Anonymous

Difference between revisions of "Review of Administrative Decisions for Public Complaints (5:III)"

From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Line 117: Line 117:
There is already conflict in the British Columbia courts on whether or not the ''Vavilov'' decision effectively merges these two standards, and it is likely to be addressed by the BC Court of Appeal in the near future, so a search for the most recent case on the standard of review in British Columbia is strongly recommended.
There is already conflict in the British Columbia courts on whether or not the ''Vavilov'' decision effectively merges these two standards, and it is likely to be addressed by the BC Court of Appeal in the near future, so a search for the most recent case on the standard of review in British Columbia is strongly recommended.


===== 2) Procedural Fairness =====
===== (2) Procedural Fairness =====


Generally, tribunals must follow procedural norms, although their procedures may be less formal than those of a court.  Tribunals must follow any procedures required by statute or regulation.  However, the legislation is often largely silent on procedural requirements, and tribunals are often given a wide discretion within which to operate.  Nevertheless, the superior courts are constitutionally bound to uphold the rule of law and will not allow procedural laxity to result in unreasonable prejudice to those affected by administrative decisions.  That is, the legislature is presumed to have intended that the administrative body follow certain procedural fairness minimums as a precondition to exercising its authority.  
Generally, tribunals must follow procedural norms, although their procedures may be less formal than those of a court.  Tribunals must follow any procedures required by statute or regulation.  However, the legislation is often largely silent on procedural requirements, and tribunals are often given a wide discretion within which to operate.  Nevertheless, the superior courts are constitutionally bound to uphold the rule of law and will not allow procedural laxity to result in unreasonable prejudice to those affected by administrative decisions.  That is, the legislature is presumed to have intended that the administrative body follow certain procedural fairness minimums as a precondition to exercising its authority.