!Perfect!satisfaction!is!not!required;!the!question!is!whether!the!regulatory!scheme!or!government!action!viewed!as!a!whole,!accommodates!the!collective!aboriginal!right!in!question.!!So!long!as!every!reasonable!effort!is!made!to!inform!and!to!consult,!such!efforts!would!suffice.The!government!is!required!to!make!reasonable!efforts!to!inform!and!consult.!This!suffices!to!discharge!the!duty.!Significance:!!If!anyone!can!prove!right!over!land,!its!Haida!–!on!island,!govnt!should!be!scared!of!Haida!going!to!court!to!claim!island.!Over!time!Haida!trying!to!assert!rights!in!forest.!!
Duty&to&Consult&from&Haida&Crown!has!a!duty!to!consult!when!three!elements!are!present:!
1. Contemplated!Crown!conduct;!2. Potential!adverse!impact;!and!3. Potential!or!established!Aboriginal!or!Treaty!rights!recognized!and!affirmed!under!section!35!!
!
Beckman&v&Little&Salmon&[2010]&3&SCR&103|&Modern&Treaty&Interpretation&Facts:!Trapline!affected.!Constitutional!obligation.!Procedural!obligation.!Did!either!analysis!actually!go!off!adequately?!!Issue:&Held:&Significance:!Court!confirms!honor!of!the!crown!unwritten!principle!A!!fluid!yet!rigid,!demonstrative!of!procedural!context!!Procedural!fairness!gives!you!same!context!as!duty!to!consult!in!Little!Salmon!!Can!we!apply!HoC!to!fill!in!the!gaps!!!!
42!
INDEPENDENCE,&IMPARTIALITY&AND&BIAS&
Institutional&Independence&!
Nemo&judex&in&sua&causa&- no!one!should!judge!in!their!own!cause!- Informed!by!different!sources!!A!statute!- Constitutional!charges!A!sec!11!d!in!charter!!- International!law!- Analysis!for!Independence!is!diff!from!analysis!in!bias!- Also!have!idea!for!institutional!bias,!adjudicative!independence!AA!how!tribunals!structure!how!
they!do!their!business,!high!case!load!and!need!to!find!efficiency,!restricts!the!ability!for!the!tribunal!to!hear!adequately!–!brings!us!back!into!audi!alteram!partem,!Flow!back!and!forth!from!the!two!branches!!
- Goal!whether!we!are!on!one!side!of!the!other!is!impartiality!for!institutional!or!bias!
&!
What&is&institutional&independence?&- The!principles!of!impartiality!and!independence!form!part!of!the!rules!of!natural!justice!ex)!the!right!to!a!
hearing!before!an!unbiased!decisionAmaker!- The!requirement!for!institutional!independence!applies!to!courts!and,!in!a!more!flexible!manner,!to!quasiA
judicial!and!other!administrative!tribunals!that!must!function!at!arms!length!from!the!Executive!government!(Bathurst,!Cdn!Pcf,!Ocean)!!
- It!protects!the!impartiality!of!judges,!both!in!fact!and!perception,!by!insulating!them!from!external!influence,!most!notably!the!influence!of!the!Executive!(Ocean!794)!!
- While!primarily!having!to!do!with!independence!from!government,!the!principle!has!been!extended!also!to!mean!independence!from!any!other!external!force,!such!as!business!or!corporate!interests!or!other!pressure!groups.!(Lippe)!
- The!requirement!of!independence!has!also!been!applied!to!administrative!tribunals,!but!adapted!in!a!flexible!manner!and!is!subject!to!statutory!direction!(Ocean!22,!Cdn!Pcf)!!!
- In!determining!the!extent!of!independence!required!or!the!degree!of!institutional!impartiality!needed,!the!court!must!conduct!some!sort!of!functional!and!pragmatic!analysis!
!
Three&components&of&impartiality&&Constitutional!Template!1. Personal!impartiality!(PI)!–!considers!whether!prior!involvement,!conduct,!personal!interests/!associations!
(etc.)!on!the!part!of!the!individual!decisionAmakers!give!rise!to!a!reasonable!apprehension!of!bias.!2. Institutional!impartiality!(II)!A!!considers!whether!the!statutory!structure!provides!for!adjudicative!
independence,!whether!there!are!problematic!overlapping!roles!for!individual!decisionAmakers!(subject!to!stat.!authorization)!
3. Independence!(I)!A!Considers!whether!the!institutional!structure!as!per!statute!allows!the!decisionAmaker!to!be!free!from!interference!by!gov’t.!
a. Security!of!tenure!!!!“The!essence!of!security!of!tenure!for!the!purposes!of!s.!11(d)!is!a!tenure,!whether!until!an!age!of!retirement,!for!a!fixed!term,!or!for!a!specific!adjudicative!task,!that!is!secure!against!interference!by!the!executive!or!other!appointing!authority!in!a!discretionary!or!arbitrary!manner.”!(Valente)!
43!
b. Financial!security!!!“The!right!to!salary!and!pension!should!be!established!by!law!and!not!be!subject!to!arbitrary!interference!by!the!executive!in!a!manner!that!could!affect!judicial!independence.”!(Valente)!
c. Institutional!(administrative)!independence!“The!institutional!independence!of!the!tribunal!with!respect!to!matters!of!administration!bearing!directly!on!the!exercise!of!its!judicial!function.”!(Valente)!
Recall:!!An!“unwritten”!constitutional!principle!(but!grounded!in!ss.!96A101!of!1867!Act),!!that!has!been!applied!to!inferior!courts!(i.e.,!provincial!courts);!Provincial!Judges!Ref.!
- All!serve!overarching!goal!of!impartial!decision!maker!- Each!on!their!own!is!not!enough!!- If!we!have!institutional!independence!doesn’t!mean!we!have!impartial!decision!maker,!tribunal!can!be!set!up!
properly!but!people!in!tribunal!can!screw!up!- Institutional!independence!becomes!issue!in!terms!of!budgeting!–!not!enough!money!to!do!job!creates!a!
problem!!- One!is!not!a!guarantee!of!the!other!- Challenges!to!diff!parts!of!protection!of!impartiality!coming!into!play!Does!the!constitutional!principles!come!into!play!in!admin!law?!Constitutional!principle!allows!us!to!invalidate!legislation!(Ocean!Port)!!
Relationship&btwn&Independence&+&Impartiality&&“Independence!is!a!necessary,!but!not!a!sufficient,!prerequisite!for!impartiality….![F]rom!an!analytical!point!of!view,!the!concept!of!judicial!independence!is!subordinate!to!the!concept!of!impartiality.!Independence!is!not!an!end!in!itself;!it!is!merely!one!characteristic!of!our!judicial!system!that!seeks!to!achieve!another!purpose:!impartiality.”!(L’HeureuxADube!J.,!concurring!in!Quebec!Inc.!at!paras.!106A107)!- There!is!no!general!constitutional!right!to!institutional!independence!for!adjudicative!decisionAmaking!in!
Canada.(Ocean!31)!!- The!concepts!of!independence!and!impartiality!are!often!blurred,!but!they!are!separate!and!distinct!(Cdn!Pcf!
62)!!- Independence!of!a!tribunal!!!the!impartial!state!of!mind!of!the!adjudicator!+!its!status!and!relationship!to!
others!(the!extent!to!which!the!tribunal,!in!making!a!decision,!is!free!from!interference!of!the!Executive!or!the!person!who!appointed!them)!(Valente)!!
- Member!independence!also!refers!to!that!individual's!personal!connection!with!a!party!or!some!other!person!who!may!influence!the!decision.!!
Judicial&vs&Institutional&independence&- The!test!for!independence!in!the!judicial!setting!was!“the!one!for!reasonable!apprehension!of!bias,!adapted!
to!the!requirement!of!independence”!!- Three!conditions!for!judicial!independence!(found!in!Const!sec!96A100!and!11(d)!of!Charter)!
1. security!of!tenure!2. financial!security!!3. institutional!independence!of!the!tribunal!with!regard!to!matters!of!administration!bearing!directly!on!the!
exercise!of!the!judicial!function.!!- Institutional!independence!A!These!remain!the!three!essential!conditions!for!institutional!independence!in!
Canadian!law!- BUT!They!must!be!applied!in!a!flexible!manner!to!administrative!tribunals,!depending!on!their!functions!and!
purposes!!
44!
- Administrative!tribunals!are!not!subject!to!the!same!general!guarantee!of!independence!afforded!to!the!provincial!courts.!
!
Institutional&Independence&+&Application&to&Administrative&Tribunals&- As!administrative!tribunals!form!part!of!the!Executive,!they!are!not!subject!to!the!same!guarantee!of!
independence!afforded!to!courts.!- The!level!of!independence!required!for!a!tribunal!(i.e.,!security!of!tenure,!financial!security!and!
administrative!control)!can!vary!according!!o the!nature!of!the!tribunal,!!o the!interests!at!stake!!o other!indices!of!independence!such!as!oaths!of!office!(Cdn!Pcf!80)!
- The!test!for!judicial!independence!applies!to!adjudicative!administrative!tribunalsAA!should!be!more!flexible,!but!not!ignored!(Cdn!Pcf!57)!!
- Test!should!be!applied!in!light!of!the!particular!functions!performed!and!the!circumstances!of!the!tribunal!(Cdn!Pcf!50A51)!!
- The!requisite!level!of!institutional!independence!will!depend!on!the!nature!of!the!tribunal,!the!interests!at!stake!and!other!indices!of!independence!in!order!to!determine!whether!a!reasonable!and!rightAminded!person,!viewing!the!whole!procedure!as!set!out!in!the!assessment!byAlaws,!would!have!a!reasonable!apprehension!of!bias!on!the!basis!that!the!members!of!the!appeal!tribunals!were!not!independent!(Cdn!Pcf!51A52)!!
- In!some!cases,!a!high!level!of!independence!will!be!required,!while!in!others!a!lower!level!is!adequate!- The!practice!of!the!tribunal!–!is!a!factor!to!be!considered!in!determining!whether!the!necessary!degree!of!
independence!is!present!to!avoid!creating!a!perception!of!reasonable!apprehension!of!bias!- When!a!tribunal!acts!in!an!adjudicative!capacity!determining!rights,!the!requisite!level!of!independence!will!
be!high.!!- When!the!tribunal!is!dealing!with!minor!interests!or!acting!in!a!remedial!capacity,!a!less!exacting!standard!
would!apply!!
Extent&of&independence&- While!Parliament!may!decide!the!extent!of!independence!needed,!judicial!independence!remains!a!
longstanding!principle!of!Canadian!constitutional!law!!- Forms!part!of!the!rules!of!natural!justice,!even!though!it!does!not!attract!constitutional!protection!- Tribunals!at!the!administrative!end!of!the!spectrum!will!not!require!absolute!independence!from!the!
Executive!- That!said,!the!extent!of!the!requirement!to!institutional!independence!will!follow!the!same!contextual!
appraisal!for!procedural!fairness.!Consequently,!there!appears!to!be!a!spectrum!of!institutional!independence,!depending!on!the!tribunal,!which!could!be!determined!following!some!type!of!functional!and!contextual!approach.!!
- Degree!of!independence!required!of!tribunals!may!be!ousted!by!an!express!statutory!provision!- Parliament!is!ultimately!responsible!for!determining!the!Executive's!relationship!with!the!administrative!body!
(Ocean!22)!!- When!confronted!with!silent!or!ambiguous!language,!courts!will!generally!infer!that!Parliament!intended!to!
conform!with!procedural!fairness!and!with!the!principles!of!natural!justice!(Ocean!21)!!- Consequently,!Parliament!could!clearly!oust!any!requirement!of!independence,!as!it!could!authorize!any!
overlapping!function,!even!if!it!would!otherwise!be!objectionable!on!natural!justice!grounds!of!partiality!
45!
- An!overlapping!of!functions!such!as!investigative,!prosecutorial!and!adjudicative!functions!in!a!single!agency!may!be!necessary!to!ensure!effective!performance!of!its!intended!role!
Independence&of&thought&- The!requirement!of!independence!pertains!to!the!structure!of!the!tribunal!and!its!relationship!between!their!
members!and!others,!including!members!of!other!branches!of!government,!such!as!the!Executive.!- The!test,!however,!does!not!have!to!do!with!independence!of!thought.!!- A!tribunal!must!certainly!exercise!independence!of!thought,!in!the!sense!that!it!must!not!be!unduly!
influenced!by!improper!considerations,!but!this!is!just!another!way!of!saying!that!it!must!be!impartial!!
Structure&of&administrative&scheme&&- In!determining!the!extent!of!judicial!independence!required!must!analyze!legal!structure!of!the!
administrative!scheme!!- Involves!an!objective!assessment!of:!
o the!actual!structure!and!independence!of!the!tribunal!in!question,!!o its!nature,!!o the!interests!at!stake,!!o the!legislative!context,!!o the!tenure!and!terms!of!service!of!the!members!of!a!tribunal,!!o its!operating!policies!and!procedures!!o anything!else,!such!as!oaths!of!office,!which!might!be!relevant!to!ensure!the!legality!of!the!
structure!of!the!tribunal!- Therefore,!it!may!be!said!that!there!is!a!continuum!of!independence!depending!on!that!analysis.!!- If!the!independence!is!necessary,!but!insufficient!in!a!specific!case,!then!it!can!be!said!that!it!gives!rise!to!an!
apprehension!of!bias!and!is!insufficient!to!ensure!the!tribunal's!impartiality!While!lack!of!independence,!depending!on!the!tribunal,!may!not!be!fatal,!impartiality!is!an!absolute!requirement!!
Cdn&Pacific&v&Matsqui&Indian&Band&|Common&Law&Application&of&Judicial&Independence&Facts:!!Change!in!act!allows!band!to!tax!on!real!property.!Lots!of!bands!make!bylaws!making!taxes!on!lands!where!there!are!railways.!CPR!and!Unitel!running!optic!cables!along!railway.!Challenge!band’s!jurisdiction!to!tax.!Bylaw!allows!for!2!step!appeal!process!and!then!an!appeal!to!federal!court.!CDN!took!it!straight!to!Fed!court.!Argue!that!there!is!an!issue!of!independence!Ratio!Issue:&!Held:!Institutional!independence!consists!of!three!core!components:!security!of!tenure,!financial!security!and!administrative!control.!!Agreement!in!principle!but!diff!in!how!it!should!be!applied.!Lamer!and!Sopinka.!!Principle!independence!is!going!to!be!variabe!in!context!of!admin!tribunal.!The!Valente!test!for!institutional!independence!as!applied!to!administrative!tribunals!“must!be!applied!in!light!of!the!functions!being!performed!by!the!particular!tribunal!at!issue.!The!requisite!level!of!institutional!independence!…!will!depend!on!the!nature!of!the!tribunal,!the!interests!at!stake,!and!other!indices!of!independence!such!as!oaths!of!office.!Lamer!–!problem!with!independence,!whether!there!is!an!adequate!remedy!remains!doubtful,!must!be!objective,!if!we!don’t!know!if!they!are!getting!paid!we!have!a!problem,!we!don’t!need!to!see!how!that!plays!out!we!can!go!straight!to!court.!!Sopinka!–!we!don’t!know!yet!about!independence,!haven’t!testes!the!remedy!yet!–!self!govnt!effort!don’t!wanna!cut!it!down!before!it!has!a!chance!
46!
See!similar!situation!in!Harlequin.!!The!fact!that!band!members!are!on!the!board!is!not!at!issue!!Significance:&A!context!case.!Adequate!alternative!remedy.!Whether!it!has!possibility!of!providing!NJ!or!PF.!Judges!discretion!not!to!grant!remedy!on!JR—could!they!possibly!get!a!just!remedy.!See!it!played!out!in!Harlequin.&!!
Ocean&Port&Hotel&|&Judicial&Independence&as&Constitutional&&Facts:!Liquor!Control!and!Licensing!Branch!–!booze!police.!Hotel!was!in!breach!of!liquor!regulations!–!serving!booze!to!minors!and!allowing!open!liquor!to!leave!premises.!Suspension!was!for!two!days.!OP!appeals!decision.!Hearing!de!novo.!Liquor!Appeal!Board!upholds!decision.!Appeal!to!BCCA!arguing!that!the!Liquor!Appeal!Board!lacked!sufficient!independence!to!make!a!ruling!and!impose!the!penalty.!Overlapping!duties!of!senior!inspectors!–!RAB.!Challenges!procedural!grounds!challenged!that!board!was!insufficiently!independent!and!breach!of!procedural!fairness.!Board!members!are!employees!at!pleasure!–!not!adequately!independent.!Imposing!suspension!was!like!a!sanction.!BCCA!holds!that!there!is!not!enough!security!of!tenure!to!ensure!board!members!independence.!BCCA!looked!to!the!common!law!rules!of!natural!justice!and!fairness!to!guide!interpretation.!Identifies!two!principles!affirmed!in!Régie:!(1)!governmental!decision!makers!imposing!penalties!must!comply!with!the!requirements!of!impartiality!and!independence;!and!(2)!the!content!of!these!requirements!depends!on!all!of!the!circumstances,!"in!particular!on!the!language!of!the!statute!under!which!the!agency!acts,!the!nature!of!the!task!it!performs!and!the!type!of!decision!it!is!required!to!make".!BCCA!concludes!that!decision!to!suspend!licence!resembles!judicial!decision!and!CL!principles!apply.!Positions!‘at!pleasure’!cannot!satisfy!security!of!tenure.!BCCA!holds!that!Board!lacked!independence!and!sets!aside!decision.!!Issue:&Whether!Liquor!Appeal!Board!members!are!sufficiently!independent!to!make!decisions!on!violations!and!impose!sanctions!Held:&BCCA!decision!–!huge!error!of!law.!BCCA!decision!essentially!struck!down!statutory!decision!without!adequate!constitutional!principle!or!authority.!In!essence!the!BCCA!elevated!a!principle!of!natural!justice!to!constitutional!status.!When!statute!is!silent,!may!assume!that!P!intended!that!rules!of!natural!justice!apply.!However,!like!all!principles!of!natural!justice,!the!degree!of!independence!required!of!tribunal!members!may!be!ousted!by!express!statutory!language!or!necessary!implication.!Superior!courts!by!virtue!of!inherent!jurisdiction!are!constitutionally!required!to!possess!objective!guarantees!of!both!institutional!and!individual!independence.!Admin!tribunals!lack!this!constutional!backing.!Created!for!implementing!govnt!policy!which!may!at!times!require!quasiAjudicial!decision!making.!Given!this,!the!onus!falls!on!P!to!determine!their!composition!and!structure.!While!tribunals!may!sometimes!attract!Charter!requirements!of!independence,!as!a!general!rule!they!do!not.&Principle!of!independence!serves!two!objectives.!1)!Rule!against!bias,!perceptions!of!justice!being!done!2)!Upholding!the!rule!of!law!and!separation!of!powersA!a!constitutional!principle,!not!relevant!to!admin!tribunals!(at!least!not!this!one….)!Significance:!Administrative!tribunals!still!part!of!executive!–!way!to!implement!policy.!Span!the!constitutional!divide.!Must!look!to!statutory!intent!–!appointments!of!pleasure.!Desire!by!many!to!move!away!from!this!decision!in!SK!Fed!of!Labour!v!Sk.!!!Does%the%constitutional%principle%apply%in%admin%context?%No%
“Superior!courts,!by!virtue!of!their!role!as!courts!of!inherent!jurisdiction,!are!constitutionally!required!to!possess!objective!guarantees!of!both!individual!and!institutional!independence….!Historically,!the!requirement!of!judicial!independence!developed!to!demarcate!the!fundamental!division!between!the!judiciary!and!the!executive….!Administrative!tribunals,!by!contrast,!lack!this!constitutional!distinction!from!the!executive.!They!are,!in!fact,!created!precisely!for!the!purpose!of!implementing!government!policy…[T]he!degree!of!independence!required!of!
47!
a!particular!tribunal!is!a!matter!of!discerning!the!intention!of!Parliament!or!the!legislature!and,!absent!constitutional!constraints,!this!choice!must!be!respected.”!!“Confronted!with!silent!or!ambiguous!legislation,!courts!generally!infer!that!Parliament!or!the!legislature!intended!the!tribunal's!process!to!comport!with!principles!of!natural!justice.!In!such!circumstances,!administrative!tribunals!may!be!bound!by!the!requirement!of!an!independent!and!impartial!decision!maker,!one!of!the!fundamental!principles!of!natural!justice.!Indeed,!courts!will!not!lightly!assume!that!legislators!intended!to!enact!procedures!that!run!contrary!to!this!principle,!although!the!precise!standard!of!independence!required!will!depend!"!!!
Saskatchewan&Federation&of&Labour&v&SK&2013&|&Judicial&Independence&in&Tribunals&&Background:&Head!of!labour!board!are!kicked!out!after!provincial!election.!Termination/appointments!are!based!on!term!but!Interpretation!Act!allows!for!termination!in!context!after!election.!Shortly!after!OIC!is!issued!SK!Fed!of!Labour!applies!to!QB!for!declaration!that!OIC!is!void.!Argue!that!Lieutenant!Gov!lacks!power!to!may!OIC!in!that!there!was!no!proper!motive.!QB!dismisses!application.!.!SK!Fed!of!Labour!takes!matter!to!SKCA!–!dismisses!appeal!Interpretation!Act!is!valid!and!LG’s!power!is!not!abusive.!&Facts:!Immediately!after!appeal!SK!Fed!of!Labour!brings!diff!application!to!QB!–!argues!Interpretation!Act,!is!unconstitutional!to!the!extent!it!empowers!LG!to!terminate!the!fixed!terms!of!office!of!the!chairperson!and!viceAchairpersons!of!the!SK!Labour!Board.!Argue!unconstitutional!bc!it!is!counter!to!unwritten!constitutional!principle!of!judicial!independence.!This!principle!protects!judges!from!arbitrary!removal!from!office,!also!applies!to!persons!such!as!the!chairperson!and!viceAchairpersons!of!the!Labour!Relations!Board.!Argues!there!is!no!meaningful!distinction!between!the!adjudicative!function!of!these!two!institutions!in!the!realm!of!the!civil!law.!No!meaningful!difference!btwn!adjudication!in!front!of!tribunal!and!adjudication!in!front!of!court.!Should!be!standard!principle!of!fairness.!QB!rejects!argument!–!judicial!independence!doesn’t!extend!to!admin!boards!bc!function!of!board!is!mainly!administrative!rather!than!judicial.!Appeal!to!SKCA!Issue:!Whether!the!unwritten!constitutional!principle!of!judicial!independence!extends!to!the!chairperson!and!viceAchairpersons!of!the!Labour!Relations!Board!Held:!SK!Fed!Lab!tries!to!create!distinction!in!their!case!from!Ocean!Port!by!arguing!that!the!entity!in!Ocean!Port!was!an!admin!body!where!as!the!Labour!Board!is!completely!judicial.!SKCA!is!unwilling!to!see!this!distinction.!Kills!argument.!The!labour’s!argument!is!problematic!because!a!similar!argument!was!rejected!by!the!SCC!in!Ocean!Port!The!court!finds!that!the!unwritten!constitutional!principle!of!judicial!independence!grounded!in!the!preamble!to!the!Constitution!Act,!1867!cannot!be!seen!to!extend!to!the!Saskatchewan!Labour!Relations!Board,!including!the!chairperson!and!viceAchairpersons!of!the!Board!So!then,!what!is!J/I?!Judicial!independence!generally!means!the!capacity!of!the!courts!to!function!without!actual!or!apparent!interference!by!anyone,!including!in!particular!the!legislative!and!executive!branches!of!government.!As!this!applies!to!the!conditions!under!which!judges!serve,!the!essential!conditions!are!1)!security!of!tenure,!2)!financial!stability,!and!3)!administrative!freedom!in!relation!to!the!exercise!of!their!judicial!duties.!Judicial!independence!is!intrinsically!linked!to!the!concept!of!impartiality,!which!is!to!say!with!"the!state!of!mind!or!attitude"!of!the!judge!regarding!the!issues!and!the!parties!in!a!particular!case.!In!modern!times,!it!has!been!recognized!that!the!basis!for!judicial!independence!extends!far!beyond!the!need!for!impartiality!in!individual!cases.!The!judiciary!occupies!an!indispensable!role!in!upholding!the!integrity!of!our!constitutional!structure.!Significance:!Once!case!that!succeeded!in!applying!constitutional!argument!–!McKenzie,!context!of!residential!tenancy.!Question!of!whether!admin!boards!are!constitutionally!valid.!If!you!are!going!to!make!an!argument!that!there!is!no!diff!btwn!courts!and!boards!McKenzie!is!going!to!be!closes!you!can!get.!Our!constitution!can’t!make!much!of!a!distinction!btwn!tribunals!and!96!courts!and!we!have!applied!institutional!independence!to!tribunals.!!
48!
!Judicial&Independence&in&CL&- Previous!cases!Ocean!and!Sask!were!dealing!with!statutes!that!are!clear.!!- When!we!are!talking!about!variability!we!are!talking!about!spaces!left!in!statute!for!content!to!be!different.!!- With!Baker!analysis!we!see!different!application!of!CL!in!different!contexts!!- Where!a!statute!doesn’t!clearly!dictate!the!terms!of!employment!–!security!of!tenure,!financial,!admin!
independence;!some!scope!for!court!to!look!at!how!those!judicial!independence!criteria!transfer!into!the!administrative!context!!
!
&Keen&v&Canada&|&Institutional&Independence&+&PF&for&Employees&‘at&Pleasure’&&Facts:&Outside!of!contractual!employment.!Can’t!be!treated!like!other!employment!cases!–!exception!to!Dunsmuir,!need!for!procedural!fairness!to!be!brought!into!to!decide!how!appointments!are!made.!2007!nuclear!reactor!is!old!and!having!issue!with!back!up!pump!–!in!event!of!power!outage.!Commission!is!licencing!body!for!nuclear!reactors.!Trying!to!problem!solve!to!keep!it!open!–!creates!medical!isotopes!and!nuclear!energy.!&Commission!asks!for!report!to!see!if!it’s!safe!with!just!one!pump.!Cabinet!gets!involved!–!statute!says!there!is!some!room!to!provide!direction.!Creates!dialogue!btwn!minister!and!keen.!Pressure!to!speed!up!process.!Issue!directive!to!tell!commission!to!consider!isotopes!in!scope!of!decision!making.!Directives!however!are!supposed!to!be!broad!as!per!statute.!!Directive!is!delivered!on!same!day!that!bill!is!passed!to!keep!ACL!open!regardless!of!safety!concerns!that!commission!has.!Beginning!of!January!letter!to!Keen!about!performance!–!confidence!lost,!want!to!take!her!appointment!away!as!president.!!Facts:!Keen!is!President!of!Nuclear!Commission.!Rec’s!letter!from!Minister!threatening!her!employment!for!not!reactivating!nuclear!plant.!Nuclear!plant!creates!medical!isotopes.!Keen!responds!back!and!says!that!her!termination!can!only!be!effected!on!the!basis!of!poor!performance,!requests!that!if!her!termination!is!on!the!line!that!the!minister!provide!reasons!for!this!and!allow!her!to!have!the!fair!procedure!she!is!entitled!to.!Minister!files!letter!and!recommendation!to!Council!in!Order!that!Keen!be!terminated!as!president!but!kept!on!payroll!as!board!member.!Keen!sees!this!as!constructive!termination!and!takes!matter!to!court!alleging!procedural!unfairness.!Issue!arises!as!to!whether!her!employment!is!‘at!pleasure’!or!during!‘good!behaviour’.!If!employment!is!‘at!pleasure’!as!described!in!Dunsmuir!procedural!fairness!was!met.!If!employment!was!during!‘good!behaviour’!must!determine!if!there!was!fairness.!Keen!argues!good!behaviour.!!Issue:&Was!the!procedural!fairness!requirement!met!in!the!case?!!!Held:!Court!finds!that!if!employment!was!at!pleasure!she!wouldn’t!have!been!kept!on!payroll.!If!employment!was!"during!good!behaviour”!A!neither!the!Minister!nor!the!Governor!in!Council!provided!adequate!info!setting!out!the!grounds!upon!which!it!was!believed!that!she!lacked!good!behaviour.!Keen’s!letter!adequately!rebuts!any!issue!of!good!behaviour.!Failure!to!provide!further!dialogue!or!hold!some!form!of!independent!inquiry!demonstrates!a!clear!lack!of!fairness.!If!it!was!believed!by!the!Minister!of!Governor!in!Council!that!Keen!lacked!"good!behaviour"!why!keep!her!on!as!a!member!when!there!is!a!clear!statutory!requirement!of!good!behaviour!for!a!member.!Ocean!Port!and!McKenzie!state!general!principles!that!are!directed!to!situations!where!the!enabling!legislation!is!unclear.!Ocean!Port!states!that!where!the!legislation!can!be!reasonably!and!clearly!interpreted,!it!should!prevail!over!any!general!concepts!bases!on!the!rule!of!law!and!natural!justice.!The!decision!of!this!Court,!affirmed!by!the!Federal!Court!of!Appeal,!in!Houle!v.!Canda,!is!a!complete!answer!to!Ms.!Keen's!arguments!as!to!construction!of!a!statute!such!as!the!one!under!consideration!here!where!membership!in!the!Commission!is!during!good!behaviour!but!the!designation!as!President!(or!ViceAChairman!in!the!case!of!Houle)!is!silent.!Such!designation!is!"at!pleasure".!Ms.!Keen's!designation!as!President!of!the!Commission!was!"at!pleasure".!Therefore!the!circumstances!of!her!termination!as!President!were!sufficient!to!satisfy!the!requirements!of!fairness!and!natural!justice!as!set!out!in!Dunsmuir!supra.!Significance:&Institutional!independence.!
49!
!Discussion:!!Statute!is!hazy!regarding!whether!isotopes!are!considered!to!be!a!consideration!of!the!commission!and!whether!the!ability!for!a!!Statute!provides!for!directive!but!directive!must!be!broad!–!back!to!pith!and!substance,!what!is!legislation!about!–!subordinate!legislation,!issued!by!cabinet,!must!comply!with!constraints!of!legislation!Pass!legislation!that!supersedes!licence!of!commission!!Proper!relationship!btwn!cabinet!and!commission!–!how!does!rule!of!law!come!into!play?!–!directive!!!Dunsmuir!A!This!principle!also!recognized!that!admin!decisions!should!be!treated!uniquely!–!diff!degrees!of!deference!depending!on!who!is!deciding!what.!Question!of!who?!Contrast!Idziak!vs!Baker!vs!Suresh.!Diff!specializations!and!diff!levels!of!expertise!which!command!respect.!!!Interpretation!act!–!where!the!statute!is!silent,!employment!of!pleasure!will!apply—other!rules!of!statutory!interpretation!would!allow!you!to!find!a!term!of!good!behaviour!–!minister!letter!saying!that!he!is!recommending!removal!gives!her!cause!for!that,!if!it’s!at!pleasure!there!doesn’t!have!to!be!cause!!!Issue!of!interpretation!–!go!back!to!Nicholson!and!the!CL!filling!gap,!but!can!the!court!imply!a!term!for!good!term!or!pleasure?!!If!she!is!appt!at!pleasure!do!we!have!a!duty!of!fairness?!Institutional!independence!that!should!inform!the!level!of!procedural!fairness!–!what!indicia!of!independence!are!problematic?!–!security!of!tenure,!!!!What!space!does!Dunsmuir!leave!for!providing!procedural!fairness?!If!we!accept!that!she!is!apt!at!pleasure!how!would!we!understand!what!her!hearing!righst!should!be?!Is!there!a!DoF!–!yes!find!wording!in!Dunsmuir!–!always!requirement!for!impartiality!unless!statute!says!otherwise!!Do!I!agree!that!the!statute!is!properly!interpreted!–!step!1!What!hearing!rights!follow!–!step!2!(ocean!port!–!pleasure,!no!safety!in!CL)!!At!pleasure!–!what!room!does!Dunsmuir!leave,!and!how!do!we!interpret!independence!of!decision!maker!!Hearing!rights!in!light!of!employment!status!!Dunsmuir!suggests!that!those!not!under!contract!of!employment!do!have!hearing!rights!!Dunsmuir!also!suggests!something!towards!independence!!!
Administrative&Tribunals&Act&ss&1\10&If!tribunal!fits!under!ATA!are!more!adjudicative!there!are!provisions!about!security!of!tenure.!!Indicia!of!independence!that!are!stronger.!!Must!ask!if!tribunal!is!under!ATA!or!not.!!!!
Rule&Against&Bias&in&Decision&Making&&The&Rule&Against&Bias&- The!nemo!judex!rule!aims!to!maintain!public!confidence!in!the!administration!of!justice.!!- The!rule!against!bias!contributes!to!this!function!by!ensuring!that!decisionAmakers!are!not!reasonably!
perceived!to!be!deciding!matters!that!will!benefit!them!or!those!with!whom!they!have!significant!relationships!
50!
- The!rule!seeks!!to!avoid!decisionAmaking!partiality!that!will!result!in!negative!treatment!of!a!party!occurring!as!a!result!of!a!decisionAmaker’s!interests!and!relationships.!!
- The!rule!against!bias!serves!generally!to!prevent!decisionAmakers!from!making!decisions!based!on!factors!that!are!irrelevant!to!the!decisionAmaking!process.!!
!Allegations!of!reasonable!apprehension!of!bias!exist!in!two!major!forms!in!administrative!law:!!(1)!perceptions!of!individual!bias,!which!deal!with!the!impartiality!of!individual!decisionAmakers;!and!!(2)!perceptions!of!institutional!bias,!which!deal!with!whether!reasonable!perceptions!of!partiality!regarding!the!decisionAmaking!body!as!a!whole!can!be!raised!in!a!substantial!number!of!cases.!Like!independence,!the!rule!against!bias!aims!to!preserve!the!appearance!of!impartiality!in!the!decisionAmaking!process.!All!administrative!actors!required!to!meet!the!standards!of!procedural!fairness—including!administrative!tribunals,!ministers,!and!other!public!officials—are!subject!to!the!rule!against!bias.!!An!allegation!of!perceived!bias!must!be!brought!to!the!decisionAmaker!by!the!party!alleging!it!on!the!first!available!occasion.!!If!the!claim!is!successful,!its!effect!will!be!to!quash!any!decisions!made!and!have!the!proceedings!reheard!by!a!newly!constituted!panel.!!
What&is&Reasonable&Apprehension&of&Bias?&- Can!arise!from!perceived!impartiality!of!decision!maker!or!institution!- Concerns!about!bias!stem!from!occurrences!that!would!be!fatal!to!the!judicial!system!but!also!from!the!
nature!of!the!administrative!state!which!has!various!actors!and!bodies!with!diff!purposes!and!natures!!- The!threshold!for!finding!a!reasonable!apprehension!of!bias!has!always!challenged!the!courts!!- Several!different!tests!have!been!established,!including!that!of!a!“real!danger!of!bias”,!a!“real!likelihood!of!
bias”,!a!“reasonable!suspicion!of!bias”!and!in!several!other!ways.!!!
When&is&RAB&Reasonable?&Reasonable!=!evaluation!of!apprehension!“through!the!eyes!of!the!reasonable,!informed,!practical!and!realistic!person!who!considers!the!matter!in!some!detail”.!!Some!decisionAmakers,!such!as!municipal!councils!and!other!highly!discretionary,!legislative!or!policy!driven!tribunals,!must!only!show!an!“open!mind”.!!
The&Reasonable&Apprehension&of&Bias&Test&“The!apprehension!of!bias!must!be!a!reasonable!one!held!by!reasonable!and!right!minded!persons,!applying!themselves!to!the!question!and!obtaining!thereon!the!required!information.!In!the!words!of!the!Court!of!Appeal,!that!test!is!what!would!an!informed!person,!viewing!the!matter!realistically!and!practically—and!having!thought!the!matter!through—conclude.”!- Common!law!test!from!a!dissenting!opinion!in!Committee!for!Justice!and!Liberty!v.!National!Energy!Board!- The!test!for!bias!relies!on!perception!- Whether!bias!actually!exists!in!a!decisionAmaking!context!is!not!the!question!to!have!a!decision!quashed!- It!is!sufficient!that!a!reasonable!person!with!an!informed!understanding!of!how!the!tribunal!functions!
perceives!that!the!decision!making!is!biased!- The!grounds!for!the!apprehension!of!bias!must!be!substantial!!- A!real!likelihood!or!probability!of!bias!should!be!demonstrated.!!- Mere!suspicion!of!bias!is!insufficient!for!the!test!to!be!met.!!- The!courts!often!talk!of!demonstrating!the!likelihood!of!bias!on!a!balance!of!probabilities!
51!
- The!reasonable,!wellAinformed!person!is!also!not!one!who!is!overly!sensitive.!!
Application&of&Test&The!application!of!the!test!has!broadened!to!encompass!not!only!individual!decisionAmakers!but!also!decisionAmaking!institutions.!!The!institutional!aspect!of!bias!was!first!recognized!in!Lippé,!where!the!test!was!identified!as!determining!whether!there!could!be!“a!reasonable!apprehension!of!bias!in!the!mind!of!a!fully!informed!person!in!a!substantial!number!of!cases.”!!
Standard&for&Reasonable&Apprehension&of&Bias&- The!standard!for!bias!varies,!depending!on!context.!!- Goes!back!to!the!central!idea!animating!procedural!fairness!in!administrative!law:!the!nature!and!context!of!
the!decisionAmaking!process!drives!the!content!of!procedural!fairness,!including!what!constitutes!impartiality.!
- What!will!give!rise!to!a!reasonable!apprehension!of!bias!in!one!administrative!decisionAmaking!context!may!not!do!so!in!another.!!
- Determining!which!procedural!safeguards!(including!the!degree!of!independence!and!impartiality)!are!needed!in!any!particular!administrative!context!is!a!matter!of!balancing!several!factors!
- The!court!must!assess!the!extent!of!the!need!for!impartiality,!and!take!into!account!!o the!nature!of!the!decision,!!o the!issues!to!be!decided,!!o the!functions!and!activities!of!the!decisionAmaker,!!o the!character!of!the!proceedings!and!the!interests!of!the!individual.(Boniface,!Baker)!
Variability!!- Where!the!nature!of!the!decisionAmaking!process!is!adjudicative!or!judicial!in!nature,!the!requirement!for!an!
impartial!decisionAmaker!will!be!similar!to!that!imposed!on!judges.(Nfld!Phone!638)!!!- Where!the!nature!of!the!decisionAmaking!process!is!more!administrative,!policy!driven,!preliminary!or!
investigatory!in!nature,!the!requirement!may!be!less.!(Nfld,!Boniface)!!- The!question!are!!
o whether!there!might!be!a!RAB!depending!on!the!extent!for!the!need!to!impartiality!o whether!the!possible!bias!is!authorized!by!the!legislation!or!not!(the!rule!against!bias,!like!any!
other!rule!of!procedural!fairness,!may!be!ousted!by!statute)!The!threshold!for!a!finding!of!a!real!apprehension!of!bias!should!be!very!high!+!The!institutional!constraints!of!the!tribunal!are!also!important.!!Bias%and%impartiality%are%not%flexible%concepts%%that%does%not%mean%that%RAB%may%not%be%evaluated%and%vary%
depending%on%the%context%
!!
Personal&Bias&in&Decision&Making&&Understanding&Individual&of&Bias&&- It!is!not!necessary!to!show!actual!bias!to!disqualify!the!decisionAmaker.!(Nfld!Phone!636)!- There!is!only!a!need!to!demonstrate!a!reasonable!apprehension!of!bias.!!- There!may!be!a!reasonable!apprehension!of!bias!where!a!reasonable!person,!knowing!the!facts!concerning!
the!member,!would!suspect!that!the!member!may!be!influenced!by!improper!considerations!to!favour!one!side.!!
52!
- It!need!not!be!shown!that!the!apprehended!bias!actually!prejudiced!one!of!the!parties!or!affected!the!result.!(Baker)!
!
Types&of&Personal&Bias&Factors!can!overlap!They!are!not!“part!of!the!test.”!The!test!is!always!RAB,!as!applicable!to!the!administrative!context.!!May!emerge!as!evidence!or!triggers!to!the!test!!Always!subject!to!express!legislative!sanction!(esp!relevant!in!relation!to!overlapping!roles!and!prior!knowledge/involvement)!!Pecuniary/material&interests&- Receiving!monetary!gains!–!CL!is!more!flexible!where!the!financial!gain!is!indirect!- A!pecuniary!interest!must!be!direct!and!certain!in!order!to!give!rise!to!a!reasonable!apprehension!of!bias!- Pecuniary!interest!may!give!rise!to!a!reasonable!apprehension!of!bias!if!the!decisionAmaker’s!gain!is!no!more!
than!that!of!the!average!person!- Statutory!authorization!may!allow!indirect!pecuniary!benefit!and!therefore!displace!CL!!- Energy!Probe!v!Canada!–!board!renewed!license!of!power!plant,!PT!member!of!panel!has!company!that!
supplies!nuclear!cables!to!plants,!Energy!Probe!as!third!party!petitioned!to!quash!decision!of!board!–!didn’t!convincingly!establish!a!RAB!
- Non!pecuniary!material!interest!A!a!decision!of!a!band!council!to!evict!a!band!member!so!that!his!house!could!be!given!to!a!larger!family!was!set!aside!because!an!intended!resident!of!the!home!was!one!of!the!councillors!
Relationships&- Key!factors!to!consider!are!!
o whether!the!relationship!presents!a!significant!enough!interest!to!affect!the!impartiality!of!the!decisionAmaker!!!
o the!amount!of!time!that!has!passedAA!whether!the!relationship!is!current!enough!to!reasonably!pose!a!significant!threat!to!impartiality!
- Pinochet!AA!although!Lord!not!technically!a!party!to!the!matter!before!the!court,!his!involvement!with!affiliated!charity!which!promotes!the!same!goals!as!the!intervener!was!sufficient!to!show!a!relationship!between!the!two,!even!giving!rise!to!reasonable!apprehension!of!bias!
Prior&knowledge,&involvement&- Focus!on!the!nature!and!extent!of!the!decisionAmaker’s!previous!involvement!- Wewaykum!A!property!dispute!involving!two!First!Nations!bands.!Binnie’s!previous!employment!as!associate!
deputy!minister!of!justice!from!1982!to!1986!was!challenged!as!giving!rise!to!reasonable!apprehension!of!bias,!some!communication!from!him!on!the!matter!but!was!never!counsel!of!record!and!played!no!active!role!in!the!dispute!after!the!claim!was!filed!
Attitudinal&- Decisionmaker’s!comments!and!attitudes!in!course!of!the!hearing!and!outside!the!proceedings!!- During!the!hearing,!antagonism!toward!litigants,!ex!parte!communications,!and!irrelevant!or!vexatious!
comments!- !Adjudicator!or!any!other!member!of!the!tribunal!taking!an!unauthorized!role!as!an!advocate!to!the!
proceeding!!!
Parameters&of&the&rule&against&bias&1. Can!we!answer!an!apprehension!of!bias!with!evidence!of!no!actual!bias?!!
! No.!(Wewaykum)!Perception!is!still!a!factor!!2. To!whom!does!the!rule!apply?!!
All!those!substantially!involved!in!the!decision!(Baker).!
53!
3. Does!apprehension!of!bias!on!the!part!of!one!decision!maker!taint!the!whole!panel?!!Usually.!But!might!depend!on!decisionAmaking!structure,!and!how!much!we!know!about!it.!!Wewaykum,!paras!92A93,!re!SCC!decision!making!process:!RAB!!of!1!judge!wouldn’t!taint!the!other!8.!!Its!all!about!what!constitutes!a!“reasonable!apprehension”.!
!
Pre\judgment&vs&Personal&Interest&The!Supreme!Court!of!Canada!has!differentiated!between!decisionAmakers!disqualified!for!preAjudgment,!and!those!disqualified!for!personal!interest.(Boniface!1197,!Nfld!638)!!Personal!interest!A!whether!a!reasonably!wellAinformed!person!would!consider!that!the!interest!might!have!an!influence!on!the!exercise!of!the!official's!public!duty.!(Boniface!1198)!Pre!judgment!–!closed!mind!before!the!decision!is!made,!effort!to!persuade!is!futile!(Boniface)!!!
Tensions&in&Individual&Bias&Experience,!expertise!knowledge,!advocacy!interest!specific!representation!
Distance!from!the!matter!Open!mindedness!
- Values!around!who!should!decide,!what!makes!the!process!fair!- What!is!fair?!Bring!issue!before!ppl!who!know!nothing!about!water!table!and!oil!spill?!Or!specialists?!!- Is!there!a!gap!between!the!perception!of!bias!and!an!actual!inquiry!into!how!it!plays!out!(Harlekin,!Matsqui)!!- How!the!test!is!applied!in!a!given!context!- Do!we!assess!on!the!front!end!or!on!the!back!end!–!wait!to!see!how!the!decision!plays!out!!!Wewaykum!2!bands!dispute!who!has!the!rights!to!a!reserve!on!Van!island.!Fiduciary!duty.!Band!challenges!decision!on!RAB!in!Binnie.!Concern!about!Binnie!is!prior!involvement.!ADM!in!dept!of!justice!and!assistant!deputy!minister,!was!in!meeting!about!Wewaykum!case!along!the!way.!Supervisory!role!over!litigation.!Court!has!interesting!response.!Give!rise!to!apprehension!of!bias.!Should!Binnie!have!recused!himself?!!
Old&St&Boniface&Residence&Association&v&Winnipeg&|&Close&Mind&Test&Facts:!A!municipal!councillor!had!been!involved!in!discussions!with!the!developer!of!a!proposed!development!and!had!supported!a!related!application!for!rezoning!at!in!camera!(private)!meetings!of!the!Finance!Committee.!At!public!meetings!later!held!on!the!same!application,!he!did!not!disclose!his!earlier!involvement!with!the!application.!At!issue!was!whether!the!municipal!councillor!was!disqualified!from!participating!in!the!proceedings!by!reason!of!bias.!Residents!association!is!arguing!that!council!decision!should!be!quashed!bc!it!was!biased!as!a!result!of!Savoie’s!participation.!!Issue:!Whether!the!municipal!councilor!was!disqualified!from!participating!in!the!proceedings!by!reason!of!bias?!Raises!questions!of!the!application!of!the!rules!of!natural!justice!or!fairness!to!municipal!councilors!when!they!are!called!upon!to!make!a!decision!after!hearing!representations!from!interested!parties.!Held:!In!this!case!the!involvement!of!Savoie!could!be!biased!if!it!can!be!shown!his!support!was!motivated!by!some!sort!of!relationship!with!the!developer.!Though!it!was!found!there!was!no!such!interest.!Because!the!duty!in!this!case!was!to!hear!and!decide!the!test!is!that!of!reasonable!apprehension!of!bias.!In!this!case!Savoie!did!not!prejudge!the!case!to!the!extent!that!he!can!be!found!to!have!reasonable!apprehension!of!bias.!!In!assessing!rules!of!natural!justice!we!have!to!consider!1)!the!terms!of!the!statute!pursuant!to!which!the!body!operates,!2)!the!nature!of!the!particular!function!of!which!it!is!seized!and!3)!the!type!of!decision!it!is!called!upon!to!make.!
54!
The!test!for!municipal!councilors!that!still!allows!them!to!carry!out!their!political!or!legislative!duties!is!one!that!requires!the!objectors!or!supporters!be!heard!by!members!of!Council!who!are!capable!of!being!persuaded.!The!party!in!opposition!must!establish!there!is!prejudgment!to!the!extent!that!nay!representations!at!variance!with!the!view!would!be!futile.!!Boniface!argues!the!proceedings!were!quasi!judicial!in!nature!and!thus!the!conduct!of!members!of!the!council!must!not!give!rise!to!reasonable!apprehension!of!bias.!!In!this!case!we!know!there!was!an!opportunity!for!an!hearing,!and!further!that!the!legislation!must!have!been!drafted!in!a!way!that!was!aware!that!the!councilors!would!sit!on!the!board!and!would!have!potentially!voiced!opinions!on!the!issues!thus!the!nature!and!functions!of!the!municipal!body!show!that!it!is!still!open!to!evidence.!Statements!may!give!rise!to!an!appearance!of!bias!but!they!wont!satisfy!the!test!unless!the!court!concludes!that!they!are!the!expression!of!a!final!opinion!on!the!matter.!!Significance:!Closed!mind!test!is!developed.!Close!mind!very!diff!from!RAB!–!show!that!closed!mind,!rather!than!there!is!bias!The!test!is!always!RAB!as!applicable!to!the!admin!context.!See!distinction!btwn!pecuniary/material!interests!and!type!attitudinal!bias!in!Old!St!Boniface,!where!context!dictates!that!a!different!standard!applies!in!relation!to!attitudinal!bias!than!in!relation!to!pecuniary/material!interest!!
Closed&Mind&Test&&The!party!alleging!disqualifying!bias!must!establish!that!there!is!prejudgment!of!the!matter,!in!fact,!to!the!extent!that!any!representations!at!variance!with!the!view,!which!as!been!adopted,!would!be!futile.!!How%the%hell%do%you%prove%that?%%
%
Close%Mind%Test%and%Discussion%of%Boniface%%
Application%of%Closed%Mind%Test%
- In!Boniface!the!residents!association!challenges!that!the!counselor!is!biased!because!he!has!already!made!up!his!mind,!so!what!kind!of!fair!hearing!would!the!community!group!get.!!
- The!court!doesn’t!find!bias!here!because!instead!of!the!RAB!test!they!apply!the!“closed!mind!test”!such!that!any!representation!in!variance!to!the!view!would!be!futile.!!
- They!apply!this!different!standard!because!of!the!nature!of!the!particular!function!of!which!is!seized!and!the!type!of!decision!that!the!body!is!making,!all!based!on!the!terms!of!that!statute!that!they!are!under.!
- If!they!could!have!shown!he!had!a!personal!stake!in!the!project.!- The!fact!that!he!had!expressed!his!bias!a!number!of!times!before!the!tribunal!shows!bias!however!we!know!
that!councilors!are!biased!because!they!are!elected!through!the!democratic!process.!We!actually!want!councilors!to!have!positions.!!
RAB%vs%Closed%Mind%
- So!where!this!leaves!us,!is!this!a!reasonable!apprehension!of!a!closed!mind!or!just!a!closed!mind?!How!do!we!prove!a!level!of!close!mindedness!!(that!they!wont!listen!to!anything,!futile)?!
- In!Newfoundland!the!decision!maker!was!appointed!and!this!would!demonstrate!that!maybe!he!was!appointed!to!demonstrate!certain!interests!
- Why!does!this!standard!apply!in!Boniface?!1)!municipal!context!based!on!councilors!(voted!in!on!opinions,!or!bias)!2)!was!attitudinal!rather!than!pecuniary!!
- Prejudgment!bias!vs!personal!bias!–!gives!more!leeway!to!ppl!with!opinions.!No!way!to!show!that!there!was!a!personal!interest.!!
- Attitudinal!bias!–!expressed!what!side!of!case!he!was!on!and!expressed!several!times!before!decision!–!closed!mind!context.!!
Municipal!context!different!standardA!you!get!voted!in!based!on!opinions,!platforms,!elections!should!rectify!that!not!the!court!if!you!don’t!like!bias.!We!want!councilors!to!take!positions.!Can’t!expect!them!to!not!take!positions!on!this!issue.!Is!this!a!RA!of!closed!mind!or!is!it!just!closed!mind?!!
55!
!IS!THE!CLOSED!MIND!TEST!STILL!ALIVE?!I!THOUGHT!WE!USE!THE!RAB!AND!THEN!ADJUST!IT!TO!THE!CONTEXT/CIRCUMSTANCES!OF!THE!ADMIN!BODY?!DOES!IT!STILL!APPLY!TO!PREDECISION?!!
Newfoundland&Telephone&Co&|&Variability&in&Admin&Contexts&Facts:!The!Newfoundland!Board!of!Commissioners!of!Public!Utilities!regulates!the!Newfoundland!Telephone!Company!and!under!its!powers!under!the!Public!Utilities!Act!the!board!commissioned!financial!consultants!to!prepare!a!detailed!analysis!of!the!costs!and!other!accounting!functions!of!Newfoundland!Telephone!from!81A87!and!to!submit!a!report.!Upon!receiving!the!report!the!Board!determined!that!sufficient!grounds!existed!to!warrant!a!formal!hearing!into!the!items!that!the!report!contained.!The!contentious!items!were!the!increased!cost!of!executive!salaries!and!the!additional!reserves!for!higher!executive!pensions.!!Issue:!To!what!extent!should!an!administrative!board!member!be!permitted!to!comment!upon!matters!before!the!board?!And!What!should!the!result!be!if!a!decision!of!a!board!is!made!in!circumstances!where!there!is!reasonable!apprehension!of!bias.!!Held:!Because!of!Wells!bias!the!proceeding!was!unfair!and!should!be!held!invalid.!The!order!was!found!to!be!void.!!In!this!case!the!Board!supervises!the!Telephone!company,!further!the!court!determines!that!the!Board!is!not!dealing!with!legal!issues!in!its!examination!but!policy!issues!and!thus!the!decision!making!is!closer!to!the!legislative!end!of!the!spectrum!rather!than!adjudicative.!Thus!the!boards!process!is!investigative!and!members!can!be!allowed!to!make!comments!regarding!the!investigation.!The!court!holds!also!that!what!we!need!to!beware!of!is!a!“closed!mind”!and!thus!the!statements!made!by!Wells!could!lead!inexorably!to!the!conclusion!that!he!had!a!closed!mind!and!thus!there!was!an!apprehension!of!bias.!It!would!appear!to!the!general!public!that!he!had!made!up!his!mind!before!the!hearings!even!occurred.!!Upon!finding!there!was!bias!the!court!found!that!the!remedy!to!this!cannot!be!to!render!the!decision!voidable!and!then!make!a!subsequent!decision.!There!is!damage!that!occurs!because!of!bias,!and!thus!the!decision!must!always!be!rendered!invalid!because!the!right!to!a!fair!hearing!should!be!seen!as!an!independent!unqualified!right.!Thus!in!this!case!the!order!must!be!declared!void.!!Administrative!boards!play!an!increasingly!important!role!in!our!society.!They!regulate!many!aspects!of!our!life,!from!beginning!to!end.!Some!boards!will!have!a!function!that!is!investigative,!prosecutorial!and!adjudicative.!The!composition!of!boards!can,!and!often!should,!reflect!all!aspects!of!society.!There!is!no!reason!why!advocates!for!the!consumer!or!ultimate!user!of!the!regulated!product!should!not,!in!appropriate!circumstances,!be!members!of!boards.!A!consumer!advocate!who!has!spoken!out!on!numerous!occasions!about!practices!which!he,!or!she,!considers!unfair!to!the!consumer!will!be!expected!to!put!forward!the!consumer!point!of!view.!Yet!that!same!person!will!also!strive!for!fairness!and!a!just!result.!Boards!need!not!be!limited!solely!to!experts!or!to!bureaucrats.!Although!the!duty!of!fairness!applies!to!all!administrative!bodies,!the!extent!of!that!duty!will!depend!upon!the!nature!and!the!function!of!the!particular!tribunal.!...!The!duty!to!act!fairly!includes!the!duty!to!provide!procedural!fairness!to!the!parties.!That!simply!cannot!exist!if!an!adjudicator!is!biased.!!It!is,!of!course,!impossible!to!determine!the!precise!state!of!mind!of!an!adjudicator!who!has!made!an!administrative!board!decision.!As!a!result,!the!courts!have!taken!the!position!that!an!unbiased!appearance!is,!in!itself,!an!essential!component!of!procedural!fairness.!To!ensure!fairness!the!conduct!of!members!of!administrative!tribunals!has!been!measured!against!a!standard!of!reasonable!apprehension!of!bias.!The!test!is!whether!a!reasonably!inA!formed!bystander!could!reasonably!perceive!bias!on!the!part!of!an!adjudicator.!!RAB:!The!test!for!RAB!is!whether!a!reasonably!informed!bystander!could!reasonably!perceive!bias!on!the!part!of!the!adjudicator.!At!an!investigative!stage!a!higher!standard!is!required!!use!the!“closed!mind”!test,!!PF!is!required!of!board!members!in!how!they!conduct!themselves!and!ensuring!that!there!is!no!reasonable!apprehension!of!bias.!!
56!
The!standard!of!impartiality!expected!of!a!decisionAmaker!is!variable!depending!on!the!role!and!function!of!the!decisionAmaker!involved.!The!court!details!why!a!Board!should!contain!representation!from!a!wide!spectrum!of!people!and!that!this!often!will!include!people!have!an!interest!in!the!Boards!operation.!In!assessing!the!duty!of!boards!the!court!recognized!that!all!boards!owe!a!duty!of!fairness!to!regulated!parties!whose!interests!they!are!determining!though!the!extent!of!this!duty!will!depend!on!the!nature!and!function!of!the!tribunal.!They!find!that!the!conduct!of!the!members!of!the!Board!should!be!such!that!there!could!be!no!reasonable!apprehension!of!bias!with!regard!to!their!decision.!but!with!boards!with!elected!members!dealing!with!planning!and!development!there!can!be!more!leniency.!!The!test!to!disqualify!a!member!requires!that!the!challenging!party!establish!that!there!has!been!preAjudgment!of!the!matter!to!such!an!extent!that!any!representations!to!the!contrary!would!be!futile.!Also!that!a!member!of!a!board!that!is!doing!policy!formation!shouldn’t!be!susceptible!to!a!charge!of!bias!simply!if!they!express!opinions!prior!to!the!hearing.!!Significance:!When!one!person!is!tainted!the!entire!panel!is!usually!influenced.!!!Discussion%
Closed!mind!–!okay!for!ppl!to!have!opinions!!RAB!–!different!approach,!adjusts!to!account!that!decision!makers!come!with!expertise,!hard!to!draw!line!as!to!whether!this!amounts!as!bias!!SCC!decides!that!there!is!a!biased!–!decision!needs!to!be!quashed.!!What!standard!of!bias!do!they!apply!and!why?!Pre!hearing!=!Closed!Mind!test.!For!hearing!=!RAB!test.!!Investigate!and!then!become!adjudicator!–!statute!authorizes!this!process.!!How!do!we!apply!judicial!principles!in!light!of!that!statutory!authorization?!!Statements!that!are!not!problematic!in!investigation!phase!but!create!issue!in!hearing!phase.!!Has!already!spouted!off!RAB!perspective/opinion.!!Not!much!space!for!the!close!minded!test!to!apply!in!investigative!phase.!!Where!do!we!place!utilities!commission!in!relation!to!municipal!scheme.!–!election!vs!appointment.!!Expert!opinion!is!not!equivalent!to!bias.!!!
Variable&Standard&in&Admin&Contexts&Boards!that!are!primarily!adjudicative!in!their!functions!will!be!expected!to!comply!with!the!standard!applicable!to!courts.!That!is!to!say!that!the!conduct!of!the!members!of!the!Board!should!be!such!that!there!could!be!no!reasonable!apprehension!of!bias!with!regard!to!their!decision.!Boards!with!popularly!elected!members!(such!as!those!dealing!with!planning!and!development!whose!members!are!municipal!councillors)!the!standard!will!be!much!more!lenient.!In!order!to!disqualify!the!members!a!challenging!party!must!establish!that!there!has!been!a!preAjudgment!of!the!matter!to!such!an!extent!that!any!representations!to!the!contrary!would!be!futile.!!Boards!that!deal!with!matters!of!policy!will!be!closely!comparable!to!the!boards!composed!of!municipal!councillors.!For!those!boards,!a!strict!application!of!a!reasonable!apprehension!of!bias!as!a!test!might!undermine!the!very!role!which!has!been!entrusted!to!them!by!the!legislature.!!
Teroczi&v&Canada&2012|&Stats&Giving&Rise&to&Bias&Facts:!The!applicants!are!refugee!claimants!and!they!had!their!claim!rejected!in!2011!by!David!McBean.!They!argue!they!were!denied!procedural!fairness!in!this!because!there!was!a!RAB!because!McBeans!rejection!rate!is!much!higher!than!the!other!members!average.!They!base!their!argument!on!the!evidence!of!the!Rehagg!report!which!was!written!by!a!law!professor!at!Osgoode!which!summarizes!data!from!the!Immigration!and!refugee!board.!!It!details!explicitly!how!much!lower!his!approval!rates!were!and!how!this!was!a!consistent!finding.!Govn’t!argues!the!test!for!bias!isn’t!met!because!there!is!no!evidence!of!actual!bias!and!no!evidence!to!address!the!
57!
statistical!significance!of!the!figures.!Even!if!it!report!stats!were!legit!there!are!unaccounted!variables!and!they!don’t!attempt!to!demonstrate!that!their!case!specifically!was!wrongfully!decided.!!Issue:!!Held:!In!assessing!RAB!a!case!of!general!bias!may!not!be!sufficient!unless!applicant!can!produce!evidence!for!why!this!general!bias!was!specific!in!their!instance.!General!bias!doesn’t!translate!into!specific!apprehension!of!bias.!The!test!here!is!higher!than!the!apprehension!of!bias!test!for!specific!bias.!The!court!finds!that!the!reports!evidence!isn’t!of!the!variables!that!may!impact!the!inference!of!the!applicants!claim.!Applicant’s!argument!is!flawed!–!no!specific!argument!or!indication!as!to!why!the!decision!is!biased.!!The!application!is!dismissed.!!Perception!of!biasAA!On!a!BAP!would!a!RP!perceive!a!bias.!Stats!seem!to!show!that!it!would!be!met,!but!court!rejects!stats!showing!a!bias.!Need!to!show!variable!that!indicates!bias.!General!stats!isn’t!enough.!Important!to!consider!as!well!that!the!way!that!the!cases!are!assigned!are!specialized!or!a!certain!type!of!case!ie)!person!A!only!handles!applications!from!ppl!who!have!been!involved!in!radical/terrorist!groups.!Statistics!assume!that!everyone!is!getting!similar!cases.!!Significance:!Shows!what!kinds!of!evidence!can!be!used!for!attitudinal!bias.!Overestimates!a!reasonable!person.!Statistics!don’t!apply!on!a!individual!level!–!they!are!general.!!Why!does!claim!fail?!Do!you!agree!with!the!judge!or!do!you!think!the!stats!give!rise!to!a!RAB?!!!!
Chretien&v&Canada&Facts!Ratio!Issue!Held!Significance!!
Institutional&Bias&What&is&institutional&bias?&- Bias!resulting!from!structure!of!organization.!!- Lack!of!impartiality!(possibility,!perception)!flowing!from!the!structure!of!an!organization,!as!opposed!to!one!
coming!from!individual!actions,!words!or!relationships,!!- A!reasonable!apprehension!of!bias!can!be!present!on!an!institutional!or!structural!level!(Lippe)!- Set!against!the!standards!we!have!in!courts!!- Structured!against!the!constitutional!principle!of!judicial!independence!!Institutional!bias!≠!Adjudicative!independence!!
Adjudicative&independence&&plays!into!institutional!bias,!lack!of!separation!of!decision!makers!and!influence,!!!admin!independence!and!principles!of!independence!are!all!about!decision!makers!being!able!to!make!decisions!free!from!inappropriate!influence!(stems!from!impartiality!and!bias!as!well!as!hearing!rights!AA!other!branch)!“he!who!hears!must!decide”!improper!influence!–!the!person!who!hears!the!matter!must!decide!the!matter,!creates!continuity!+!understanding,!!to!do!otherwise!removes!participatory!rights!from!the!person!being!heard!when!someone!else!is!making!the!decision!(interferes!with!hearing)!!!!
58!
Test&for&institutional&bias&&This!test!for!institutional!bias!requires!an!assessment!as!to!whether!the!institutional!structure!will!give!rise!to!a!reasonable!apprehension!of!bias!in!the!mind!of!a!fully!informed!person!in!a!substantial!number!of!cases.!- The!test!that!applies!to!the!issue!of!impartiality!is!the!same!as!the!one!applying!to!institutional!independence!!- A!reasonable!apprehension!of!bias!can!potentially!flow!from!multiple!roles!played!by!an!entity's!lawyer!- But!a!plurality!of!functions!in!a!single!administrative!agency!does!not!raise!an!apprehension!of!bias,!per!se!
and!is!not!necessarily!problematic!(Ocean!Port!40A41)!!
Common&Areas&of&Institutional&Bias&&Institutional!bias!arguments!have!been!made!in!five!types!of!situations:!1.!!Where!the!decisionAmaker!carried!out!more!than!one!function!within!a!particular!case;!2.!!Where!the!tribunal's!staff!is!employed!in!ways!that!give!rise!to!bias!concerns;!3.!!Where!a!party!has!an!institutional!role!in!the!proceeding!that!might!be!thought!to!bias!the!outcome;!4.!!Where!the!tribunal,!or!one!of!its!members,!might!be!thought!to!have!a!financial!interest!in!a!particular!outcome;!and!5.!Where!a!tribunal!engages!in!improper!internal!consultations!before!the!final!determination!of!the!case!!If!no!institutional!bias,!an!apprehension!of!bias!may!still!be!found!in!a!particular!case!!!
Impartiality:&Judicial&vs&Bureaucratic&&Judicial! Bureaucratic!Judge/Panel!is!sole!DM;!Often!supported!by!staff!counsel,!articling!clerks!!Decisions!are!bound!by!stare!decisis!!!Panels!–!discussion,!but!each!judge!reaches!decision!independently!(see!Wewaykum!re!SCC),!see!it!in!dissents!and!diff!reasons!!!Decisions!are!subject!to!a!hierarchy!of!review!!
Adjudicator/Panel!is!sole!DM;!Often!supported!by!staff!lawyers,!experts!!Decisions!are!not!bound!by!stare!decisis!–!they!are!not!making!law!(still!influence!other!decisions!inadvertently)!!Decisions!may!be!guided!by!agency!guidelines!(soft!law)!+!plenary!mtgs!of!board/institutional!consultation!+!lead!cases!!!Decisions!are!subject!to!varying!levels/degrees!of!review!!
Values:!That!person!who!heard!the!case!decides!it!on!the!basis!of!the!evidence!in!that!case!(fairness/hearing!rights)!and!is!insulated!from!institutional!and!political!pressure!(fettering)(fairness/independence!&!impartiality)!!That!person!who!is!properly!delegated!the!decisionAmaking!power!decides/is!responsible!for!the!decision!(limits!on!lawful!authority,!rule!
Values:!Promotion!of!consistency,!predictability!!(rule!of!law!values)!!!Supports!efficiency,!quality!control,!expertise!in!tribunals,!role!of!tribunals!in!developing!policy!(public!administration!values)!!
59!
against!further!delegation!by!delegees)!!Examples:!Consultation!amongst!decisionAmakers!beyond!panel!on!the!given!case!(e.g.,!full!board!meetings)!(Consolidated!Bathurst)!Test!case!(Geza)!Agency!guidelines!(policyAmaking,!soft!law)!Helpful!in!filling!in!statutory!gaps,!developing!policy,!but…!Might!they!preAdecide!the!case?!Improperly!“fetter”!discretion!of!decisionAmaker!re!procedure!or!substance?!(Thamotharem)!!Are!we!doing!ourselves!a!favor!by!measuring!admin!decisions!against!judicial!decisions?!Only!by!measuring!against!judicial!context!that!we!describe!these!things!as!problems!–!speaks!to!value!tensions!!
Policy&Making&in&Admin&Tribunals&Three!modes!of!policy!making!by!administrative!tribunals!
1. decision!making!!2. informal!rule!making!(soft!law!A!guidelines,!bulletins,!manuals)!3. formal!rule!making!through!delegated!legislation!
- in!most!cases!these!modes!of!policy!making!are!used!to!advance!the!mandates!of!the!statute!the!admin!body!is!authorized!under!
- Tensions!arise!when!these!instruments!appear!to!infringe!on!the!adjudicative!independence!of!any!individual!tribunal!decisionAmaker!
- Reminder:!Adjudicative!independence!is!one!guarantee!of!independence!that!is!frequently!called!into!question!in!the!administrative!context!
!A!note!on!Full!board!meetings!A!!used!to!promote!consistency!in!decision!making!across!tribunals,!boards!have!several!members,!sometimes!in!the!hundreds,!in!various!parts!of!the!country!who!may!each!have!distinct!views!on!how!the!law!under!the!legislation!should!be!developed,!question!arises!whether!the!adjudicative!independence!of!any!individual!member!has!been!compromised!as!a!result!of!these!meetings!!
Adjudicative&Independence&and&the&Legislative&Process&- In!Ocean!Port!McLachlin!states!that!all!tribunals!exist!precisely!to!further!the!policy!of!the!executive!branch!
of!government!(legislative!process)!- Adjudicative!independence!supports!decision!makers!being!able!to!make!decisions!free!from!inappropriate!
influence!of!the!executive!How!do!we!reconcile!the!two?!- In!CEPUC!Local!707!v!Alberta!Labour!Relations!board!the!board!was!consulted!by!Executive!to!help!
implement!a!new!legislative!policy.!Subsequently!the!legal!action!brought!against!the!board!Board!A!lack!independence!and!impartiality,!loss!of!confidence!by!the!unions!affected!by!the!policy.!!
The!question!turns!on!how!a!tribunal!can!communicate!such!information!while!preserving!its!appearance!of!impartiality!and!independence!from!the!executive!branch!of!government.!!Central!to!this!question!of!feedback!is!the!protection!of!adjudicative!independence,!particularly!on!an!institutional!level.!!
60!
Overlapping&of&functions&in&Institutions&&- Absent!constitutional!constraints,!the!legislature!may!authorize!an!overlapping!of!functions!that!would!
otherwise!contravene!the!rule!against!bias!(Ocean!Port!42)!!- In!Régie!des!permis!d'alcool!du!Québec!the!institutional!structure!was!sufficient!to!raise!RAB!–!same!lawyer!
could!be!involved!at!all!stages!of!the!licence!cancellation!(e.g.,!in!the!investigation,!the!prosecution!and!the!adjudication!of!the!same!case)!!
- In!determining!whether!there!is!a!reasonable!apprehension!of!institutional!bias,!one!must!look!at!the!enabling!statute!to!see!whether!it!permits!the!overlapping!functions!(Cdn!Pcf!82,117)!!!
- If!the!legislation!expressly!permits!overlapping!functions!and!duplication!at!an!individual!level,!the!rule!against!bias!will!yield!to!Parliamentary!sovereignty,!unless!there!is!a!constitutional!challenge.!!
- The!overlapping!of!functions!does!not!give!rise!to!a!reasonable!apprehension!of!bias!per!se!!!!Although!security!of!tenure,!financial!security,!and!administrative!control!(the!central!tenets!of!judicial!independence)!may!figure!in!the!problems!of!independence,!impartiality,!and!bias!affecting!administrative!tribunals,!they!are!by!no!means!the!main!issues!of!independence,!impartiality,!and!bias!currently!affecting!tribunals!in!their!everyday!operational!contexts.!!
Int’l&Woodworkers&of&American&v&Consolidated&Bathurst&Facts:!Consolidated!Bathurst!is!employer.!Dispute!against!Union.!Union!argues!that!Bathurst!failed!to!bargain!in!good!faith!with!the!union!because!it!did!not!disclose!during!the!negotiations!its!impending!decision!to!close!the!plant!covered!by!the!collective!agreement.!A!full!board!meeting!was!convene!to!discuss!the!implications!of!plant!closure.!Union!lawyer!happened!to!find!out.!No!Union!members!were!invited!to!the!board!meeting.!Union!is!arguing!that!bc!they!weren’t!invited!all!the!evidence!that!the!Union!would!provide!was!not!considered!and!therefore!the!decision!should!be!struck.!At!trial!the!court!held!that!the!full!board!meeting!violated!rules!of!NJ.!ONCA!overturned.!Moved!to!SCC.!!Heart!of!the!issue!was!whether!fullAboard!meetings!constitute!a!breach!of!the!natural!justice!principle!“he!who!hears!must!decide,”!by!placing!the!decisionAmakers!in!a!situation!where!they!can!be!influenced!by!others!who!have!not!heard!the!evidence!or!arguments.!!!Issue:!Is!the!legitimacy!of!the!board’s!decision!to!close!the!plant!vitiated!by!the!board’s!failure!to!include!union!members!in!the!board!meeting?!Are!the!principles!of!NJ!violated!and!thus!the!decision!rendered!illegal/unfair?!Held:!Relevant!issue!is!whether!there!is!pressure!on!decision!maker!to!decide!against!his!or!her!own!conscience.!SCC!acknowledged!the!need!for!fullAboard!meetings.!In!the!majority’s!opinion,!such!meetings!allowed!the!members!of!a!large!board!with!a!heavy!case!load!to!benefit!from!the!acquired!expertise!of!the!collective.!As!well,!consultation!was!useful!in!achieving!the!board’s!mandate.!The!structure!of!the!board!was!conducive!to!exchanges!of!opinions!between!management!and!union!(as!evidenced!by!its!tripartite!nature)!in!order!to!use!its!combined!expertise!to!regulate!labour!relations!in!a!prompt!and!final!manner.!The!majority!also!saw!coherence!as!a!goal!to!be!fostered!so!that!the!outcome!of!disputes!did!not!depend!on!the!identity!of!the!decisionAmaker.!The!fact!that!a!privative!clause!protects!the!board’s!decisions!made!it!even!more!incumbent!on!the!board!to!take!measures!to!avoid!conflicting!results.!An!institutionalized!consultation!process!will!not!necessarily!lead!Board!members!to!reach!a!consensus!but!it!provides!a!forum!where!such!a!consensus!can!be!reached!freely!as!a!result!of!thoughtful!discussion!on!the!issues!at!hand.!Court!concludes!that!the!consultation!process!does!not!violate!the!audi!alteram!partem!rule!provided!that!factual!issues!of!the!case!are!not!discussed!at!a!full!board!meeting!and!that!the!parties!are!given!a!reasonable!opportunity!to!respond!to!any!new!ground!arising!from!such!a!meeting.!It!was!also!argued!that!such!meetings!are!unacceptable!because!they!do!not!provide!the!parties!with!adequate!opportunity!to!answer!issues!that!may!be!voiced!by!board!members!who!have!not!heard!the!case.!!Types!of!institutional!Consultation:!Court!finds!distinction!btwn!meeting!and!hearing.!Hearing!is!a!gathering!where!representations!are!made!by!both!parties!in!front!of!an!enlarged!panel!comprised!of!all!the!members!of!
61!
the!Board!in!the!manner!prescribed!by!statute.!A!full!board!meeting!does!not!entail!representations!by!the!parties!since!they!are!not!invited!to!or!even!notified!of!the!meeting.!!Court!finds!rationale!for!board!meetings.!1)!provides!opportunity!for!ppl!to!voice!their!opinion!freely!and!the!board!to!have!benefit!of!expertise!of!each!members!2)!fosters!coherence.!"Justice!should!not!only!be!done,!but!should!manifestly!and!undoubtedly!be!seen!to!be!done".!This!maxim!applies!whenever!the!circumstances!create!the!danger!of!an!injustice,!for!example!when!there!is!a!reasonable!apprehension!of!bias,!even!if!the!decision!maker!has!completely!disregarded!these!circumstances.!However,!in!my!opinion!and!for!the!reasons!which!follow,!the!danger!that!full!board!meetings!may!impede!the!judicial!independence!of!panel!members!is!not!sufficiently!present!to!give!rise!to!a!reasonable!apprehension!of!bias!or!lack!of!independence.!A!full!board!meeting!is!not!!imposed:!it!is!called!at!the!request!of!the!hearing!panel!or!any!of!its!members.!It!is!carefully!designed!to!foster!discussion!without!trying!to!verify!whether!a!consensus!has!been!reached:!no!minutes!are!kept,!no!votes!are!taken,!attendance!is!voluntary!and!presence!at!the!full!board!meeting!is!not!recorded.!The!decision!is!left!entirely!to!the!hearing!panel.!It!cannot!be!said!that!this!practice!is!meant!to!convey!to!panel!members!the!message!that!the!opinion!of!the!majority!of!the!Board!members!present!has!to!be!followed.!!Policy!Issues:!Policy!issues!must!be!approached!in!a!different!manner!because!they!have,!by!definition,!an!impact!which!goes!beyond!the!resolution!of!the!dispute!between!the!parties.!While!they!are!adopted!in!a!factual!context,!they!are!an!expression!of!principle!or!standards!akin!to!law.!The!parties!must!be!informed!of!any!new!ground!on!which!they!have!not!made!any!representations.!In!such!a!case,!the!parties!must!be!given!a!reasonable!opportunity!to!respond!and!the!calling!of!a!supplementary!hearing!may!be!appropriate.!!Significance:!Implications?!Should!tribunals!publish!their!decisionAmaking!processes?!Do!they!have!to?!!No!minutesA!protects!board,!tribunal.!!!
Geza&v&Canada&|&Proving&RAB&+&RAB&vs&Bad&Decision&Making&Facts:!Immigration!and!Refugee!Board!(IRB)!took!a!sample!case!(referred!to!as!‘lead!case’!in!decision)!out!of!a!growing!amount!of!Roma!refugee!applications.!Roma!refugees!are!from!Hungary.purpose!of!the!exercise!was!to!establish!a!base!line!of!legal!and!factual!issues!to!promote!consistency!in!subsequent!claim!decisions.!Admin!body!works!with!govn’t!to!run!test!case.!Creates!a!standard!for!cases!to!be!heard!more!efficiently.!Work!with!lawyer.!Have!a!few!selected!cases.!Test!case!can’t!be!binding!but!sets!some!standards!that!could!speed!things!up.!IRB!member!is!involved!in!setting!process!up!and!!due!to!staff!unavailability!also!gets!involved!in!hearing!of!matter.!Claimants!don’t!allege!individual!bias.!Challenge!negativity!against!claims,!say!whole!process!is!set!up!to!reduce!positive!claims!from!Roma.!Trial!process!upholds!decision.!Appeal!finds!that!test!case!process!gives!rise!to!RAB.!!Ratio&Issue:&Does!lead!case!result!in!a!RAB?!Is!there!negative!group!bias!as!a!result!of!the!lead!case?!!Federal&Court&Held:!Court!finds!that!Geza!et!al!do!not!have!enough!evidence!to!substantiate!claim!of!negativity!or!bias.!The!evidence!does!not!prove!that!the!perceived!decline!in!acceptance!rates!for!Hungarian!Roma!was!a!direct!result!of!the!lead!case.!However,!even!if!this!direct!result!can!be!established,!it!does!not!act!to!support!the!allegation!of!apprehension!of!bias.!If!IRB!members!appropriately!cite!the!evidence!and!findings!in!the!lead!case!in!deciding!on!the!merits!of!a!particular!refugee!claim,!there!can!be!no!complaint.!However,!if!IRB!members!choose!to!apply!the!lead!case!without!doing!the!hard!work!to!reach!an!independent!analysis!of!the!evidence!and!the!law!in!a!particular!claim!in!an!appropriate!way,!this!does!not!contribute!to!a!finding!of!apprehension!of!bias;!it!is!erroneous!decision!making!which!is!subject!to!correction!on!judicial!review.!Federal&Court&on&Appeal&Held:&The!central!issue!in!this!case!is!whether!the!Immigration!and!Refugee!Board!breached!that!duty!by!creating!a!reasonable!apprehension!of!bias!in!the!way!that!it!established!a!"lead!case"!format!for!determining!the!appellants'!refugee!claims,!and!by!not!separating!the!functions!of!management!and!adjudication.!Held!that!although!there!was!no!single!fact!that!alone!established!a!reasonable!apprehension!of!
62!
bias,!there!were!several!facts!that!contributed!collectively!to!a!reasonable!apprehension!of!bias.!Court!looks!at!participation!of!IRB!member!was!involved!in!communications!and!creation!of!lead!case!and!then!subsequently!involved!in!hearings.!Looks!at!emails!and!finds!that!part!of!the!need!to!establish!a!lead!case!was!to!be!stringent!in!allowing!refugees!entranceA!aim!directed!towards!reducing!the!number!of!positive!claimants.!Given!the!high!standard!of!impartiality!to!which!the!Board!is!held!in!its!adjudicative!capacity,!a!reasonable!person!might!well!have!concluded!on!the!basis!of!the!above!that!the!panel!hearing!the!appellants'!claims!was!not!impartial.!This!is!because!one!of!its!two!panel!members!may!have!been!predisposed!towards!denying!the!appellants'!claims!in!understanding!what!the!underlying!aim!of!the!lead!case!was.!Appeal!granted.!!Standard!of!Impartiality:!The!standard!of!impartiality!expected!of!a!particular!administrative!decision!maker!depends!on!context!and!is!to!be!measured!by!reference!to!the!factors!identified!in!Baker.!Applies!Baker:!The!independence!of!the!Board,!its!adjudicative!procedure!and!functions,!and!the!fact!that!its!decisions!affect!the!Charter!rights!of!claimants,!indicate!that!the!content!of!the!duty!of!fairness!owed!by!the!Board,!including!the!duty!of!impartiality,!falls!at!the!high!end!of!the!continuum!of!procedural!fairness.!The!high!standard!of!impartiality!and!independence!applicable!to!the!Board!will!be!reflected!in!the!determination!of!whether!the!appellants!have!established!a!reasonable!apprehension!of!bias.!Role!of!board:!Administrative!agencies!are!often!required!to!be!procedurally!innovative!in!order!to!handle!a!heavy!caseload!effectively!and!to!make!the!most!efficient!use!of!scarce!resources.!They!are!also!required!to!observe!the!duty!of!fairness.!Board!handles!a!mass!amount!of!decisions!and!applications.!As!a!result!needed!to!devise!means!of!maintaining!and!enhancing!the!consistency!and!quality!of!its!decisionsA!critical!importance!to!its!ability!to!perform!its!statutory!functions!and!to!retain!its!legitimacy.!To!this!end,!the!Board's!procedure!should!not!be!confined!in!a!model!of!due!process!that!draws!exclusively!on!the!judicial!paradigm!and!discourages!innovation.!Nonetheless,!procedures!designed!to!increase!quality!and!consistency!cannot!be!adopted!at!the!expense!of!the!duty!of!each!panel!to!afford!to!the!claimant!before!it!a!high!degree!of!impartiality!and!independence.!Significance:!No!smoking!gun!in!appellants!argument.!Broad!variety!of!claims.!Overall!argument!is!that!there!is!an!effort!towards!reducing!positive!claims.!Emails!back!and!forth!btwn!ministry!and!decision!maker!–!issue!of!independence,!limited!consultation!–!only!reached!out!to!one!lawyer.!Test!case!gets!thrown!out.!!!CONFUSED:!SO!YOU!APPLY!THE!BAKER!TEST!TO!DETERMINE!IMPARTIALITY?!WTF????!DID!I!MISS!SOMETHING?!THOUGHT!THAT!IT!WAS!USED!TO!INFORM!CONTEND!OF!DOF?!IS!THIS!THE!SAME!AS!IMPARTIALITY?!WHAT!DOES!IT!MEAN!“the!high!standard!of!impartiality!and!independence!applicable!to!the!Board!will!be!reflected!in!the!determination!of!whether!the!appellants!have!established!a!reasonable!apprehension!of!bias.”!MERRIGOROUND!ARGUMENT?!!chill%dumbass%see%notes%on%“Standard%for%RAB”%Goes%back%to%the%central%idea%
animating%procedural%fairness%in%administrative%law:%the%nature%and%context%of%the%decision@making%process%drives%
the%content%of%procedural%fairness,%including%what%constitutes%impartiality.%What%will%give%rise%to%a%reasonable%
apprehension%of%bias%in%one%administrative%decision@making%context%may%not%do%so%in%another.%%
!!
Thamotharem&v&Canada&&Facts:!Chairman!of!IRB!has!broad!statutory!powers!to!issue!rules!and!guidelines.!Guidelines!are!without!additional!approval.!Rules!are!with!approval!of!GIC!and!put!before!P.!Procedural!guideline!7!created!to!promote!efficiency!in!refugee!claim!processing.!It!governs!questioning!procedures.!In!a!claim!for!refugee!protection,!the!standard!practice!will!be!for!the!officer!to!start!questioning!the!claimant.!Although!the!member!of!the!Refugee!Protection!Division!("RPD")!hearing!the!claim!may!vary!the!order!of!questioning!in!exceptional!circumstances.!Thamo!challenges!guideline!as!invalid!1)!deprives!claimant!rights!to!fair!hearing!by!denying!them!the!opp!to!be!questioned!by!their!counsel!first!2)!the!change!should!have!been!intro’d!as!a!rule!and!not!a!guideline!bc!it!restricts!the!discretion!of!the!RPD!!
63!
Issue:!Validity!of!Procedural!Guideline!7!!Held:!!Guideline!7!is!not,!on!its!face,!invalid!on!the!ground!of!procedural!unfairness.!!Although,!!fairness!may!require!that,!in!certain!circumstances,!particular!claimants!should!be!questioned!first!by!their!own!counsel.!Guideline!7!is!not!incompatible!with!the!impartiality!required!of!a!member!when!conducting!a!hearing!which!is!inquisitorial!in!form.!Guideline!7!is!not!an!unlawful!fetter!on!the!exercise!of!members'!discretion!on!the!conduct!of!refugee!protection!hearings.!The!Guideline!expressly!directs!members!to!consider!the!facts!of!the!particular!case!before!them!to!determine!whether!there!are!exceptional!circumstances!warranting!a!deviation!from!the!standard!order!of!questioning.!The!RPD!is!a!more!of!a!board!of!inquisition!than!adjudication.!Different!standards!apply.!Adjudicators!can!and!should!normally!play!a!relatively!passive!role!in!an!adversarial!process,!because!the!parties!are!largely!responsible!for!adducing!the!evidence!and!arguments!on!which!the!adjudicator!must!decide!the!dispute.!In!contrast,!members!of!the!RPD,!do!not!have!this!luxury.!RPD!is!responsible!for!making!the!inquiries!necessary,!including!questioning!the!claimant,!to!determine!the!validity!of!the!claim.!The!fact!that!the!member!or!the!RPO!may!ask!probing!questions!does!not!make!the!proceeding!adversarial!in!the!procedural!sense.!Guideline!7!does!not!curtail!counsel's!participation!in!the!hearing;!counsel!is!present!throughout!and!may!conduct!an!examination!of!the!client!to!ensure!that!the!claimant's!testimony!is!before!the!decisionAmaker.!The!right!to!be!represented!by!counsel!does!not!include!the!right!of!counsel!to!determine!the!order!of!questioning!or,!for!that!matter,!any!other!aspect!of!the!procedure!to!be!followed!at!the!hearing.!No!statistical!evidence!was!adduced!to!support!the!allegation!that!Guideline!7!jeopardizes!the!ability!of!the!RPD!accurately!to!determine!claims!for!refugee!protection.!There!is!simply!no!evidence!to!establish!what!impact,!if!any,!the!introduction!of!Guideline!7!has!had!on!acceptance!rates.!Significance:!What!is!the!status!of!the!guideline?!Can!common!law!duty!of!fairness!“trump”!the!guideline?!CL!can!trump!guideline.!Can!be!used!to!scrutinize!and!evaluate!a!guideline.!DoF!as!to!whether!this!guideline!meets!the!duty.!Why!is!the!order!of!questioning!important?!Strategic!advantage!!Allows!for!decision!makers!to!be!fully!informed!of!the!issues!How!does!it!introduce!an!RAB?!Creates!challenges!in!decision!making,!civil!procedure,!biases!in!decision!making!–!Jones!RAB!–!hearing!right!issue,!going!to!start!picking!your!story!apart,!cut!to!the!chase!!Do!we!think!that!the!IRB!should!have!the!ability!to!have!a!process!like!this?!!!!!
&!!!
&
