West Region Child and Family Services Inc. v. North

West Region Child and Family Services Inc. v. North
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2007-03-01
Neutral citation
2007 FCA 96
File numbers
A-525-05
Decision Content
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"
J.A.
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