PRLG 5201 Administrative Law Mid Term

No one is above the law, power granted by the law should not be used arbitrarily

The Superior Courts

The Constitution

Provide reason for the decision in writing

1) Jurisdiction of enabling statute
2) Only relevant factors may be considered
3) Similar cases should be treated in similar ways
4) Must be exercised in good faith

1) Adjudicator that heard the case makes the decision
2) Adjudicator must voluntarily seek consultation
3) Consultant must not pressure for a desicion
4) No new facts are introduced at this stage

When enabled by statute. For example, a minister is assigned public servants to aid them by statute.

Refusing to consider a legitimate option or acceptable facts.

If the government removes a service that you have relied on, you have a legal right to make a complaint/comment

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Non binding guidelines and practice directions set by the tribunal

False. Ex: Parole boards are inquisitorial

The discouragement of seeking a legal remedy, such as as a tribunal, for fear of consequences.

If the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) should apply to tribunals, and does it violate the open court principle.

That FIPPA unreasonably extends the definition of personal information, and that the process of acquiring documents through FIPPA results in an excessive delay

That FIPPA was meant to protect all government documents, including those at tribunals.

Section 2 (b): freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.

Tribunal Adjudicative Records Act, 2019 (TARA)

Whether the Ontario court should allow an individual to seek a civil remedy for invasion of privacy

Intrusion upon seclusion

Remedy

Whether posting explicit videos of a a former lover without consent (revenge porn) should result in a civil remedy

Public disclosure of private information

The insurance act is a consumer protection act, and should be interpreted through this lens (typically in the consumer's favour).

Volfson attempted to collect insurance money on his patients behalf without their knowledge or consent, including forging their signatures

Whether the tribunal had the power to add Volfson as a party to the case

The power of the tribunal to add a party to the trial when they have a direct interest or involvement of the outcome, even if they were not in the initial parties

The applicant's counsel reviewed and utilized privileged information that the respondent's counsel accidentally sent them.

They should have contacted the other party for a list of documents to remove, ideally by a third party

The applicant's counsel was removed, the information from the privileged documents was banned from the proceeding, and costs were imposed on the applicants

You can not "compartmentalize" information. Once you have read the document, you can never "unread it", and your judgment is tainted forever

Whether the late and insufficient production of documents by Ms. Chung should result in her documentary evidence and witnesses being excluded.

The applicant's documentary evidence was excluded However, the rules were more lax on witnesses, so they were still allowed to testify

Initially she gave a list of witnesses, but at trial they instead tried to substitute a completely new witness and several new documents as evidence, including one critical to their argument.

Trial by Ambush

No

Some of the new documents were allowed, but only those that established pre-existing arguments

Yes. The adjudicator had discretion, and if they were convinced there was a legitimate reason they could have allowed it.

A charge of inappropriate sexual relations between a physician (Henderson) and a patient.

A similar allegation was submitted and merged with the ongoing proceeding, which resulted in a challenge from Henderson.

A judicial review found that the merge was illegitimate. Once the proceeding has commenced, only minor clerical errors are allowed to be changed.

Whether the conduct of an OPP officer interacting with a young victim of a sexual assault was appropriate

Whether the question of police conduct during interactions with a victim of a sexual assault was within the jurisdiction of a tribunal meant to judge the abuse of young people BY authorities

The commissioners attempted to extend the scope of the tribunal to accept the case, but appeals eventually determined it was out of their jurisdiction.

Whether workers' compensation could be paid for a car crash while returning home from work during abnormal hours.

In general, commuting is not the responsibility of the employer and accidents on commutes are not eligible for workers, compensation. However, the employee is eligible if they were commuting due to an emergency call

The tribunal is allowed to utilize its discretion to define what it considers an emergency call.

The employees commute to a call during vacation hours was considered to be an emergency commute, and was therefore eligible for workers' compensation

Whether the order for termination of tenancy should be granted, or denied due to the harm it would cause the disabled tenant.

The LTB incorrectly declared the tenant to have abandoned his application to stop the eviction when he did not appear for the hearing (they were hospitalized at the time)

The board incorrectly fettered their discretion when they refused consider reversing the declaration that the tenant had abandoned their application to stop the eviction

Yes, the error of law was that they refused to use their discretion. If they had used their discretion to judge in favour of the landlord, it would have been legitimate.

Whether the tenancy should be ended. The landlord want to use the unit for their personal use, however the tenant was disabled.

Whether the board had discretion to weigh the potential inconvenience to the tenant in their decision

The request to terminate the tenancy was denied because the harm to the tenant would have outweighed the harm to the landlord of the lease continuing.

The LTB cited s. 83 (1) of the RTA, which grants the LTB discretion to weigh the "overall circumstance" of the case when they make a decision

Whether the applicant's injuries were severe enough to qualify for catastrophic impairment benefits as per the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule

That the applicant's injuries, while severe, were not enough to qualify for the benefits

That the adjudicator in the case received undisclosed consultation from the executive chair of SLASTO in violation of procedure laid out by the SCC

By an anonymous letter which lead to a freedom of information request

Yes, but not for the truth of its contents. It was allowed to establish the narrative of why the applicant inquired about their case.

Whether the previous decision by the adjudicator was made impartially

Because the consultation was initiated by the consultant, who was at a supervisory level within the administration, it violated the procedure put n place by SCC. This created a reasonable concern over a lack of independence for the adjudicator