Date:
20070301
Docket: A-525-05
Citation: 2007 FCA 96
CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
EVANS
J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
WEST
REGION CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES INC.
Appellant
and
JOHN
NORTH
Respondent
Heard at Winnipeg,
Manitoba, on March 1, 2007.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Winnipeg, Manitoba, on March 1, 2007.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: PELLETIER
J.A.
Date:
20070301
Docket:
A-525-05
Citation:
2007 FCA 96
CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU
J.A.
EVANS
J.A.
PELLETIER
J.A.
BETWEEN:
WEST REGION
CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES INC.
Appellant
and
JOHN NORTH
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT
(Delivered
from the Bench at Winnipeg, Manitoba, on March 1, 2007)
PELLETIER
J.A.
[1]
The appellant's principal argument runs as
follows. The standard of review of a decision of an adjudicator under the Canada
Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2, is that of the patently unreasonable
decision. A decision is patently unreasonable if there is no evidence capable
of supporting the decision. In this case, the record discloses an abundance of
evidence capable of supporting the adjudicator's decision. Consequently, the
decision should stand notwithstanding the inadequacy of the adjudicator's
reasons.
[2]
The difficulty with this argument is that it
conflates the standard of review of a decision with the standard applicable to
reasons to be given by a decision-maker.
[3]
The obligation to give reasons is a requirement
of procedural fairness. The basis of the obligation was set out by the Supreme
Court in R. v. Sheppard, 2002 SCC 26, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869, a decision
which, though made in the criminal context, is equally applicable to the
administrative law context. In this case, the obligation to give reasons is
found in the statute.
[4]
If the decision-maker does not provide reasons
which set out his findings and the basis upon which they are made, there is no
substrate for the application of the standard of review.
[5]
The appellant's argument amounts to dispensing
with the requirement to give reasons where the standard of review is patent
unreasonableness by suggesting that the decision should stand if the reviewing
judge finds that there is any evidence capable of supporting the decision-maker's
conclusion. In this context, this ignores the fact that it is the adjudicator,
not the reviewing judge, who is called upon to decide whether a dismissal is
just. Procedural fairness requires the adjudicator to render a reasoned
decision. The standard of review is then applied to those reasons.
[6]
Here, the adjudicator's reasons are clearly
inadequate. They consist of a lengthy summary of the evidence, followed by a
series of conclusions for which no supporting reasoning is given. One cannot,
on the strength of these reasons, understand the process by which the
adjudicator came to those conclusions. This is as clear a case of failing to
provide reasons as one could find.
[7]
No reasons having been provided, there is no
substrate for a judicial review of the decision. This failure to provide
procedural fairness cannot be remedied or displaced by invoking the "patently
unreasonable" standard of review so as to have the reviewing Court make
the decision which the adjudicator was required to make.
[8]
Notwithstanding Mr. Harvie's able and ingenious
argument, the appeal will be dismissed with costs.
"J.D.
Denis Pelletier"
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-525-05
APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE FEDERAL
COURT DATED OCTOBER 6, 2005, DOCKETS NOS. T-1397-04 AND T-1422-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: West
Region Child and Family Services Inc. v. John North
PLACE OF HEARING: Winnipeg, Manitoba
DATE OF HEARING: March 1, 2007
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
EVANS J.A.
PELLETIER
J.A
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: PELLETIER J.A.
APPEARANCES:
|
John Harvie and
Michael Clark
|
FOR THE APPELLANT
|
|
Paul Edwards
and Carolyn Frost
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Myers Weinberg
Winnipeg, Manitoba
|
FOR THE
APPELLANT
|
|
Duboff Edwards
Haight & Schachter
Winnipeg, Manitoba
|
FOR THE
RESPONDENT
|
Email this Content