- Home
- Constitutional - Index
- Constitutional Law1
- Constitutional Law2
- Professional Responsibility - Index
- Professional Responsibility
- Criminal Law - INDEX
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure - INDEX
- Criminal Procedure
- Criminal Procedure Glossary
- Foundations of Canadian Law - INDEX
- Foundations of Canadian Law
- Foundations.notes 2
- Foundations of Canadian Law.cases - INDEX
- Foundations of Canadian Law.cases
- Foundations of Canadian Law.articles - INDEX
- Foundations of Canadian Law.articles
- Administrative Law - INDEX
- Administrative Law
- Administrative.notes 2
- Administrative.notes 3
- Administrative Law.B - INDEX
- Administrative Law.B notes
- Admin Law. Quick Notes
Administrative Law-INDEX
INTRODUCTION.....................................................1-12
The Administrative State and the Rule of Law.....................................................1-8
COURTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES ........................................................1
JUDICIAL REMEDIES OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW...........................................1
Certiorari...............................................................................................................1
Prohibition ............................................................................................................1
Mandamus ............................................................................................................1
Habeas corpus ......................................................................................................1
GROUNDS OF REVIEW..............................................................................................1
Procedural impropriety.........................................................................................1
Illegality................................................................................................................2
Unreasonableness.................................................................................................2
Unconstitutionality...............................................................................................2
THE ROLE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW (BAKER [1999])...............................................3
Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) ........................................3
Procedural Fairness...........................................................................................................4
FACTORS AFFECTING THE CONTENT OF THE DUTY OF FAIRNESS.....5 The nature of the decision being made and the process followed in
making it.......................................................................................5
The nature of the statutory scheme and the terms of the statute pursuant
to which the body operates...........................................................5
The importance of the decision to the individual(s) affected...................5
The legitimate expectations of the person challenging the decision........6
Take into account and respect the choices of procedure made by the
agency itself.................................................................................6
LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS.......................................................................6
PATICIPATORY RIGHTS.................................................................................6
THE PROVISION OF REASONS......................................................................6
REASONABLE APPREHENSION OF BIAS....................................................8
PROCEDURE......................................................13-116
Fairness: The Sources and Threshold…………………………………………………………......13-41
SOURCES ......................................................................................................................13
THE TRADITIONAL COMMON LAW DOCTRINE..............................................13
Cooper v Wandsworth (1863)…………………………………….………….....13
Ridge v Baldwin (1963)…………………………………………….…………...14
THE MODERN COMMON LAW DOCTRINE: DIMENSIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS........................................................................................14
Nicholson (1979)……………………………………………………………………14
Martineau v Matsqui (1980)………………………………………………………..15
ELABORATIONS OF THE MODERN DOCTRINE…………………………………...16
Knight v. Indian head School Division (1990)……………………………………..17 General Duty of Fairness
The nature of the decision to be made by the administrative body….18
The relationship existing between that body and the individual
(employer and employer) ..…………………………………..18
The effect/impact of that decision on the individual’s rights
(effect on the employee)………………………………..........18
Dunsmuir v New Brunswick (2008) ………………………………………………..18
THE BAKER SYNTHESIS.................................................................................................19
CONSTITUTIONAL AND QUASI-CONSTITUTIONAL SOURCES
OF PROCEDURES...................................................................................................................19
THRESHOLDS..........................................................................................................................20
DECISIONS OF A LEGISLATIVE AND A GENERAL NATURE...................................20
Martineau v. Matsqui Institution [1980]......................................................................20
CABINET AND CABINET APPEALS..................................................................................20
Canada (Attorney General) v. Inuit Tapirisat of Canada (1980)................................20
BYLAW AND RULEMAKING
Homex Realty and Development Co. Ltd. v. Wyoming (Village) (1980)......................22
POLICY MAKING...................................................................................................................22
Canadian Association of Regulated Importers v. Canada (Attorney
General) (1993)..............................................................................................................23
INDIVIDUALIZED DECISION MAKING BASED ON EXERCISE OF BROAD DISCRETIONARY POWERS.................................................................................................23
DECISIONS AFFECTING RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, OR INTERESTS............................24
Re Webb and Ontario Housing Corporation (1978).....................................................24
Hutfield v. Board of Fort Saskatchewan General Hospital District No.98 (1986).......25
INSPECTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................26
Re Abel and Advisory Review Board (1979) Ont Div Ct affirmed (1981).....................26
Determining whether a DOF applies
Degree of proximity between the investigation and the decision........................27
Exposure of the person investigated to harm are matters of paramount concern..27
Dairy Producers’ Co-operative Ltd. v Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) [1994 .................................................................................................................................28
EMERGENCIES.........................................................................................................................29
R v Randolph (1966).............................................................................................................29
Cardinal v Director of Kent Institution (1985).....................................................................29
LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION..............................................................................................29
R v. Liverpool Corporation (1972)................................................................................30
Old St. Boniface Residents Assn. Inc. v. Winnipeg (City) (1990)................................30
Reference re Canada Assistance Plan (1991)...............................................................30
Baker (1999) ..................................................................................................................31
Furey v. Roman Catholic School Board for Conception Bay Centre (1991) .............31
Mount Sinai Hospital v. Quebec (Minister of Health and Social Services) (2001)...32
CONSTITUTIONAL AND QUASI-CONSTITUTIONAL ENACTMENTS...................33
BILL OF RIGHTS: SPECIFIC PROCEDURAL THRESHOLDS...................................33
Authorson v Canada (Attorney General) (2003)........................................................34
SECTION 7 OF CHARTER: SPECIFIC PROCEDURAL THRESHOLDS...................35
Singh v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1985)………….…..36
Chiarelli v. Canada (Minister of Justice) (1992)………….…………………………39
Wilson v British Columbia (Medical Services Commission) (1988)…………...……39
New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. G(J.) (1999)…....40
Blencoe v. British Columbia (Human Rights Commission) (2000) …….…………..41
The Level and Choice of Procedures............................................45-80
LEVEL OF PROCEDURES ...................................................................................................45
Baker 5 Factors ........................................................................................................................46
Nature of decision being made..........................................................................46
Nature of the statutory scheme..........................................................................46
Importance of decision to individual affected...................................................46
Legitimate expectations.....................................................................................46
Take into account the decisions made by the tribunal (choices of procedure)...46
A PERSPECTIVE.....................................................................................................................47
THE CHOICE OF PROCEDURES.......................................................................................47
Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2002).........................48
The factors determining the content of DoF...................................................................48
Nature of decision ..........................................................................................................48
Nature of the statutory scheme ......................................................................................49
Importance of decision to individuals ............................................................................49
Legitimate expectation ...................................................................................................49
Choice of procedures ......................................................................................................49
Ahani v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2002)...........................50
.
GENERAL STATUTES ABOUT PROCEDURES…………………………………………….50 RELEVANT STATUTES……………………………………………………………………...50
Statutory Powers Procedure Act (Ontario)(SPPA).........................................................50
s. 3 – Application of the act..............................................................................................50
SPECIFIC CONTENT ISSUES.................................................................................................51
Summary.......................................................................................................................................51
PRE-HEARING CONTENT ISSUES..............................................................................51
NATURE OF THE ACTUAL HEARING.......................................................................51
POST-HEARING ISSUES...............................................................................................51
PRE-HEARING CONTENT ISSUES.........................................................................................52
NOTICE.........................................................................................................................................52
Re Hardy and Minister of Education (1985) .............................................................52
Re Central Ontario Coalition and Ontario Hydro (1984) .........................................53
Re City of Winnipeg and Torchinsky (1981) .............................................................53
Re Rymal and Niagara Escarpment Commission (1981) .........................................53
Canada (Attorney General) v. Canada (Commission of Inquiry on the
Blood System in Canada – Krever Commission) (1997).............................................54
DISCOVERY............................................................................................................................56
Stinchcombe (1991) .....................................................................................................56
Canadian Pacific Airlines Ltd. v Canadian Air Line Pilots Association (1993) .......56
Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v. Ontario (Board of Inquiry into Northwestern General Hospital ...........................................................................................................57
CIBA-Geigy Ltd. v. Canada (Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (1994) ..........58
DELAY.......................................................................................................................................59
Kodellas v Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) (1989) .................................59
THE ACTUAL HEARING........................................................................................................59
ORAL HEARINGS....................................................................................................................59
Masters v. Ontario (1994)..............................................................................................60
Khan v. University of Ottawa (1997) ............................................................................62
OPEN HEARINGS....................................................................................................................63
THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL.....................................................................................................63
Re Men’s Clothing Manufacturers Association of Ontario and Toronto Joint
Board, Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Worke’s Union (1979) ............................64
Re Parrish (1993) ..........................................................................................................64
Dehghani v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993) ..................65
Howard v. Stony Mountain Institution (1985) .............................................................65
New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. G.(J.) (1999) ........66
Summary of a Right to Council ..................................................................................................67
DISCLOSURE AND OFFICIAL NOTICE...............................................................................68
Access to Information Statutes.........................................................................................68
Crown or Executive Privilege..........................................................................................68
Canada Evidence Act ......................................................................................................68
Kane v Board of Governors of the University of British Columbia (1980) ..................69
Re Napoli and Workers’ Compensation Board (1981)...................................................70
Charkaoui v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) [2008] ........................................71
Gallant v Canada (Deputy Commissioner, Correctional Service Canada) (1989)........71
Gough v Canada (National Parole Board) (1990) .........................................................72
OFFICIAL NOTICE……………………………………………………………………………74
Township of Innisfil v. Township of Vespra (1981) …..……………………………….74 ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE ..........................................................................................74
Bond v New Brunswick (Management Board) (1992) .................................................75
Re Clarke and Superintendent of Brokers, Insurance and Real Estate (1985) ..........75
CROSS-EXAMINATION ....................................................................................................75
Innisfil (Township) v Vespra (Township) (1981)....................................................75
Re County of Strathcoma No.20 and MacLab Enterprises (1971).........................76
Re B and Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto (1987) .........76
THE LIMITS OF THE TRIAL-TYPE HEARING...............................................................77
POST-HEARING ISSUES.....................................................................................................77
REASONS...............................................................................................................................77
DUTY TO GIVE REASONS.................................................................................................78
VIA Rail Canada Inc. V National Transportation Agency (2001) ...........................79
Effect of breach of the duty to give reasons.............................................................................80
Bias and Lack of Independence..............................................80-101
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................80
Two branches of natural justice.................................................................................................81
Three types of Bias ...................................................................................................................81
Attitudinal or non-pecuniary bias...................................................................................81
Institutional or structural bias........................................................................................81
Pecuniary/material interest............................................................................................81
BIAS: THE GENERAL TEST.................................................................................................81
Standard Test for Bias............................................................................................................81
4 disqualifying conditions that will give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.....82
ANTAGONISM DURING THE HEARING...................................................................82
Yusuf v Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration) (1991) ..........................82
Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) .....................................82
ASSOCIATION BETWEEN PARTY AND DECISION MAKER....................................82
Marques v Dylex Ltd. (1977) .......................................................................................82
INVOLVEMENT OF DECISION MAKER IN EARLIER STAGE OF PROCESS..........83
Committee for Justice and Liberty v National Energy Board (1978)..........................83
ATTITUDINAL BIAS......................................................................................................86
STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION (of bias)............................................................................83
Brosseau v Alberta (Securities Commission) (1989)...................................................83
E.A. Manning Ltd. v Ontario Securities Commission ................................................84
2747-3174 Québec Inc. v. Québec (Régie des permis d’alcool) (1996) ......................84
McBain v Canada (Human Rights Commission) (1985).............................................85
ATTITUDINAL BIAS (the 4th main disqualifying condition)................................................86
Paine v University of Toronto (1981)...........................................................................86
Great Atlantic & Pacific Co. of Canada v Ontario (Human Rights Commission) (1993).............................................................................................................................87
Large v Stratford (City) (1992) ....................................................................................87
PECUNIARY AND OTHER MATERIAL INTERESTS........................................................88
Energy Probe v Canada (Atomic Energy Control Board) (1984) ...............................88
VARIATIONS IN STANDARDS FOR BIAS...........................................................................89
Old St. Boniface Residents Assn. Inc. v Winnipeg (City) (1990).................................90
Save Richmond Farmland Society v Richmond (Township) (1990) ...........................92
Newfoundland Telephone Co. v Newfoundland (Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities) (1992) ...............................................................................................................93
Summary......................................................................................................................................94
Notes............................................................................................................................................95
Application of test in Baker:.......................................................................................................95
Pelletier v Canada (Attorney General [2008] ............................................................95
INDEPENDENCE (institutional level and independent level).................................................97
Sethy v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1988)...........................97
Principles of Independence (Valente) ..........................................................................................97
Alex Couture Inc. v Canada (Attorney-General) (1991)...............................................97
Doman v British Columbia (Superintendent of Brokers) (1996)...................................98
Canadian Pacific Ltd. v Matsqui Indian Band (1995)...................................................98
Independence test..........................................................................................................................99
Application of the Valente principles to Matsqui Indian Band.................................................99
Deference to Aboriginals (Nowegijick v. The Queen (1983))…………………………….…..100
2747-3174 Quebec Inc. v Quebec (Regie des permis d’alcool) (1996)………………..101
Institutional Decisions.........................................................101-116
INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................101
DELEGATION ....................................................................................................................102
Vine v National Dock Labour Board [1957] ...........................................................102
DECIDING WITHOUT HEARING....................................................................................103
DELEGATING THE DUTY TO HEAR...........................................................................103
Local Government Board v Arlidge [1915] .............................................................103
Jeffs v New Zealand Dairy Production and Marketing Board [1967] ..................104
CONSULTATIONS AMONG AGENCY MEMBERS ....................................................104
International Woodworkers of America, Local 2-69 v Consolidated-Bathurst Packaging Ltd. (1983) ..............................................................................................104
Tremblay v Quebec (Commission des affaires socials) (1992) ...............................107
Chart showing Tremblay vs Consolidated-Bathurst ............................................................110
Ellis-Don Ltd. v. Ontario (Labour Relations Board) (2001) ...................................111
Payne v Ontario (Human Rights Commission) (2000) ...........................................112
AGENCY COUNSEL ...........................................................................................................112
AT THE HEARING ............................................................................................................113
THE PREPARATION OF REASONS...............................................................................113
Spring v Law Society of Upper Canada (1988) ........................................................113
Khan v College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (1992) ..............................113
REASONS REVIEW ...........................................................................................................114
Bovbel v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1994) ...................114
AGENCY GUIDELINES ....................................................................................................115
Thamotharem v Canada (Minister of Citezenship and Immigration) [2008] .........115
SUBSTANTIVE REVIEW ..................................................117-171
The Standard of Review ...................................................117-121
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................117
The presence and terms of a privative clause or right of appeal in the statute.....118
The nature of the question that is under review...................................................118
The expertise of the decision-maker....................................................................118
The statutory purpose and context in which the decision making took place......118
THE STANDARD OF REVIEW ANALYSIS.............................................................. 118
FIRST STAGE of substantive review.................................................................118
SECOND STAGE of substantive review............................................................118
Dunsmuir v New Brunswick (2008) ..................................................................118
Reasonableness standard.........................................................................119
Correctness standard...............................................................................119
Application of the standard of review to Dunsmuir...............................120
LINGERING QUESITONS AFTER DUNSMUIR ......................................................121
Privative Clauses and Statutory Rights of Appeal........................121-126
INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................121
Summary.........................................................................................................................122
PRIVATIVE (OR PRECLUSIVE) CLAUSES AND RIGHTS OF APPEAL.............122
PRIVATIVE CLAUSES IN THE STANDARD OF REVIEW ANALYSIS................123
RIGHTS OF APPEAL IN THE STANDARD OF REVIEW ANALYSIS..................124
THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS OF PRIVATIVE CLAUSES..............................124
COURTS AND TRIBUNALS: CONSTITUTIONAL BACKGROUND......................125
STATUTORY REMOVAL OF JUDICIAL REVIEW..................................................125
Crevier v Quebec (Attorney General) [1981] ...................................................125
EXPERTISE AND STATUTORY PURPOSE................................126-131
INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................126
EXPERTISE AS A FACTOR IN THE STANDARD OF REVIEW ANALYSIS........127
THE DECISIONS IN PEZIM AND SOUTHAM........................................................127
Pezim v British Columbia (Superintendent Brokers) (1994) ..........................127
Canada (Director of Investigation and Research) v Southam Inc. (1997)......128
THE ROLE OF STATUTORY PURPOSE...................................................................130
Bell Canada v Bell Aliant Regional Communications [2009] .........................130
THE NATURE OF THE QUESTION.....................................131-140
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................131
FACTUAL QUESTIONS................................................................................................132
Dr. Q v College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia [2003] .....132
The role of the reviewing judge ...............................................................133
The role of the CA....................................................................................135
QUESTIONS OF LAW...................................................................................................135
Pushpanathan v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998)....135
Four factors to be taken into account .......................................................136
DISCRETIONARY AND POLICY QUESTIONS IN THE STANDARD OF REVIEW ANALYSIS.......................................................................................................................138
Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Khosa [2009] ................................139
THE DISAGGREGATION DILEMMA: LEVIS AND VIA RAIL...............................139
JURISDICTIONAL QUESTIONS AND THE ORIGINS OF THE
STANDARD OF REVIEW ANALYSIS .....................................140-147
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................140
THE CONCEPT OF JURISDICTIONAL ERROR..........................................................141
Public Service Alliance of Canada v Canadian Federal Pilots Association [2009]..141
THE “PRELIMINARY QUESTION” DOCTRINE........................................................142
WRONG QUESTIONS AND IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS............................143
THE ORIGINS OF THE STANDARD OF REVIEW ANALYSIS: CUPE (1979)...........143
Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 963 v New Brunswick Liquor Corporation (1979)...................................................................................................144
AFTER CUPE: EVOLUTION OF THE PRAGMATIC AND FUNCTIONAL
APPROACH.........................................................................................................................144
Union des employes de service, Local 298 v Bibeault (1988).................................144
Border Paving Ltd. v Alberta (Occupational Health and Safety Council) [2009]...146
Summary.....................................................................................................................................147
Pragmatic and Functional Approach...............................................................................147
APPLYING THE STANDARD OF REVIEW.................................147-156
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................148
CORRECTNESS REVIEW.............................................................................................148
Pushpanathan v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998)....148
Northrup Grumman Overseas Services Corporation v Canada (Attorney
General) [2009] ...................................................................................................149
Stewart v Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission [2008] ..149
RIGHTS OF APPEAL ON QUESTIONS OF FACT.................................................149
Re Reddall and College of Nurses of Ontario [1981] ........................................150
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SINGLE DEFERENTIAL STANDARD..................150
REASONABLENESS REVIEW....................................................................................150
Calgary (City) v Alberta (Municipal Government Board) [2008].....................151
THE RELEVANCE OF THE FACTORS IN THE STANDARD OF REVIEW
ANALYSIS......................................................................................................................152
Art Hauser Centre Board Inc. (City of Prince Albert) v CUPE Local
No.882 [2008].......................................................................................................153
CORRECTNESS REVIEW IN THE GUISE OF REASONABLENESS..................153
Western Forest Products Inc. v Hayes Forest Services Limited [2009] ............153
REASONABLENESS AND GIVING REASONS........................................................154
Macdonald v Mineral Springs Hotel [2008] .......................................................155
A HISTORICAL EXAMPLE OF REASONABLENESS REVIEW..........................155
THE JUSISDICTION OF TRIBUNALS AND THE CONSTITUTION...156-161
(1) THE JURISDUCTION OF TRIBUNALS TO DECIDE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES...................................................................................................................157
Nova Scotia (Workers' Compensation Board) v. Martin (2003)...........................157
(2)&(3) CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES AND REMEDIES: THE APPROPRIATE FORUM...............................................................................................................................158
R v Conway [2010]..................................................................................................158
(4) THE STANDARD OF REVIEW...................................................................................160
(5) JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER QUASI-CONSTITUTIONAL STATUTES...........160
Paul v. British Columbia (Forest Appeals Commission) (2003).............................160
Tranchemontagne v Ontario (Director, Disability Support Program) [2006]........161
THE USE AND MISUSE OF DISCRETION..............................161-171
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................161
ABUSE OF DISCRETION AS A GROUND OF JUDICIAL REVIEW...................162
Suresh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2002) ............162
Standard of review.................................................................................163
The presence or absence of a clause negating the right of appeal.........163
The relative expertise of the decision-maker.........................................163
The purpose of the provision and the legislation generally...................163
The nature of the question......................................................................163
Two pre-Baker judgements
Re Sheehan and Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (1975)...................164
Shell Canada Products Ltd. v Vancouver (City) (1994)...................................165
FAILURE TO CONSIDER RELEVANT FACTORS..............................................167
DISCRETION AND THE CHARTER, UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW................................................168
Slaight Communications Inc. v Davidson (1989).............................................168
Lalonde v Ontario (Commission de restructuration des services de santé) (2001)..168
DELEGATED LEGISLATION...................................................................................169
UNREVIEWABLE DISCRETIONARY POWERS.......................................................169
PREROGATIVE POWERS AND NON-JUSTICIABILITY....................................169
Operation Dismantle Inc. v Canada (1985).......................................................169
Black v Canada (Prime Minister) (2001)...........................................................170
Public Interest Immunity: Cabinet Documents, the Common law and legislation..........170
Native Women’s Assn. Of Canada v Canada (1994) ........................................171
THE “PRIVATE” POWERS OF PUBLIC AUTHORITIES....................................171
INTRODUCTION.....................................................1-12
The Administrative State and the Rule of Law.....................................................1-8
COURTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES ........................................................1
JUDICIAL REMEDIES OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW...........................................1
Certiorari...............................................................................................................1
Prohibition ............................................................................................................1
Mandamus ............................................................................................................1
Habeas corpus ......................................................................................................1
GROUNDS OF REVIEW..............................................................................................1
Procedural impropriety.........................................................................................1
Illegality................................................................................................................2
Unreasonableness.................................................................................................2
Unconstitutionality...............................................................................................2
THE ROLE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW (BAKER [1999])...............................................3
Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) ........................................3
Procedural Fairness...........................................................................................................4
FACTORS AFFECTING THE CONTENT OF THE DUTY OF FAIRNESS.....5 The nature of the decision being made and the process followed in
making it.......................................................................................5
The nature of the statutory scheme and the terms of the statute pursuant
to which the body operates...........................................................5
The importance of the decision to the individual(s) affected...................5
The legitimate expectations of the person challenging the decision........6
Take into account and respect the choices of procedure made by the
agency itself.................................................................................6
LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS.......................................................................6
PATICIPATORY RIGHTS.................................................................................6
THE PROVISION OF REASONS......................................................................6
REASONABLE APPREHENSION OF BIAS....................................................8
PROCEDURE......................................................13-116
Fairness: The Sources and Threshold…………………………………………………………......13-41
SOURCES ......................................................................................................................13
THE TRADITIONAL COMMON LAW DOCTRINE..............................................13
Cooper v Wandsworth (1863)…………………………………….………….....13
Ridge v Baldwin (1963)…………………………………………….…………...14
THE MODERN COMMON LAW DOCTRINE: DIMENSIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS........................................................................................14
Nicholson (1979)……………………………………………………………………14
Martineau v Matsqui (1980)………………………………………………………..15
ELABORATIONS OF THE MODERN DOCTRINE…………………………………...16
Knight v. Indian head School Division (1990)……………………………………..17 General Duty of Fairness
The nature of the decision to be made by the administrative body….18
The relationship existing between that body and the individual
(employer and employer) ..…………………………………..18
The effect/impact of that decision on the individual’s rights
(effect on the employee)………………………………..........18
Dunsmuir v New Brunswick (2008) ………………………………………………..18
THE BAKER SYNTHESIS.................................................................................................19
CONSTITUTIONAL AND QUASI-CONSTITUTIONAL SOURCES
OF PROCEDURES...................................................................................................................19
THRESHOLDS..........................................................................................................................20
DECISIONS OF A LEGISLATIVE AND A GENERAL NATURE...................................20
Martineau v. Matsqui Institution [1980]......................................................................20
CABINET AND CABINET APPEALS..................................................................................20
Canada (Attorney General) v. Inuit Tapirisat of Canada (1980)................................20
BYLAW AND RULEMAKING
Homex Realty and Development Co. Ltd. v. Wyoming (Village) (1980)......................22
POLICY MAKING...................................................................................................................22
Canadian Association of Regulated Importers v. Canada (Attorney
General) (1993)..............................................................................................................23
INDIVIDUALIZED DECISION MAKING BASED ON EXERCISE OF BROAD DISCRETIONARY POWERS.................................................................................................23
DECISIONS AFFECTING RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, OR INTERESTS............................24
Re Webb and Ontario Housing Corporation (1978).....................................................24
Hutfield v. Board of Fort Saskatchewan General Hospital District No.98 (1986).......25
INSPECTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................26
Re Abel and Advisory Review Board (1979) Ont Div Ct affirmed (1981).....................26
Determining whether a DOF applies
Degree of proximity between the investigation and the decision........................27
Exposure of the person investigated to harm are matters of paramount concern..27
Dairy Producers’ Co-operative Ltd. v Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) [1994 .................................................................................................................................28
EMERGENCIES.........................................................................................................................29
R v Randolph (1966).............................................................................................................29
Cardinal v Director of Kent Institution (1985).....................................................................29
LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION..............................................................................................29
R v. Liverpool Corporation (1972)................................................................................30
Old St. Boniface Residents Assn. Inc. v. Winnipeg (City) (1990)................................30
Reference re Canada Assistance Plan (1991)...............................................................30
Baker (1999) ..................................................................................................................31
Furey v. Roman Catholic School Board for Conception Bay Centre (1991) .............31
Mount Sinai Hospital v. Quebec (Minister of Health and Social Services) (2001)...32
CONSTITUTIONAL AND QUASI-CONSTITUTIONAL ENACTMENTS...................33
BILL OF RIGHTS: SPECIFIC PROCEDURAL THRESHOLDS...................................33
Authorson v Canada (Attorney General) (2003)........................................................34
SECTION 7 OF CHARTER: SPECIFIC PROCEDURAL THRESHOLDS...................35
Singh v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1985)………….…..36
Chiarelli v. Canada (Minister of Justice) (1992)………….…………………………39
Wilson v British Columbia (Medical Services Commission) (1988)…………...……39
New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. G(J.) (1999)…....40
Blencoe v. British Columbia (Human Rights Commission) (2000) …….…………..41
The Level and Choice of Procedures............................................45-80
LEVEL OF PROCEDURES ...................................................................................................45
Baker 5 Factors ........................................................................................................................46
Nature of decision being made..........................................................................46
Nature of the statutory scheme..........................................................................46
Importance of decision to individual affected...................................................46
Legitimate expectations.....................................................................................46
Take into account the decisions made by the tribunal (choices of procedure)...46
A PERSPECTIVE.....................................................................................................................47
THE CHOICE OF PROCEDURES.......................................................................................47
Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2002).........................48
The factors determining the content of DoF...................................................................48
Nature of decision ..........................................................................................................48
Nature of the statutory scheme ......................................................................................49
Importance of decision to individuals ............................................................................49
Legitimate expectation ...................................................................................................49
Choice of procedures ......................................................................................................49
Ahani v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2002)...........................50
.
GENERAL STATUTES ABOUT PROCEDURES…………………………………………….50 RELEVANT STATUTES……………………………………………………………………...50
Statutory Powers Procedure Act (Ontario)(SPPA).........................................................50
s. 3 – Application of the act..............................................................................................50
SPECIFIC CONTENT ISSUES.................................................................................................51
Summary.......................................................................................................................................51
PRE-HEARING CONTENT ISSUES..............................................................................51
NATURE OF THE ACTUAL HEARING.......................................................................51
POST-HEARING ISSUES...............................................................................................51
PRE-HEARING CONTENT ISSUES.........................................................................................52
NOTICE.........................................................................................................................................52
Re Hardy and Minister of Education (1985) .............................................................52
Re Central Ontario Coalition and Ontario Hydro (1984) .........................................53
Re City of Winnipeg and Torchinsky (1981) .............................................................53
Re Rymal and Niagara Escarpment Commission (1981) .........................................53
Canada (Attorney General) v. Canada (Commission of Inquiry on the
Blood System in Canada – Krever Commission) (1997).............................................54
DISCOVERY............................................................................................................................56
Stinchcombe (1991) .....................................................................................................56
Canadian Pacific Airlines Ltd. v Canadian Air Line Pilots Association (1993) .......56
Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v. Ontario (Board of Inquiry into Northwestern General Hospital ...........................................................................................................57
CIBA-Geigy Ltd. v. Canada (Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (1994) ..........58
DELAY.......................................................................................................................................59
Kodellas v Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) (1989) .................................59
THE ACTUAL HEARING........................................................................................................59
ORAL HEARINGS....................................................................................................................59
Masters v. Ontario (1994)..............................................................................................60
Khan v. University of Ottawa (1997) ............................................................................62
OPEN HEARINGS....................................................................................................................63
THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL.....................................................................................................63
Re Men’s Clothing Manufacturers Association of Ontario and Toronto Joint
Board, Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Worke’s Union (1979) ............................64
Re Parrish (1993) ..........................................................................................................64
Dehghani v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993) ..................65
Howard v. Stony Mountain Institution (1985) .............................................................65
New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. G.(J.) (1999) ........66
Summary of a Right to Council ..................................................................................................67
DISCLOSURE AND OFFICIAL NOTICE...............................................................................68
Access to Information Statutes.........................................................................................68
Crown or Executive Privilege..........................................................................................68
Canada Evidence Act ......................................................................................................68
Kane v Board of Governors of the University of British Columbia (1980) ..................69
Re Napoli and Workers’ Compensation Board (1981)...................................................70
Charkaoui v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) [2008] ........................................71
Gallant v Canada (Deputy Commissioner, Correctional Service Canada) (1989)........71
Gough v Canada (National Parole Board) (1990) .........................................................72
OFFICIAL NOTICE……………………………………………………………………………74
Township of Innisfil v. Township of Vespra (1981) …..……………………………….74 ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE ..........................................................................................74
Bond v New Brunswick (Management Board) (1992) .................................................75
Re Clarke and Superintendent of Brokers, Insurance and Real Estate (1985) ..........75
CROSS-EXAMINATION ....................................................................................................75
Innisfil (Township) v Vespra (Township) (1981)....................................................75
Re County of Strathcoma No.20 and MacLab Enterprises (1971).........................76
Re B and Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto (1987) .........76
THE LIMITS OF THE TRIAL-TYPE HEARING...............................................................77
POST-HEARING ISSUES.....................................................................................................77
REASONS...............................................................................................................................77
DUTY TO GIVE REASONS.................................................................................................78
VIA Rail Canada Inc. V National Transportation Agency (2001) ...........................79
Effect of breach of the duty to give reasons.............................................................................80
Bias and Lack of Independence..............................................80-101
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................80
Two branches of natural justice.................................................................................................81
Three types of Bias ...................................................................................................................81
Attitudinal or non-pecuniary bias...................................................................................81
Institutional or structural bias........................................................................................81
Pecuniary/material interest............................................................................................81
BIAS: THE GENERAL TEST.................................................................................................81
Standard Test for Bias............................................................................................................81
4 disqualifying conditions that will give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.....82
ANTAGONISM DURING THE HEARING...................................................................82
Yusuf v Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration) (1991) ..........................82
Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) .....................................82
ASSOCIATION BETWEEN PARTY AND DECISION MAKER....................................82
Marques v Dylex Ltd. (1977) .......................................................................................82
INVOLVEMENT OF DECISION MAKER IN EARLIER STAGE OF PROCESS..........83
Committee for Justice and Liberty v National Energy Board (1978)..........................83
ATTITUDINAL BIAS......................................................................................................86
STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION (of bias)............................................................................83
Brosseau v Alberta (Securities Commission) (1989)...................................................83
E.A. Manning Ltd. v Ontario Securities Commission ................................................84
2747-3174 Québec Inc. v. Québec (Régie des permis d’alcool) (1996) ......................84
McBain v Canada (Human Rights Commission) (1985).............................................85
ATTITUDINAL BIAS (the 4th main disqualifying condition)................................................86
Paine v University of Toronto (1981)...........................................................................86
Great Atlantic & Pacific Co. of Canada v Ontario (Human Rights Commission) (1993).............................................................................................................................87
Large v Stratford (City) (1992) ....................................................................................87
PECUNIARY AND OTHER MATERIAL INTERESTS........................................................88
Energy Probe v Canada (Atomic Energy Control Board) (1984) ...............................88
VARIATIONS IN STANDARDS FOR BIAS...........................................................................89
Old St. Boniface Residents Assn. Inc. v Winnipeg (City) (1990).................................90
Save Richmond Farmland Society v Richmond (Township) (1990) ...........................92
Newfoundland Telephone Co. v Newfoundland (Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities) (1992) ...............................................................................................................93
Summary......................................................................................................................................94
Notes............................................................................................................................................95
Application of test in Baker:.......................................................................................................95
Pelletier v Canada (Attorney General [2008] ............................................................95
INDEPENDENCE (institutional level and independent level).................................................97
Sethy v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1988)...........................97
Principles of Independence (Valente) ..........................................................................................97
Alex Couture Inc. v Canada (Attorney-General) (1991)...............................................97
Doman v British Columbia (Superintendent of Brokers) (1996)...................................98
Canadian Pacific Ltd. v Matsqui Indian Band (1995)...................................................98
Independence test..........................................................................................................................99
Application of the Valente principles to Matsqui Indian Band.................................................99
Deference to Aboriginals (Nowegijick v. The Queen (1983))…………………………….…..100
2747-3174 Quebec Inc. v Quebec (Regie des permis d’alcool) (1996)………………..101
Institutional Decisions.........................................................101-116
INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................101
DELEGATION ....................................................................................................................102
Vine v National Dock Labour Board [1957] ...........................................................102
DECIDING WITHOUT HEARING....................................................................................103
DELEGATING THE DUTY TO HEAR...........................................................................103
Local Government Board v Arlidge [1915] .............................................................103
Jeffs v New Zealand Dairy Production and Marketing Board [1967] ..................104
CONSULTATIONS AMONG AGENCY MEMBERS ....................................................104
International Woodworkers of America, Local 2-69 v Consolidated-Bathurst Packaging Ltd. (1983) ..............................................................................................104
Tremblay v Quebec (Commission des affaires socials) (1992) ...............................107
Chart showing Tremblay vs Consolidated-Bathurst ............................................................110
Ellis-Don Ltd. v. Ontario (Labour Relations Board) (2001) ...................................111
Payne v Ontario (Human Rights Commission) (2000) ...........................................112
AGENCY COUNSEL ...........................................................................................................112
AT THE HEARING ............................................................................................................113
THE PREPARATION OF REASONS...............................................................................113
Spring v Law Society of Upper Canada (1988) ........................................................113
Khan v College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (1992) ..............................113
REASONS REVIEW ...........................................................................................................114
Bovbel v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1994) ...................114
AGENCY GUIDELINES ....................................................................................................115
Thamotharem v Canada (Minister of Citezenship and Immigration) [2008] .........115
SUBSTANTIVE REVIEW ..................................................117-171
The Standard of Review ...................................................117-121
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................117
The presence and terms of a privative clause or right of appeal in the statute.....118
The nature of the question that is under review...................................................118
The expertise of the decision-maker....................................................................118
The statutory purpose and context in which the decision making took place......118
THE STANDARD OF REVIEW ANALYSIS.............................................................. 118
FIRST STAGE of substantive review.................................................................118
SECOND STAGE of substantive review............................................................118
Dunsmuir v New Brunswick (2008) ..................................................................118
Reasonableness standard.........................................................................119
Correctness standard...............................................................................119
Application of the standard of review to Dunsmuir...............................120
LINGERING QUESITONS AFTER DUNSMUIR ......................................................121
Privative Clauses and Statutory Rights of Appeal........................121-126
INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................121
Summary.........................................................................................................................122
PRIVATIVE (OR PRECLUSIVE) CLAUSES AND RIGHTS OF APPEAL.............122
PRIVATIVE CLAUSES IN THE STANDARD OF REVIEW ANALYSIS................123
RIGHTS OF APPEAL IN THE STANDARD OF REVIEW ANALYSIS..................124
THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS OF PRIVATIVE CLAUSES..............................124
COURTS AND TRIBUNALS: CONSTITUTIONAL BACKGROUND......................125
STATUTORY REMOVAL OF JUDICIAL REVIEW..................................................125
Crevier v Quebec (Attorney General) [1981] ...................................................125
EXPERTISE AND STATUTORY PURPOSE................................126-131
INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................126
EXPERTISE AS A FACTOR IN THE STANDARD OF REVIEW ANALYSIS........127
THE DECISIONS IN PEZIM AND SOUTHAM........................................................127
Pezim v British Columbia (Superintendent Brokers) (1994) ..........................127
Canada (Director of Investigation and Research) v Southam Inc. (1997)......128
THE ROLE OF STATUTORY PURPOSE...................................................................130
Bell Canada v Bell Aliant Regional Communications [2009] .........................130
THE NATURE OF THE QUESTION.....................................131-140
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................131
FACTUAL QUESTIONS................................................................................................132
Dr. Q v College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia [2003] .....132
The role of the reviewing judge ...............................................................133
The role of the CA....................................................................................135
QUESTIONS OF LAW...................................................................................................135
Pushpanathan v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998)....135
Four factors to be taken into account .......................................................136
DISCRETIONARY AND POLICY QUESTIONS IN THE STANDARD OF REVIEW ANALYSIS.......................................................................................................................138
Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Khosa [2009] ................................139
THE DISAGGREGATION DILEMMA: LEVIS AND VIA RAIL...............................139
JURISDICTIONAL QUESTIONS AND THE ORIGINS OF THE
STANDARD OF REVIEW ANALYSIS .....................................140-147
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................140
THE CONCEPT OF JURISDICTIONAL ERROR..........................................................141
Public Service Alliance of Canada v Canadian Federal Pilots Association [2009]..141
THE “PRELIMINARY QUESTION” DOCTRINE........................................................142
WRONG QUESTIONS AND IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS............................143
THE ORIGINS OF THE STANDARD OF REVIEW ANALYSIS: CUPE (1979)...........143
Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 963 v New Brunswick Liquor Corporation (1979)...................................................................................................144
AFTER CUPE: EVOLUTION OF THE PRAGMATIC AND FUNCTIONAL
APPROACH.........................................................................................................................144
Union des employes de service, Local 298 v Bibeault (1988).................................144
Border Paving Ltd. v Alberta (Occupational Health and Safety Council) [2009]...146
Summary.....................................................................................................................................147
Pragmatic and Functional Approach...............................................................................147
APPLYING THE STANDARD OF REVIEW.................................147-156
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................148
CORRECTNESS REVIEW.............................................................................................148
Pushpanathan v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998)....148
Northrup Grumman Overseas Services Corporation v Canada (Attorney
General) [2009] ...................................................................................................149
Stewart v Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission [2008] ..149
RIGHTS OF APPEAL ON QUESTIONS OF FACT.................................................149
Re Reddall and College of Nurses of Ontario [1981] ........................................150
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SINGLE DEFERENTIAL STANDARD..................150
REASONABLENESS REVIEW....................................................................................150
Calgary (City) v Alberta (Municipal Government Board) [2008].....................151
THE RELEVANCE OF THE FACTORS IN THE STANDARD OF REVIEW
ANALYSIS......................................................................................................................152
Art Hauser Centre Board Inc. (City of Prince Albert) v CUPE Local
No.882 [2008].......................................................................................................153
CORRECTNESS REVIEW IN THE GUISE OF REASONABLENESS..................153
Western Forest Products Inc. v Hayes Forest Services Limited [2009] ............153
REASONABLENESS AND GIVING REASONS........................................................154
Macdonald v Mineral Springs Hotel [2008] .......................................................155
A HISTORICAL EXAMPLE OF REASONABLENESS REVIEW..........................155
THE JUSISDICTION OF TRIBUNALS AND THE CONSTITUTION...156-161
(1) THE JURISDUCTION OF TRIBUNALS TO DECIDE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES...................................................................................................................157
Nova Scotia (Workers' Compensation Board) v. Martin (2003)...........................157
(2)&(3) CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES AND REMEDIES: THE APPROPRIATE FORUM...............................................................................................................................158
R v Conway [2010]..................................................................................................158
(4) THE STANDARD OF REVIEW...................................................................................160
(5) JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER QUASI-CONSTITUTIONAL STATUTES...........160
Paul v. British Columbia (Forest Appeals Commission) (2003).............................160
Tranchemontagne v Ontario (Director, Disability Support Program) [2006]........161
THE USE AND MISUSE OF DISCRETION..............................161-171
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................161
ABUSE OF DISCRETION AS A GROUND OF JUDICIAL REVIEW...................162
Suresh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2002) ............162
Standard of review.................................................................................163
The presence or absence of a clause negating the right of appeal.........163
The relative expertise of the decision-maker.........................................163
The purpose of the provision and the legislation generally...................163
The nature of the question......................................................................163
Two pre-Baker judgements
Re Sheehan and Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (1975)...................164
Shell Canada Products Ltd. v Vancouver (City) (1994)...................................165
FAILURE TO CONSIDER RELEVANT FACTORS..............................................167
DISCRETION AND THE CHARTER, UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW................................................168
Slaight Communications Inc. v Davidson (1989).............................................168
Lalonde v Ontario (Commission de restructuration des services de santé) (2001)..168
DELEGATED LEGISLATION...................................................................................169
UNREVIEWABLE DISCRETIONARY POWERS.......................................................169
PREROGATIVE POWERS AND NON-JUSTICIABILITY....................................169
Operation Dismantle Inc. v Canada (1985).......................................................169
Black v Canada (Prime Minister) (2001)...........................................................170
Public Interest Immunity: Cabinet Documents, the Common law and legislation..........170
Native Women’s Assn. Of Canada v Canada (1994) ........................................171
THE “PRIVATE” POWERS OF PUBLIC AUTHORITIES....................................171