Topic

Case Name/Year
Cooper
Nicholson (1979)

Facts

Mr. Nicholson was a probationary

police officer who was terminated. His
employer provided no reasons for
terminating him but claimed that the
Police Act allowed it to do so. The
Court found that Mr. Nicholson had a
common law right to be treated fairly.
Mr. Nicholson should have been
advised why his services were no
longer needed and should also have
been given the opportunity to respond.

Principle

Public authorities have a

duty to act fairly when
making decisions.
The threshold for triggering
the duty of procedural
fairness was (and remains)
quite low, requiring only that
individuals rights, privileges
or interest be at issue.

N was entitled to be treated:

1. fairly, not arbitrarily;
2. he was entitled to be
told why he was being
dismissed
3. and given an
opportunity to make
submissions orally or
in writing, at the
boards discretion
before he was
dismissed.

Procedural Fairness

Baker

Singh v. Canada (MEI)

1985 SCC
Emerging Procedural
Fairness Principles

Obligation to
Provide Reasons:

International Union of
North America Local 183
c. Ontario (Human Rights
Commission)

Daneshvar v. National
Dental Examining Board

In order to determine degree

of flexibility consider
(1) the nature of the
decision;
(2) the nature of the
statutory scheme;
(3) the importance of the
decision to the affected
person;
(4) the presence of any
legitimate expectations; and
(5) the choice of procedure
made by the decision-maker
6 foreigners tried to claim convention
refugee status. Denied. Said
Constitutional rights didnt apply as
not citizens.
Employee made a human rights
complaint. Tribunal allowed E to make
several amendments and in doing so,
told the union they must call certain
witnesses, even though they intended
not to.
Court held that the tribunal had
breached the principles of
procedural justice by not allowing
the Union to conduct their case in
the manner they saw fit.
Dentist emigrated to Canada and
failed the board tests. She appealed

Constitutional rights apply to

non citizens
Parties should be free to
conduct their own case
ie. Cant make them bring
certain witnesses etc.

Parties should get a

reason when the decision

of Canada
i. The decision is
highly important
to the applicants
career

The decision will

have profound
impact on the
applicants
academic career
and there are
unusual
circumstances

Lerew v. St. Lawrence

College of Applied Arts and
Technology:

Must give a
reason when
there is a penalty
imposed.

Megens v. The Ontario

Racing Commission

Must consider
alternative
penalties

and was rejected with no reason.

While the Court was clear that the
reasons given need not resemble
those given by the Courts or more
formal bodies, a conclusion without
reasons was insufficient in the
circumstances of this case because of
the importance of the decision to the
applicant
Applicant was 55 yo student with
cerebal palsy. Was given a failing
grade and appealed. Tribunal refused
to hear from Human Rights expert but
gave no reason why.

was career-changing ie.

the applicant was seeking
pursue her career in
Canada.
Applies to bodies
certifying professionals.

Due to circumstances and academic

importance, held that there must be a
reason given.
Megens was accused of match-fixing
horse races. Main evidence was from a
co-conspirator who was looking to
have his sentence reduced.
Court found Megens procedural
fairness was breached they also
should have looked at alternative
penalities.

Must give a reason where

there is a penalty and must
look at alternative penalties.
The Court clarified that the
obligation to provide reasons
is not satisfied by merely
reciting the submissions and
evidence and stating a
conclusion.

Must be able to
give oral evidence
when the case
turns on
credibility

Khan and University of

Ottawa (1997)

Law student failed exams when school

said she only handed in 3 papers
instead of 4. She said she did. Refused
oral hearing. Appealed

An oral hearing was required

to satisfy the demands of
procedural fairness where
the decision turned on
credibility and where the
consequences to the
applicant were serious.

Toronto Housing
Co.v.Sabrie (2003)

Tenant was due to be evicted by

landlord. T did not attend hearing. In
his absence, suggested he was
arrested so appeal dismissed. Later
found out he was in hospital. Despite
proof, refused to re-do appeal.

Court held that Tribunal had

statutory power to re-open
the matter and that
procedural fairness required
that it do so. Natural Justice
should not be sacrificed
natural justice for
administrative convenience.

(f) Obligation to
grant
adjournments and
the right to
respond

Spiegel v. Seneca College of

Applied Arts & Technology
(2005)

The College notified Mr. Spiegel that

he was required to withdraw from his
course of studies. Spiegel sought an
adjournment of the matter to allow
him to prepare a defence and to
respond to the investigative report.
These requests were denied by the
College.

Refusal to grant a short

adjournment that would have
allowed Spiegel to respond to
the case against him was a
denial of natural justice and
procedural fairness.

Three-Pronged
Test

Knight v. Indian Head