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 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Category:Legal Principles]] | [[Category:Legal Principles]] | ||
{{Citation: | |||
| categories = | |||
| shortlink = | |||
}} | |||
==Harrison v. Orillia Soldiers' Memorial Hospital, 2006 CanLII 33670 (ON SCDC){{Harrison}}== | ==Harrison v. Orillia Soldiers' Memorial Hospital, 2006 CanLII 33670 (ON SCDC){{Harrison}}== | ||
| Line 5: | Line 10: | ||
[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. | [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: | [25] The content of the duty of fairness is variable, as the Supreme Court of Canada stated in <i>Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817.</i><ref name="Baker"/> Its content depends on a number of factors, including the following: | ||
::1. the nature of the decision being made; | ::1. the nature of the decision being made; | ||
| Line 16: | Line 21: | ||
::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). | ||
<ref name="Baker">Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC), [1999] 2 SCR 817, <https://canlii.ca/t/1fqlk>, retrieved on 2023-05-13</ref> | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 19:59, 13 May 2023
| Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 © | |
|---|---|
| Date Retrieved: | 2024-05-14 |
| CLNP Page ID: | 870 |
| Page Categories: | |
| Citation: | Duty of Fairness, CLNP 870, <>, retrieved on 2024-05-14 |
| Editor: | Sharvey |
| Last Updated: | 2023/05/13 |
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.[1] 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).
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC), [1999] 2 SCR 817, <https://canlii.ca/t/1fqlk>, retrieved on 2023-05-13
