Administrative Law Case Summaries

Baker v Canada

Duty of PF is variable and depends on the context. The criteria to be used in

determining the content of the duty of PF in a particular case are:
1. nature of decision and process followed making it
2. nature of statutory scheme and terms of statute enabing ADM
3. importance of decision to individ affected
4. Leg Expect of persons challenging decision
5. choices of procedure made by ADM

-duty of PF applies to humanitarian and compassionate decisions

-where duty of PF owed is “more than minimal” --> gives rise to right to have
evidence heard and fully and fairly considered (all parties whose improtant
interests are affected in a fundamental way have this right)

-if decision is of profound importance --> gives rise to right to Reasons

(in this case fufilled by prov junior officers notes bc taken to be the reasons for
the decision)

-PF requirement – that decision be made free from apprehension of bias by

impartial dec maker
(the role of all immigration officers who make decisions particularly req sensitivity
to diverse bacgrounds (and lack of bias toward difft cultures))
Test: whether a reasonable and well informed member of the community would
conclude the officer did not approach the case with the necessary degree of
impartiality

-discretionary decisions are generally respected by the courts but the discretion
must be exercised in accordance with:
 boundaries imposed in the statute
 principles of the rule of law
 principles of administrative law
 fundamental values of Canadian society
 principles of the Charter

Factors calling for deference to be shown immigration officers exercising their

statutory powers:
 fact-specific nature of inquiry
 role within statutory scheme as an exception
 considerable discretion evidenced in the language
 fact that Minister for Immi (or their delegate) is final decision maker =
relevant expertise

Factors going against deference:

 absence of a privative clause
 explicit contemplation of judicial review by the FCTD
  individual (rather than polycentric) nature of the decision

-interests of children = central humanitarian and compassionate values in Cdn

society
this decision was unreasonable exercise of power by the ADM because it was not
attentive to those values)

insufficent weight was given to the hardship the applicant would suffer if returned
to her country of origin

-the PF issues in this case were:

1. Were the principles of procedural fairness violated in this case?
1. Were the participatory rights aforded consistent with the duty of PF?
2. Did the failure of Officer Caden toprovide his own reasons violate PF?
3. Was there a reasonable apprehension of bias in the making of his
decision?
2. Was this disretion improperly exercised because of the approach taken to
the interests of the applicant's children?

-the fact that a decision is adminsitrative + affects rghts, privileges, or interests of

an individual is sufficient tpo trigger duty of PF

Content of PF (factors outlined above) – but underlying all the factors : purpose of
participatory rights = to ensure admin 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
forwad their views and evidence fully and have them considered by the decision-
maker.

1. nature of decision and process followed : closer to the judicial process – the
more PF reqd
2. nature of the statutory scheme : if no appeal procedure provided then
greater PF reqd
3. importance of decision to the individual : the greater the impact it will have
– more stringent PF
4. legitimate expectations : does not create substantive rights – if LE certain
procedure will be followed then PF requires that procedure – can also be in
terms of LE of a certain outcome may req more PF
5. choices made by the agency : should be taken into account and respected –
esp where ADM free to choose its own procedures, or has expertise in
choosing the approp procedures in the circumstances

-oral hearing not always necessary for H& C decisions

-reasons are required (new finding) where stat right of appeal, high improtance of
decision and other situations - but can come in various forms (should be written)