Duty of Fairness: Difference between revisions
From Riverview Legal Group
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
mNo edit summary |
|||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
::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). | ||
{{Harrison}} | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 04:36, 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).
