The decision by the Supreme Court has had a significant influence on the operations of governmental agencies, judicial reviews and the scope of administrative laws. The court introduced standards for reviewing court decisions and administration of justice, which ensure reasonable, correct and fairness hearings, and the independence of administrative entities in executing their obligations. The concept of reasonableness emphasizes the importance of facts and discretion in administrative decision-making, which should only accept reasons that can withstand comprehensive probing. An administrative decision based on an explanation lacking the content that could provide a logical guide on the evaluation of evidence and conclusion on a case does not meet the standards of reasonableness. The Supreme Court has improved the protection of claimants from victimization and other unjust activities by parties interested in an administrative deliberation. Reasonableness in administrative law extends to patently reasonable decisions, which introduce conflicts regarding the admission of irrational decisions below the threshold of unreasonableness. The Supreme Court favors the standards of correctness and reasonableness and considers patent unreasonableness as a standard below the threshold of reasonableness (Blake, 2011). The concept of correctness describes administrative decision made out of alignment with the law and proposes the substitution of an administrative decision with the court’s own opinion. Maintaining correct standards entails balancing constitutional laws and hierarchy of power in establishing the appropriateness of an administrator’s actions under a statute. Correctness standards encompass general laws and laws particular to an administrative decision, which minimizes abuse of power by tribunals and individual administrators. The claimant has the right to seek redress on an administrator’s decisions outside his specified scope of power and obligation. The Supreme Court decision highlights the scope of procedural fairness, which should exist in the deliberation of a case on administrative laws. The right to a fair hearing and impartial judgment are the two central elements of procedural fairness and determine the legitimate expectations of an administrative body.
The scope of the duty of fairness in administrative proceedings depends on the nature of a decision in terms of being legislative, point of law and final. The relationship between an individual and administrative body should be subject to the pursuance of a statue and protection of the claimant’s rights and privileges. The Supreme Court’s decision highlights circumstances in which a claimant deserves pre-hearing rights, disclosure, delay, notice and other participatory and hearing rights. The nature of a case determines the rights of an individual depending on the whether the objective of an administrative decision was to resolve a dispute or protect rights. The protection of the rights of a claimant should respond to the statutory scheme in an administrative decision and expectations of procedural protection. The Supreme Court decision emphasizes the need for independence and neutrality in administrative tribunals to guarantee a claimant access to justice. The evaluation of the activities of an administrator should illustrate that the decision on a case is free from factors that could hamper the making of an impartial judgment. The independence of an administrative body determines its tendency towards biased decision-making and depends on factors such as the security of tenure. The control of administrative independence is mainly through statutory descriptions considering that the constitution has a limited scope of guaranteeing administrative independence. The minimum constitutional requirements of administrative independence help to maintain an apprehension of bias in decision-making.
Reference
Blake, S. (2011). Administrative law in Canada. Toronto: LexisNexis.