Duty of Fairness: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
mNo edit summary |
|||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
::5. the choices of procedure made by the agency itself (at paras. 22-27). | ::5. the choices of procedure made by the agency itself (at paras. 22-27). | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 04:37, 30 April 2021
Harrison v. Orillia Soldiers' Memorial Hospital, 2006 CanLII 33670 (ON SCDC)
[24]In Brown and Evans, supra, at 8-20, the authors conclude that a tribunal will generally only be required “otherwise by law to hold a hearing” if the procedural content of the duty of fairness applicable to the tribunal includes the essential aspects of an adjudicative hearing.
[25] The content of the duty of fairness is variable, as the Supreme Court of Canada stated in Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817. Its content depends on a number of factors, including the following:
- 1. the nature of the decision being made;
- 2. the nature of the statutory scheme;
- 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 (at paras. 22-27).
