Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Conclusion: therefore, the decision does (not) pass the threshold for a duty of fairness to be owed
LEVEL OF PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS OWED
To determine the level of fairness owed to the individual, the Supreme Court in Baker has set out 5 factors
that, while not exhaustive, will help to determine the amount of fairness owed.
BAKER FACTORS
1. Nature of the Decision
o Administrative (discretionary, polycentric) spectrum
o Judicial/Adjudicative (highly procedural, lots of process)
o If Legislature envisioned the tribunal to be closer to judicial model more fairness
o If intended to be discretionary administrative model less fairness
2. Nature of the Statutory Scheme and the Terms of the Statute
o Does decision-maker have discretion? Discretion in overall statutory scheme?
more discretion, more fairness
o Stage of the Decision final or preliminary?
Final decision more fairness
Preliminary decision less fairness
3. Seriousness and Importance of the Decision to the Individual
o the more serious and important the impact of the decision has on the individual, the more fairness owed
does it affect rights protected by the Charter or other constitutions?
4. Legitimate Expectations
Where there are legitimate expectations of substantive outcomes, more fairness required
Where there are legitimate expectations that certain standards will be used, more fairness
5. Choices of Procedure made by the Agency
o Where a statute gives agency the ability to choose its own procedures, less fairness owed
o Did the tribunal themselves design a procedure they thought was appropriate to make these decisions?
If tribunal turned their mind to what they thought was appropriate, less fairness
If tribunal left design of procedures wide open, more fairness is owed
Conclusion:
On a balancing of these factors, it indicates that there is a low/moderate/high level of fairness owed
WHAT PROCEDURES ARE REQUIRED FOR FAIRNESS?
Overall Question Has the individual had an opportunity to fully and fairly present their case?
A. Audi alteram partem: to hear the other side and have your side heard
1. Pre-hearing: Notice
o Notice is necessary because w/out notice, the other rights cannot be exercised effectively or at all
o SPPA s.6: parties should be given reasonable notice of hearing
o Issues with Notice: (i) Form , (ii) Manner of Delivery, (iii) Timing, (iv) Content
o Content: must be as detailed as possible to give parties notice of case (Krever Commission)
o Timing: should be given ASAP but will depend on circumstances as long as there is sufficient time
for recipients to allow them to call evidence and make submission (Krever Commission)
o Delivery: confidentiality of notices may be required (i.e. protect reputation in Inquiry) (Krever)
5. In Hearing: Disclosure
o A party is entitled to know what evidence and representations have been given and is entitled to an
adequate opportunity to respond. Disclosure to the parties of information that the tribunal has about the
decision to be made is a basic element of natural justice and is usually required unless some competing
interest prevails.
o SPPA s.5.4: tribunals may make orders for disclosure
o Extent of disclosure is dependent on the ability for the party to provide an effective reply usually
should know what has been said against them and by whom (Re Napoli)
o Extent of disclosure will also depend on the seriousness of the issue (Charkaoui #2)
o Disclosure will be limited when there are competing issues of confidentiality, national security
interests, etc. however, a judge can filter the evidence to provide proper balance (Charkaoui #2)
8. Post-Hearing: Reasons
o Rational for reasons is to provide assurance to parties that their representations have been considered
o SPPA s.17(1): tribunal must give reasons w/ decision if requested by a party
o Duty to Give Reasons depends on the circumstances:
Where decision is serious and important to the individual, it will trigger duty for reasons (Baker)
Where there exists a SRA, it will trigger the duty for reasons (for courts review) (Baker)
o Adequacy of Reasons (VIA Rail):
Reasons must reflect the purposes served by a duty to give reasons
Decision-maker must set out its finding of fact and evidence upon the decision was based
Reasons must address the major points in issue
Reasoning process must be set out and must reflect consideration of the main relevant factors
Cannot just recite the submission and evidence of parties, then state a conclusion
o Remedies for Inadequate Reasons:
Court can send back to Tribunal to write better reasons
If reasons have error of law or failed to consider relevant issues rehearing w/ different panel
B. Nemo judex: cant be a judge in your own case (i) impartial and (ii) independent adjudicator
1. Impartiality
o Impartiality relates to the state of mind or attitude of the tribunal in relation to issues and the parties in
a particular case
o Four types of Bias:
i) Antagonism during hearing towards a party, counsel or witness
ii) Association /relationship between a party and the decision-maker
iii) Involvement of decision-maker in preliminary stage of process
iv) Attitude of decision-maker towards the outcome
o General Test: reasonable apprehension of bias (Committee for Justice)
What would an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically and having
thought the matter through conclude?
Note: variation in bias standard (Newfoundland Telephone)
Adjudicative Model Test adjudicative boards subject to reasonable apprehension test
Closed-Mind Test boards involved in policy-making are subject to closed-mind test
whether they are amendable to persuasion
o Institutional Bias:
Test for Institutional Impartiality whether there is a reasonable apprehension of bias in a
substantial number of cases (Quebec Regie)
Where there is a direct connection between prosecutor and the decision-maker, it gives rise to
suspicion of influence or dependency (i.e. bias) (Quebec Regie and MacBain)
o Attitudinal Bias:
Standard for Bias depends on the circumstances:
Where Tribunal is made up of people w/ specialized expertise and experience, you cannot
expect them not to have certain views on the specialized subject matter before them (Large)
Where a Tribunal necessarily has prior involvement w/ the party and does not act on
evidence brought before them but rather acts on their own knowledge of the party,
reasonable apprehension of bias will not be triggered unless flagrant violation (Paine)
Where decision-maker is involved in the claim going forward (even indirectly) and would be
a judge in her own cause, there is a reasonable apprehension of bias (Great Atlantic)
Where decision-maker clearly has a closed mind and is not sympathetic to the statutory
purpose of the decision to be made, a reasonable apprehension of bias is found (Baker)
o Pecuniary Bias
A direct pecuniary interest, no matter how trivial, will constitute pecuniary bias (Energy Probe)
A reasonable expectation of pecuniary interest will not constitute pecuniary bias (Energy Probe)
Note: Pecuniary Bias is distinct from Reasonable Apprehension of Bias (Energy Probe)
2. Independence
o Independence reflects or embodies the traditional constitutional value of judicial independence not
merely in state of mind or attitude in the actual exercise of judicial function, but a statutes or relationship
to others, particularly to the Executive Branch of government, that rest on objective conditions or
guarantees
o s.11(d) of the Charter:... to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and
public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal
o Test for Independence: reasonable apprehension of bias
the criteria for independence are not absence of influence but rather the freedom to decide
something according to ones own conscience and opinions (Consolidated-Bathurst)
o 3 Essential Conditions for Independence (Valente)
1. Security of Tenure
Tenure, whether until 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
Does not need to be tenure for life will depend on the circumstances (Quebec Regie)
2. 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
3. Institutional Independence of the Tribunal
Independence w/ respect to administrative decisions bearing directly on the exercise of its
judicial function independence of tribunal from the govt controlling your own docket
It is not unusual for Ministers to have general oversight as long as they do not interfere with
the decision-making process (Quebec Regie see also Tremblay coercion by president)
o Factors for Degree of Independence Owed (Canada Pacific v Matsqui)
1. Nature of Tribunal
2. Interests at Stake
Serious or important decision to the person stricter application of Valente conditions
Less significant impact more flexible application of Valente (i.e. less independence owed)
3. Other indices of independence (e.g. oaths of office)
3 or 4 most significant procedures that would constitute fairness and address whether they are present
Conclusion: Based on these factors, it indicates that procedural fairness has (not) been given
STANDARD OF REVIEW ANALYSIS
The Standard of Review analysis is set out in Dunsmuir, which replaced the functional and pragmatic approach. The
purpose is to determine the degree of deference owed to the decision of the administrative actor. These are the factors that
should be weighed to determine the degree of deference.
Applicable Existing Precedent?
o Existing precedent is still helpful in determining Standard of Review can bypass Dunsmuir analysis
o BC Administrative Tribunal Act statutory codification Patent Unreasonable Standard still applies as statute
however, Patent Unreasonableness in jurisprudence precedent no longer applies (Dunsmuir)
Reasonableness Standard
o Reasonable Decision should be (i) transparent; (ii) intelligible; (iii) justifiable (Dunsmuir)
o Reasonableness applies not only to the outcome of the decision, but also to process of articulating reasons
Dunsmuir: Reasonableness...requires that deference be accorded to the underlying decision, which imports
respect for the decision-making process of adjudicative bodies with regard to both the facts and the law and
implies that courts will give due consideration to the determinations of decision makers