Lecture 5

Is the restrict justified by S1 of the Charter?

Oakes test: (R v Oakes [1986]) calls for a pressing and sizable goal and proportional manner. A
locating of proportionality calls for:

(a) means rationally connected to the goal

(b) minimum impairment of rights

(c) proportionality between the results of the infringement and significance of goal.

National protection = urgent and great objective

 Non-disclosure of proof at certificates hearings = rationally connected to the goal

 Noted there are alternatives to permit country to defend touchy info e.G. Permit security
cleared advocates to appear for individuals Therefore, IRPA strategies do now not minimally
impair rights – therefore unconstitutional.

ECONOMIC WELLBEING/ MENTAL AND PHYSICAL WELLBEING

 S7 mainly excludes assets rights however are there species of economic hobby that transcend
concepts of belongings and attain included reputation. To what extent is monetary nicely being
an thing of “existence” and “security of the character”.

 Extent to which s7 can be involed on relation to administrative regimes which have an effect on
the mental and physical well being of those worried as well as their reputations

 Wilson v. British Columbia (Medical Services Commission) (1988)

Facts:
  Drs invoice executive for remedy given to patients. Commission evolved scheme for limiting
numbers of training drs and proscribing geographic place of their exercise so they may
manipulate the total value of health offerings and the ensure even unfold of drs in BC.

 Re Mia scheme challenged and judge found that commission become not authorized by way of
legislation re medical offerings. Some rights which include right to work and instruction a career
are so fundamental they must be blanketed event in the event that they include an monetary
detail.

 Govt enacted regulation under which regulations were handed enforcing the preceding scheme
and there was any other challenge.

Issue:

 Whether “liberty” in s7 is large enough to encompass the opp to be a qualified and licensed
physician to pratice medicinal drug in BC without constraint as to area, time or reason despite
the fact that there may be an incidental right being asserted.

Court:

 Regulation of our sports is common. Givt may additionally impose an administrative shape
which limits or even deprives certainly one of liberty to similarly its belief of the wishes of
society “unless the use of such structure is in itself so glaringly unfair having regard to the
selections it's far referred to as upon to make, as to violate the ideas of essential justice” Jones v
The Queen [1986].

 Liberty w/i meaning of S7 isn't simply freedom from physical restraint, it can embody character
freedom of movement, which includes proper to selected one’s occupation and wherein to
pursue it challenge to proper of kingdom to impose, in acc with standards of fundamental
justice, valid and reasonable restrictions at the sports of the people.
Pure financial rights

 Said the trial decide has characterised the difficulty as a “right to paintings” – a purely financial
query, while he need to have directed his interest to a greater impt thing of liberty, the proper
to pursue a livelihood or profession [a matter concerning one’s dignity and self worth].

 Drs argue scheme deprives them of opp to pursue their profession or has constrained their
mobility in a manner that deprives them of liberty within the large feel. Denial of right to
exercise their selected career in BC. Plan does not guarantee profits to Drs – best guarantees a
percent of bills submitted for offerings completed for insured patients will be paid. Economic
aspect of the liberty the drs need to claim is the right to be paid for services rendered. Problem
with the law is that the opp to pursue profession and freedom of mobility of practice may be
denied via refusing patients the right to have the dr reimbursed under the plan.

Economic rights cases

 We do not quarrel with the realization reached in cases involving organization enterprise
pastimes and natural monetary proper but we don’t suppose they detract from end in Mia that
denying drs the opp to pursue their professions falls within the rubric of “liberty” as used in s7.

Regulatory instances

 We haven't any doubt that regulation of topics together with requirements of admission,
obligatory insurance for protection of public, stds of practice and behaviour will now not
constitute and infringement of s7. We do now not assume they detract from end in Mia.

Right to paintings instances

 In our opinion those cases should be seemed as cases regarding the regulation of commercial
enterprise. Establish precept that “liberty” in s7 is not synonymous with unconstrained freedom
and s7 doesn’t extend to an unconstrained proper to transact commercial enterprise with
whoever one wishes. But they do now not stand for the proposition that executive can also
deprive an indicidual of the opp to pursue freely the exercise of their career. The “Right to
 paintings cases” describe the right no longer to be regulated – doen’t have something to do
with proper to construct a exercise in their province and selected network.

Mobility is part of liberty.

 The geographic restrictions imposed by means of government at the proper to practice

medicinal drug in BC represent a violation of the right to liberty beneath s7 until it's been
revmoved in acc with the standards of fundamental justice or until it is able to be justified below
s1 of the Charter.

 In our opinion, scheme offends principles of essential justice. Based on the application of
indistinct and uncertain criteria which blended with regions of uncontrolled discretion, leaves
full-size scope for arbitrary conduct. Scheme is so procedurally flawed it can not stand.

Blencoe v. BC (HR Commission), 2000

Facts:

 B minister in BC authorities accused of sexual harassment. Accusation made publicly. Ended up

before BC HR Commission. Government disregarded him from cupboard. Lots of media
insurance. He resigned from his seat. From the time the complainants filed grievance till HR
Commission scheduled a hearing, 30 months had handed. B’s recognition became destroyed
through this time. There was no purpose given for the postpone. B carried out for stay of
proceedings until project to the proceedings will be heard.

Issue:

1) Does the Charter practice to the Commission?

2) S. 7 interest (liberty and protection of the man or woman) infringed by using the put off due to
the Commission? Pointed to the psych damage precipitated to him from media coverage, nature of
accusations and stigma

Reasoning:
Charter Scrutiny: Counsel for the Commission said the Commission isn't a “authorities business
enterprise” and does not exercising a governmental feature as required by s. 32 of the Charter for it to
apply. SCC lays out check for whether precise corporation falls beneath Charter scrutiny:

1. Whether the agency exercises mandate independently of presidency – this agency is

independent of government however this is required for the nature of human rights law.
2. Whether the task is to a statutory provision or some motion through the agency – right here,
the mission is to an administrative action.
3. Whether the organisation is acting judicially – is what it's miles doing toward adjudication than
management of coverage application? Here, the Commission is performing judicially.
 To escape Charter scrutiny, should fulfill all 3 of those. But right here, the court says the
Commission is concern to Charter scrutiny even though it seems to skip these indicia. The basis
of the Commission’s authority is statute. Its is inconsistent to think that a legislature that's
certain to enact statutes consistent with the Charter, can delegate a electricity to an group
created by using statute that would exercise powers that could no longer be difficulty to Charter
scrutiny. Parliament can't delegate greater powers than it has. Since it have to workout its
legislative making authority pursuant to Charter, whatever born of this electricity ought to also
be situation to public scrutiny. Also, that is a public program concerned with supporting human
rights.

 Ratio (Charter scrutiny): Any admin corporation with constitutive statute might be situation to
Charter overview.

 S. 7 Liberty Interest: This hobby responds to “essential personal selections” that people could
make with which we're very reluctant to see the kingdom interfere (abortion, right to stop your
existence) – manage over one’s person – autonomy. This is a spread of s. 7 utility handiest to
freedom from detention (crook context) which has been affirmed by Supreme court docket in
New Brinswick v G(J) 1999. This issue does now not fall under liberty – in this case the country
has now not averted B from making any essential non-public picks

S. 7 Security of the Person Interest:

Principle that the right to Security of the Person encompasses critical state imposed psychological stress
has been reiterated by Supreme Court in New Brinswick v G(J) 1999

o Psychological damage should be kingdom-imposed

o Psychological damage have to be critical
 B has suffered amazing harm however the principle reason has not been the postpone (in spite
of the 5 month unexplainable lapse), it's miles the exposure related to the claims. The damage
 become no longer serious because it isn't always interference with fundamental private
alternatives.

Dignity:

There is not any autonomous, loose-standing Charter right to dignity or recognition or freedom from
stigma . Better understood as an underlying value.

Note:

Bastarache analyzes liberty and safety of the person one by one. But, what he seems at in security of
the character is similar to what he seems at for liberty. In this form of case, what’s the difference among
safety of the person and the hobby protected by using liberty?

Note: Courts might be reluctant to scrutinize under the Charter in which the courts feel there are
adequate admin regulation principles.

Stigma:

 In a crook regulation context, man or woman charged with an offence has the right to be tried
inside an affordable time. Cf criminal case, the submitting of a human rights grievance implies
no suspicion of wrongdoing by way of the country. Commission investigation is to determine
what occurred and to settle count number in a non hostile manner.

 In criminal lawsuits, accusation alone might also interact a security hobby because of the grave
socjal and private consequences. But despite the fact that there's a few stress and tension in
reference to a human rights/intercourse discrimination investigation, s7 scrutiny of the
individual does not cover such emotional effects.

 In this situation, no stigmatising nation pronouncement,

 Concluded that respondent is not able to move first threshold of s7 Charter analysis in the circs
of this example have to no longer be construed that a retaining that state-precipitated delays in
human rights complaints can by no means cause an individuals s7 rights.
  In this situation although, no deprivation of respondent’s right to liberty or security of the
person so no want to go to go to 2nd stage of evaluation to see if the deprivation was in acc
with principles of fundamental justice.

 Administrative law ideas: Is B entitled to remedy underneath standards of admin law? Can
postpone in this example quantity to a denial of herbal justice even in which capability to have a
honest listening to is not compromised?

Delay:

 Common regulation subculture that unreasonable put off can result in live of court cases if it has
prejudicial effects at the lawsuits (e.G. Witnesses die, and so forth.). Unreasonable put off is part
of the content of duty of equity which could act as a trump card—regardless of the merits of the
case to which one is situation, if a court determines that there was a postpone resulting from
the admin organization that is unreasonable and that prejudices the individual situation to the
ones complaints, the complaints may be stayed.

 Here, the court says that there may be no prejudice resulting from the delay (that is postpone
going to evidentiary elements – hearing fairness). But, the court docket turned into asked to
bear in mind whether unreasonable delay in and of itself is sufficient ground to stay the
proceeding. Could a postpone itself constitute an abuse of procedure (this is about the put off
itself)? In principle, postpone through itself, if sufficient, ought to constitute an abuse of
procedure (bring the human rights method into disrepute). There was a five-month
unreasonable period throughout which there has been no communication. Court has to reply
whether or not the public’s interest in averting the abuse of process might exceed the damage
to the public’s interest if lawsuits are stayed. On the premise of this balancing act, the
courtroom discovered that the postpone changed into no longer so unreasonable as to
advantage a live of court cases.

 “The determination of whether or not a delay is inordinate is not primarily based on the length
of the put off on my own, however on contextual factors, consisting of the character of the case
and its complexity, the purpose and nature of the proceedings, and whether or not the
respondent contributed to the put off or waived the postpone. Here, despite the fact that the
Commission took longer than is ideal to method the proceedings, the put off changed into not
so inordinate as to quantity to an abuse of procedure.”
Balancing Test:

Abuse of method from delay as opposed to harm to the public’s interest in seeing the court cases
preserve. I.E. The government had acted wrongly however now not wrongly sufficient whilst balanced
with the alternative public interest.

Held:

No stay but offers some relief – he receives charges for being dragged via this prolonged system.

Ratio:

In precept, postpone by using itself, if enough, may want to constitute an abuse of method (bring the
human rights manner into disrepute).

Minority:

Case must have been determined on admistrative regulation concepts no longer Charter issues. If
admin law treatment were implemented, the trial decide ought to have dound there have been an
undue put off inside the manner of the Commission and that this changed into abusive and ssome form
of treatment ought to have been granted to B. But LeBel is of the same opinion that a stay of lawsuits
not warranted in circs, Notes that Bastarache casts this as a dispute between the nation and B. But,
there are also the people who allege harassment.

Also set out test for unreasonable delay:

o Time taken as compared to the inherent time required to prosecute the problem
o Causes of the postpone – e.G. B challenged some of the motions for disclosure some
other procedural matters. B was unfastened to accomplish that, he couldn't blame the
fee for delay as a result of him exercising his procedural rights.
o Impact of the delay
Abusive postpone is inaccurate. The board became inept and incompetent.

Note:

 Although the courtroom acknowledges that there is public interest in seeing the proceedings
continue given the gravity of the expenses, it awards expenses as a message to the Commission.
The choice seems abnormal due to the fact we let critical alleged criminals out of prison because
 of an illegal seek via cops but right here the court is letting the HR Commission lawsuits keep
even after wrongful authorities movement.

 Maybe the Charter evaluation focuses greater on the man or woman and the judicial review
stuff focuses extra on the institutional side. Also, the sufferers of the alleged wrongdoing should
have their interests considered – this doesn’t happen under the Charter. Here, the sufferers’
interests are taken into consideration due to the fact not represented with the aid of the Crown.

6. Content of Procedural Obligations (Right to be Heard)

 We flip now to the query: if procedural obligations are prompted, what does the decision-maker
should do? Or extra concretely, what is the content of those procedural responsibilities?

 If your procedural obligation comes from a statute – the enabling act or one of the unique
legislated procedural codes mentioned at CB seventy seven-eighty five, the solution to this
query is: “whatever the statute says is the content is the content material”. (However, there
may be occasions wherein you may must determine whether or not the statute is a “entire
code” or leaves room for commonplace regulation supplementation.)

 Life is extra complicated in case your cause is the commonplace regulation, Charter or Bill of
Rights. While there are some variations, normally speakme, the content material wherein these
assets apply boils down to 2 huge classes of procedural regulations: a right to be heard and a
proper to an independent choice-maker.

 Within these instructions, there are numerous information, and you continue to want to
recognize “what does it suggest in exercise to have a proper to be heard and what does it imply
in practice to have a proper to an impartial decisionmaker”.

The basic issue is this:

 the correct content of procedural policies coming from the commonplace law, Charter or Bill of
Rights varies from case to case in keeping with the instances. Certainly with appreciate to the
right to be heard, you should begin with the Baker considerations: Baker gives you a (non-
distinct) listing of issues that inform you as a minimum something about content. Specifically,
 the Baker check suggests whether the content material could be sturdy or no longer. (It in
reality tells you a touch bit extra if your cause is

valid expecations:

 with legitimate expectations, the content material of the procedural responsibility is usually
what become promised inside the procedural promise that gave upward push to the valid
expectation within the first vicinity. If the promise became noticeable, you will no longer be
able to put in force it immediately, but no less than, it could cause better or greater procedural
fairness.)

 Of route, possible’t stop at an final results that just says “sturdy or plenty of procedural
fairness, or now not”. That!S no longer sufficient. One has to unpack that idea and attention on
specific procedural entitlements: how a great deal be aware; what kind of hearing; how a good
deal disclosure, etc., and so forth.. So the readings evaluation a chain of procedural
entitlements and advocate a few classes on while these particular procedural entitlements may
exist and to what diploma. Be conscious of this jurisprudence.

A phrase of warning:

 when it comes to an exam, you do need to explore which procedural entitlements are owed and
whether they were met, however in case you pay no heed to the forms of situations that
provide upward push to these specific entitlements, you could turn out to be with an
improbable laundry list of procedural guidelines which you say need to practice once they
sincerely don’t. An uncritical laundry listing is not high-quality analysis and does now not
generate extra marks.

Baker v Minister of Citizenship & Immigration (1999)

Facts:

o Ms Baker, a citizen of Jamaica, entered Canada on a traveller permit, but overstayed

illegally for decades. Had 4 kids here (so they're Canadian citizens). Due to recognized
depression and schizophrenia, she went on welfare and a couple of kids went to father,
different 2 to foster care, but she took those 2 back when recovered.
 o When discovered to be residing in Canada illegally she is ordered to be deported
beneath the Immigration Act. Her ultimate motel below the Act is utility to the Minister
to be allowed to live in Canada on “humanitarian and compassionate grounds”. Her
written application includes clinical proof that if deported she can likely grow to be
unwell again and not using a medication, and that she is sole caregiver for 2 children
and closely related with the opposite 2 (so all youngsters will suffer if she is deported).
o Application reviewed by junior Immigration Officer and recommends she not be allowed
to live on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Recommendation sent to senior
Immigration Officer who concurs, so utility denied (without a oral hearing and first of all
no motives given).
o When Baker’s suggest asks for motives, senior Immigration Officer sends notes from
junior Immigration Officer. Notes seem inflammatory e.G. Capitalized her total range of
children (four in Canada, plus 4 in Jamaica), says she will be a “super stress on our social
welfare system”, say that truth she continues to be in Canada is an “indictment of our
machine”, and “Canada can not have the funds for this kind of generosity”, recommends
refusal however warns of “ability for unfavorable exposure”.

Baker demanding situations deportation in court docket, and deportation stayed until concluded.
Note not a Charter s.7 case, as an alternative dealt with on common regulation PF grounds.

Claims:

i. Some procedural fairness obligations had been owed (courtroom said yes).
2. Ii) Insufficient PFOs given:
(1) There should have been an oral listening to (no).
(2) There changed into a obligation to provide reasons (sure, but notes enough)
3. (three) There changed into an affordable apprehension of bias from notes (sure).
4. Iii) Substantively there was an abuse of discretion (yes).

Decision: L’Heureux-Dube J: on threshold query, there is a duty of PF owed:

 It is obvious that the responsibility of procedural equity applies to H & C choices as they have an
effect on “the rights, privileges or interests of an individual.” (Cardinal v. Dir of Kent Institution)

 “The concept of procedural fairness is eminently variable and its content material is to be
determined in the unique context of every case.” (L’H-D in Knight)
 five elements were identified as applicable standards for the dedication of the content material
of procedural fairness. “Underlying these factors is the notion that the purpose of the
participatory rights contained inside the obligation of procedural fairness is to make sure that
administrative selections are made using a truthful and open procedure, suitable to the choice
being made an its statutory, institutional, and social context, with an possibility for the ones
tormented by the choice to put ahead their perspectives and evidence absolutely and feature
them considered by means of the decision-maker.” “I ought to notice that this listing of factors
is not exhaustive… Other elements will also be essential, specifically whilst considering factors of
the duty of equity unrelated to participatory rights.”

a) Nature of the selection and the procedure observed in making it:

b) “The closeness of the executive system to the judicial system need to suggest how a
great deal of those governing standards need to be imported into the world of
administrative choice making.” (Knight)
i. Legislative & fashionable / discretionary policy suggests much less PFOs
ii. Administrative & specific / resembles hostile courtroom-like method / fact-
finding & credibility shows greater PFOs
1. Nature of statutory scheme and the phrases of the statute pursuant to which the selection
maker operates: “Greater procedural protections, as an instance, will be required when no
appeal procedure is provided within the statute, or whilst the decision is determinative of the
problem and further requests can't be submitted.”
2. Also take into account if there is a widespread statute specifying techniques which include
Ontario’s Statutory Powers Procedures Act (none in B.C.)
i. Does statute or rules give PF rights or override common law PFOs (e.G. As in
Singh Wilson J. Is statute supposed through legislature to be exhaustive for
PFOs)
ii. How widespread scheme have an effect on PF (e.G. Multi-stage system and
preliminary investigation v. Very last selection)
iii. Is there an administrative attraction or redetermination (if now not shows extra
PF)
iv. Is case arguing for regular scheme to be accompanied or searching out an
exception (which may endorse much less PF)
3. Importance of decision to person. “The greater critical the decision is to the lives of these
affected and the extra its effect on theat individual or those individuals, the more stringent the
procedural protections on the way to be mandated.” This idea comes from Dickson J. In Kane.
4. D) The valid expectancies of the character tough the choice can also decide what tactics
the obligation of equity require in given circs. This doctrine is part of the doctrine of fairness or
natural justice and does not create considerable rights. (Old St. Boniface). 2 meanings:
i) Promises / conduct / standard practices through officials that gives character valid
expectation that a certain manner might be observed. (Qi and Bendahmane).
 5. Ii) Where an individual has a valid expectation of a specific end result (e.G. That license
would be renewed) (Mullan)– can’t be used substantively to in reality get that end result, but
can be used to argue for extra PF before predicted end result denied.
6. E) Take under consideration and recognize the choices made via choice maker. These
choices have to be respected, specially when the statute leaves to the company the capability to
pick its own methods or while the organisation has an know-how in figuring out what methods
are suitable within the occasions. Should do not forget why organisation made alternatives of
manner that it did (but this may’t be determinative and so includes less weight when you
consider that court docket reviewing if they are ok): take a look at institutional constraints on
employer / practicalities together with no longer overburdening machine (in particular if has to
make one thousand’s of selections), expediency, informality, and many others., which can all be
alternate offs against requiring high PFOs

7. Note – values underlying obligation of PF relate to the precept that character affected have to
have opp to provide their case fully and pretty, have decisions affecting their rights, pastimes or
privileges mad the usage of fair, unbiased and open technique, suitable to the statutory,
insitutational and social context of the selection.

2) In this example looking at those five factors:

1. Nature of decision has excessive stage of discretion and must bear in

mind many elements, no longer very court-like (humanitarian and
compassionate grounds different from a judicial decision.) shows less
PFOs
2. Statutory scheme is that in the main humans will observe for
permanent house from outdoor Canada, while right here Baker applying
for exception to this indicates less PFOs BUT no administrative appeal
indicates more PFOs
3. Impact here on both Baker and her kids very considerable, indicates
more PFOs
4. No legitimate expectations (i.E. No promises / conduct through officials
to Baker suggesting she could accept more PFOs, nor history of giving
oral hearings) neutral
5. Statute gives Minister a lot flexibility to decide on right system and in
exercise interviews aren't conducted in all cases.

 Balancing these elements L H’D concludes circs require a full and honest consideration of the
issues and the claimant and others whose essential pastimes are tormented by the selection in a
 essential manner should have a significant opp to offer diverse varieties of proof relevant to
their case and feature it fully and fairly considered. In this example although, no need for oral
intending, as an alternative written submissions enough to pay attention all applicable facts.

 Re provision of reasons for selection – conventional function at not unusual law has been that
responsibility of fairness does not require, as a fashionable rule that reasons be supplied for
administrative choices however the courts have often emphasised the usefulness of motives in
making sure fair and obvious decision-making. Others have stated that having to provide
written motives is just too remarkable a burden.
 L H’D stated that it's far now appropriate to understand that, in sure circs, the obligation of
procedural fairness will also require provision of a written cause of the decision. Cases wherein
there may be vital significance for person, when there's a statutory right of appeal or in different
circs, some form of purpose is needed.
 In this example reasons have to take delivery of but the motives requirement turned into
fulfilled as Baker got notes of the case officer.

 Re bias – PF requires that selections be made loose from an affordable apprehension of bias
with the aid of an impartial decisionmaker. The duty to behave pretty and in a way that does
not give rise to an inexpensive apprehension of bias applies to all immigration officials who play
a extensive role within the making of the choices – whether subordinate reviewing officers or
folks that make the final choice.

 Test for reasonable apprehension of bias is reasonableness – what could an informed man or
woman viewing the problem realistically and almost (and having concept the matter thru)
conclude?

 Standards for a reasonable apprehension of bias may also range depending on context and form
of function done by way of the executive selection maker. In this example immigration choices
demand sensitivity and expertise with the aid of those making them – they're individualized
decisions and feature extraordinary importance to such individuals. The case officer proven
bias.