PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
BEFORE
Administrative T ribunals
VOLUME 2
by
ROBERT W. MACAULA Y, Q.C.
and
JAMES L.B . SPRAGOE, B.A., LL. B.
COI/Iribllwn;
Judy Algar
Peler Blldd
Irèm: Dicaire
Marvin J. Hubermllll
David P. Jacobs
Charles Ma/liis
Sharon Sifbers/ei"
Patricia AI/rOll
BOlljojJ
Daria Farr
Irvi"g Kleiner
Steve B. M CCllII1I
ulilm
J/ldith A. SI/ider
CARSWELL®
Gay A. BrOll'1I
DOllg/as Colboume
Roger R. EWort
Les/ie Mac/mas"
Palll Plldge
David Wood
1
c 2004 T homson Cnnnda Limited
NOTICE AND D1Se LAIMER : Ali rights rese rved . No 1)"1'1 of Ih is
publication muy be 1"CI)rOOuccd, ston.·d in a rctrÎcva l syste m, or
1r1\lIsmitted, in ally form or by ally mellns, electronic, Illcchan ica l,
photocopying, re(:ording or otherwise, without the prior "'rilten consent of
th e publisher (Carswell).
Carswell and ail pcrsons involved in lhe I)reparation and sil le of Ihis
publication disclairn ully warnlllty as to accurney or cur relley of the
publicntion. This publicnlioll is provided on the undcrstllllding a nd basis
Ihat none of Carswdl, the authorJs or other persons iuvolvcd in Ihe
cr cution of this publication shaH he responsible for t he accurney or
curreney of th e con tents, or for the results of ally action laken on the basis
of the information conhlincd in titis l)Ublicalion , or ror any errors or
om issions conlained hcrein.
No one involved in this l)Ublication is altempting hercin 10 render legal,
8ccounlin g or olher I)roressional ad vice. Ir legal udvicc or ol her expert
assistance is rc(luired, the services or a comlJetent proressional s hould be
sought. The a nalysis contained hercin should in no wuy be construed as
bcing either offi cial or unofficial policy of any gO\'crnmenlal body.
Cunadiun Cataloglling in Publication Daia
Macaulay. Robert W. (Robert William ), 192 1Prac ticc and procedure bcforc"atlm inislnll ivc tribunals
Includcs index.
IS BN 0-459-3 159 1-9
1.
Administrati ve cou rts - Canada.
2.
Adm inistrati ve proccdure - Canada.
KES029. M22 1988
KF54 17. M22 1988
342.7 1'0664
1. Tille.
C88-093989-3
Composition: Computcr Composition of Canada Ine.
CARSWELL, A DIVISION OF THOMSON REUTERS CANADA L1MITEO
One Corporate Plaza
2075 Kennedy Road
Toronto, Ontario
MlT 3V4
Customer Relations
Toronto 1-416-609-3800
Eisewhere ln Canada/U.S. 1-800-387-5164
Fax: 1-4 16-298-5082
www .carsweU.com
Dnline www.carsweU.com/emall
1
6
Binding and Non-Binding Agency Instruments
- Orders, Rules and Guidelines
6.1 INTRODUCTION
The mandates of admin istrati ve agcncics arc many a nd varicd. NOl ail agencies have the responsibili ly or aUlhorily 10 intrudc into or direct in sorne Wlly the
li ves of the citizenry. Sorne, for cxam plc, arc mcre advisory bodies whic h cxist
to providc olher decision- makcrs with advice on poliey or substantive mutlers .
Olher agencies, notably the rcgulalory and adjudicative agencies, have a more
intru sive role 10 play , cithc r by sening lcgal standards ofconduci wh ic h must he
fo llowcd or by making dccis ions ororders whic h have a binding effeet on speci fi e
indi viduals. This c hapter is conccrned wi th Ihe laltcr Iype of agencies. In il 1 am
going to di scuss the various ways which arc open 10 rcgulalory and adjudicative
agencies may fullil their Icgislaled mandate by dcci sion-making (adjudication),
tx>liey making, and ru le-making (Icgislating).
As Professor Hudson Jani sch poinLS O UI in his paper ·'The C ho iee of Decisionmaking Method : Adjudication , Policics and Ru lcmaking":'
one of Ihe most d istincti ve aspects oflhe admini Slnlli ve proccss is Ihe nexibilily il
aCfords in the seleclion of mc thods of decisionl1luking.... Indeed, il was this freedom to choosc belwccn mies. policies and adjudication (along wilh the power la
investigatc and prosecUIC) which caused John Willis lachanlcteri7.c lhe adminislmti ve tribunal ilS "gavcnUllent in minialure".
Whil st 1 agrec wi lh this genera l c haraete ri zalio n o f the types o f oplions
which may or should be open 10 some admini strali ve tribunal s, the whole gamut
of oplions which the leam cd Professor has out lined, is in fae t, Ilot open lo ail
ad ministrati ve tribunals. This eould be for one o f several reasons w hic h we will
devclop togClhc r bclow, the mosl s ignilicant of which, in my opi nio n is the
scepticis m which many people have of"rule-mak ing" by govc mmc nlal agcncics
and the lack of control by governmenls, of agenc ies, whc n Ihey do e xercisc the
1 1992Special Lectures of the Law Society o f Upper Canada (Carswcll) al p. 259.
6-1
(A.T.) (2009 - Rel. 1)
6.1
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS
1
aUlhorily 10 " rulc- make". (The Ontario Sccuritics Commiss ion C\lCIl wenl 50 r<lr
as 10 propose thal il sho uld have Ihe power 10 amend Ihe Icgis lali on which govcrns
iL )
Il is my submission in Ihis chapter Ihal gencra lly spcilking, Ihal w hilc mûSI.
ir nOI ail adm inis trati ve tribunals in Can:lda posscss the authority 10 adjudicalc
and 10 "policy- makc", a muc h sma llcr numbcr have bccn givcn Ihe c lcar mandate
or authority to "rule- make" (lcgislnlc). Having said that. il will he importanllO
dislinguis h bclow bclwccn an "order", a " rule" and a "poliey", bccau sc rcgretfull y,
same wrÎlcrs. lawycrs and a fcw judgcs, use the Lhrcc words as if Ihey wcre
syoony mous, which lhcy arc not! But nm o nl y do some wrilcrs and speakers lise
the three words interc hangeably,lhey often add olher words s uch as "guide lines"
and "regulalions" when in fae l they may mean "polic ies" or "nlles", Then jusl lo
be more eonfus ing Ihey may use words like "ci rculars" or ·'dircl.:lives" when Ihey
menn any one of (he words rc ferrcd to abave. Accordingly 1 urge the reader 10 bc
fai rly sure (hal you apprccialc w hat the wri ler or speaker is (rying 10 idenl ify.
For Ihe purpose o f the di scussion below, may 1 s implify my use o f the Ihree
words, "order", "mie" and "poliey" by saying:
An order, is a finding o r direcli ve of an adminislrali ve agency lift er a full
hcaring before Ihe ageney. Il is genera ll y of limited and s pecifie al)pli eabilily la
lhe partiesappearing then ooforc the agency and rests upon Ihe faets Ihen presenlcd
in the heari ng.
A rule on the olhe r hand is a legally aulhorized billdillg o rder or poliey o f
an agency arrived at by the exercise of the agency's discrclion. somelimes aCter
havingsoughl rcpresenlatio n from Iheageney·sconslitucms. The important aspect
of a mie is Ihal il is law and is binding, unlike a poliey which is nOi binding.
A mie is of general and nOI specifie applicabi lilY la a wide s pcctmm o f
pe rsons whclher present or nOI when lhe rule is adoptcd. 1
2 ln H~ft.rt.llct. rI!: Ma/ritoba LnllgUilgl! Hights ( 1992),88 D.L.R. (4th) 385 (S.c.c.) the Supreme
COLI rt of Canada had to delemline whethcr certain instruments were "of Il Icgishuh'e nalure Il
came up wilh the following approach:
With respect to content and effccl, the AUOrTICy-GeneI1l1 of Manitoba prolx>scd as a Slal1.ing
point the fonowing dcfinition o( regulal ion taken (rom the MaeGuigan Commiltee in its
Report on Statutory Instruments (Ottawa: Queen's Prinler, (969) al p. 14 : '1 AI rcg ulation is
a rule of condu ct, e nacled by Il regulation- making authorit)' pursumllto an At: t of Parliamenl,
which had force of law for an undctermin cd number of pcrsons .. ..... In its origi nal contc)!.t
the dc:l1ni tion relaies spccifical1 )' JO rcgu lil tions. but il l'rovidc:s assistance in devcloping a
gelleral dcfinition of the phmse "of a Icgislat ivc nature".
H
The phrase from Ihe above quotation which req uirc claboration in re latio n tO Ihe conlcnt and
effcct of Ordc:rs in Counci 1arc "rute of conduet", '"force of taw" and "an undetcrmi ned number
or persons", A " rute of conduet" can be described as a rule which sets norms Of staodartls or
eonduet, whieh delerminc: the manner in which rîghts arc ellcrc i~d and rcsponsihilÎtîes an:
(ulfillcd . Painng Ihis wllh the phrase " fortt of law". the rulc must he uni laleral and ha ve
binding Iegal cffee!. Finally, it must also apply to -an undetennincd numbcr of pcrsons~, mat
6-2
ADJUDICATION . GUIDELINES AND AULE-MAKING
6 .1
T he po wer to rulc-makc must, in Ill )' vicw, bc e xpress ly set forlh in the
mandale bcca usc il is c1cil r Ihal no agem:)' o f govcrnmcnl caH cxcrcisc an y power
whk h il has not hccn dcarl y manlllllcd 10 il.
It is my vicw as weil thallhc courts will nol impl y such a power bc~ a u sc the
C anadi an constituti on is not hascd, as Îs the USA system, on a sep••mlion of
po wcrs. Thcrc is a Icgal prindplc thnl an aJrnini slr:ui vc agcncy C~1Il only cxcrc isc
powcrs which arc cJcarl y granlcd 10 il. ($ubjccl lu the prim.:: iplc o f implicd authorit)' which docs nOI cmbracc the right to make law .)
The authori t)' to nilc- makc in C anada is posscsscd by very fcw agcncics and
most gencrall y only by 11 regulalory agcllI':y or o ne which contra is the ambilllf
operation of il widc segme nt o f commerce.
l'alently whc re the rnallllate, 50 long as il is within Ihcconllnesoflh c C harter,
aulhori zes ally agcncy. regul ulory or nOI, 10 possc ss the aUlho ril y 10 "rule-makc"
th at seules the matter. lt is in Illy view, Îrrc levanl that il rulc may I"cllerthc <.lcc isio nmaking capaci ty o f un agcm:y, in Ihat a " mie" Jor whatever in:l particular casc il
muy be calle<.lJ is law and is bin<.l ing upo n the agc ncy and , if wilhin the C harter,
is binding as wellu pon the courts.
1 disl:uSS the publ ication o f m ies and the co ns ultatio n which may precede
Lhe aLlopti on o f ru les Iiller in Ihi s chapler.
A policy of an agency, o n the other hand, ls a stalement o f gene ral applicabilily, for internai or pu blil: purposes to ex plain how vari ous laws will he interpretcd hy Ihe agcncy or what factors may he considercd by the agency, or tO
oulline general hroad principles whieh will guide the ageney in Ihe future. The
poliey stUiement, once made, unli ke a "rulc" is no t binding lIlXln the agency o r a
pane l and cannol oc perm illed to feller Ihe decision-ma king capacÎly o f the
agency.l L A paliey like a rulc can bc amended or rcpcllled , bul must nol he applicd
IS, LI mu ~t be of ge neral appLical lon ....llher Ih un dirctlc:d al ~ pC:çÎ fk illdi vi du als 01" ~ lIl1a liOI1 S.
1111;: alleged "poI icics" of lh..: O mario Securil îeS Commiss io n in Aill.dty FùUlllô(II COrJ'. l'. Olltllrw
,s,(:uri(i~$ CûmmiuiU/I ( 1993), 14 O.R. (3d) 280 (Ge n. Di v.), affirme<! ( lm) 2 1 O.R. (3d) I ~
(C.A.) 'Ne re,: found 10 bc: roles bc:causc Ihcy imposcd:a ma ndat ory obligat ion upon sccuritiesdcalers
10 000 1'1 cc rt ain praclices or face disciJllinary measurcs.
2. 1 T his gcncral I)rinciplc ill subjecl 10 Icgislati vc dlrllCtlOn providing Iblll such policks are 10 he
bindi ng. This Icglsl:alivc direction may he clIprcss (as WIIS lhe case ln Rudriqm':s v. OlUuriu
( Wur kplact Suftfy &. fllsurl/net' ApfN!/ils Tribw lal). 2008 Cars wellO nl 6 107. 2008 O NC A 7 19
(Ont . C.A.)). or iml)lid t in Ihe legislmion (as wall Ihe case in 1;'r if'lIds vftllt Oldllu/II Riw:r SVCÎtty
v. Cl/nadt/ (M illjmr/JfTrmupurt).\ 1992) 1 S.C.R. 3. 3 Adtmn. L.R. (2d) 1. 88 D.L.R. (4I h) l,
1992 CarswdlNllt 649 (S.C.C.»). Whcrc: lhal is lhe case lhe !l(H:allcd "polldes":arc, tlcl>pÎle Ihclr
nanle, rea ll y "ru lcs". Sec the di SC ll~si on laler in M,"Clion 6.5 "A GcncrJI Description of " Rulin gMakin g" and of " Polîcy Making" p;Lrt iclIllirl y the cases nolcd in foolnole l'J within thal discusSion.
For cases 10 the elfeçl Ihal "policics" an: no! bi nding upon an agency $Cc fOOUlOle 40.8 later ln
Ihis chaptcr.
ln Ihe sanle 'Nay th;11 po lidcs cannot lx: uscd 10 feller the discrelion of a dccis ion-makcr.
lhey ca nnOl creale Icgal righls e.nf()f"C( lI hle. Ihroogh /liaI/d ili/HU (A rStmlUlI l'. Can(Jda (Altorllt),
G~IIf·ml}. 2009 CarswdlNIll 3255,2009 FeA 300 (f ed. C.A.) .
6-3
(A.T.) (2010 - Ael. 2)
6.1
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS
by the lIcdsion-lIlul..cr Wilhulii Il full hC:lring on the IllCrlIS, 50 thalthC pany berme
the agcncy, can discJaim the applicabilily of the potiey, ufler which the dccisionmakcr lIluy apply the I>olicy if thuught appropriale.
Policy-making nccd nol bc prcccdcd by il procedure whercby Ihe constÎtucnlS
o r the agcncy afC g ivcn an opponunity 10 he hcard prior 10 the agcncy crculing
such poliey. \ Ali adminislnllivc agcnci cs, ha ve the aUlhori lY, whClhcr cxprcsscd
or nOl, 10 policy - mak c.~
1discuss bc low the pub lication of poliey SlalcmcnlS and Ihcirpriord isclosurc
hcforc usage during il hcaring.
Thus il can bc sccn Ihal an (lrller ariscs oui of adjUlJi c3lion. il rule ari scs oui
of an explicit granl o f lluthority lu makc law and the ability lü policY· 1ll3kc is an
aUlhorily dcclllcd lO bc posscsscd by ail administrative agencics.
J Cam,dùw Au". 01 Htgula/td IIn/H)rtus l'. C(IIuu}a (AI/orllq Gtlleml) (1994), 17 Ad mlO. L.R.
(2d) 121 (Fed. C.A.). 11994] 2 F.C. 247, lM N.R. 342, leave to appca~lo S.C.C. rcfused (1994),
21 Admin. L.R. (1d) 159 (S.c.c.); Car~lJI/!r Plshillg Corp. l'. CiJ//Odll ( 1997). 155 D.L.R. (4Ih)
572 (Fed. C.A.). lcave 10 appea l 10 S.c.c. rdused (August 20, 1998), Doc. 26484 (S.C.C.l.The
dcctsion of the SUllrcmc Coun of Canada in CapilUl Cilies Cultlllll/lliclJ/iOlIS Ille. l'. ümndUII/
Rudio·Tdn'isiuII CummÎSsiun isoften, mlSlll.l.enly, citcd forthe proposition Ihal consultations must
take plocc bcforc a paliey can be made by an agency, A reading of that dccision makcs Il clear thal
ChIef Justtce Laskm was nOl laying down any son of gencral requlIl:mcnt for consultation. Ile
wu. at beSt, men:ly reelting a faet undcrlyin g the creation of the C RTC's guidelinc.s ln qucstion.
1 think that the moS! onc can do wnh this stah:ment is the suggeStion by Prof. John Evans in his
paper, "Controlling Admimstrative Discrcllon: A Role of Rules'?"', whcre he e lles Ihis comment in
Cap/ial Ci/ies and llnothcr hy Mudanl Justice L ·llcureu}[·Dubé in C,A. MAIV, v. PmTllrulCwllldl1
LJd.. 11989] 2 S.C.R. 983 to the e:ITeet that Il cou rt may be I~u {jable 10 lïnd u feuering o f discret ion
if the: guidchne ln question had been dcvdopcd as a rCliult of prior consultatio ns with the affeeled
cornmunit y. Thc role of consultallun ln dcterrn lning lhe propriely of a pollcy guidcllne must surely
he qUClitionablc, Adding Ih:1I faclor 10 the equalion will divatlhe attention from the IJCThll ilSÎVC
posilion of a g uideline 10 Ihe pfocess br whiçh it was made. Should Il guideline m:tdc by an
c}[ecutivc commU tec of an agc ncy he less pcrsll~sivc tu an agcney dccision-mnkcr thun one made
by the agcncy as Il wholt:? S hould ul:uidelinc made through consultulions with the genera ll'ublic
he more persuasive than one rcached Ihrough th.: intcm:tl çonsiderutio ns of lhe cxpert agency"
Sllould the age of a guideline: impact on its persuasivencss? If çonsisleocy in decision· making
should bc: the dClenninatil'c faclor III an particular dccision il mlghl pemal>!> he mon: UScfllllO
dcte:mlioc the dcgn.:e tO whi ch n guidcll!IC has becn made public Of lhe dcgn:c tO which iliS IICtllally
being followed by eÎther Ihc public or othcr decislon·lllnker5. One can rcadily see Ih:tt once one:
dcparts from the internai persuasivcness of a guiddine 10 consider other factors in detcnllining
what substanlive posi tions shOllld he taken ln a dccision the issues can hcconK: quite br ntnging
and pcrhaps disUlllt from lhe onginal substunti ve qUClilion.
4 MaIJf~ Wdgl' Fanlu Lld, \', ClIIlflllil, 1198212 S,C.R. 2, ITI D.L.R. (3d) 558: G r iffin l'. Canlllia
(Agrkulwre Cali. ItUMl·r,uIIS f)h'isiun' ( 1')89),39 Admm. L.R. 2 15 (Fe:d, T ,D.);AinsII'Y f'illllllc/IJI
CUrIJ. l'. Omariu SecurÎriu CummissifHl ( 199]). 14 O.R. (3d) 280 (Gen. DIV.), affirmcd ( 1(94).
21 O.R. (3d) 104 (C.A.); Muhfllmnlld ", CmwdIJ fMi"ÎS/tfuf Enl/Jfuymellf d: Imllligf1l/iUlrl,11989]
2 F.C, 36]. 55 D .L. R. (4 th) 321,9 N.R. 121 (Fed, C.A.), Stalements as 10 the: aulhority of agencies
tl) issue guidclines arc 31mu5t inevitably phrased in rcfercncc: to th.: excrÎCloC of the agcrH:y's
tli scTc\lOnary lIuthonty. Qbl'iOUll. as ail authority gÎ\'cn to agenc i~can bc: uscdonly forthe 1>llrpo5C$
of lhe age ncy 's Ill:tndate, a gurdclÎlK: Subjc:Cllllust fall wilhin the mandale of the lIgency Wi weil
tAills/I'Y)·
6-4
ADJUDICATION, GUIDEUNES AND RULE-MAKING
6.1
Thcrc lIrc many :.uJvantagcs 10 an agcm:y 10 "po li cy~ makc " jusi as thcrc arc
lU " rulc-nmkc", and in fal.:l. 1 wou ld bc or the vicw Ihal mosi o f Ihe advanl:lgcs of
mlc-making apply 10 1x>lky-making.
Whilc lhcrc h:IS hccn for sorne ycars li bias in the USA in favou r of "ru Ic-
making", if anylhing, 1 hclicvc lhal lhcrc is
li
bi::1S agilinsi il in Canada. amJ Ihal
(COllfilllU!d VII page 6-5)
6-4.1
(AT.) (2010 - Rel. 2)
-
,
ADJUDICATION, GUIDELINES AND RULE-MAKING
6.1
Îs why 1 bclicvc that the agcncics will be slow 10 cxercisc the lX)wer. (Even if
g rantcd by legislation.)
.
1 would likc 10 observe a l the bcginning of lhis Chaplcr that my purpose is
nOl 10 plcad the prcfcrabi lily of one melhod of dccisionm ak ing ovcr anOlher. bUI
ralher to point outlhe nccessary Icgal foundation for Ihe cxcrcisc of cach fonn o f
dccision making as opposcd 10 anolhcr and lhen 10 examine how an agelley gocs
about puuing the d iffcrcnl mcthods 10 use. My personal preference is fOf policy~
making and 1 regret Ihat agenc ies do nol rcsort to il much more often .
During our discussion wc wi ll of ncccssi ly consider on several occasio ns,
the impact of "policy· making" and ';ru le-making" upon concepts such as "natuml
justice", " Icgitimate expeetations" . and "the fenering o f decision-muking ."
Therefore Ihis C hapter is dcvoted to a discussion of the aUlhori ly of an
admini strative Iri buna llo select amongst alternati ve Illc thods of decisionlllaking
and inhercnlly as wellto consider the strcngths and wcaknesscs of the different
melhods.
Bcforc leaving Ihcse gcncral observations, 1 would like 10 indicale 10 the
reader Ihat when 1 use Ihe ward "rule-making" il is my intention 10 incl ude the
word "rcgu lation-making" as weil. It is clcar that very fcw udministrativeagencies
in Canada have the clear legislative authority ta "ru le-Illake" (and thercfore
"rcgulalion-makc'" jusi as il is dear Ihal il is nOI al ail uncommon for a government la reserve 10 ilse lf or 10 shurc Lhe ri ghllo issue "rcgulations" . Thus in one
sense, the ward "ru lc" when excrciscd by an agcncy may have a slightly di ffcrent
legal concepl behind il, Ihan the word "regul ation". whcn cxcrcised by a government.
Perhal)S 1 mighl mention at Ihis point th attherc ure il number of cases which
have held Ihat in the face of certain specifics of legislation Ihat a malter ough llo
have becn deah with by " mIes" (regul alions) ralher than by policy guidelines
(poHey statemcnls).6
1 wish 10 make il clear Ihat whcn 1 use the word " IXJlicy- makc" , 1 intcnd 10
include the ward "guideline-make" , bccause, to me alleasL, bath words amount
10 the sarne Ihing, unless Ihey arc dearly stated for obvious rcasons not ta be the
sarne thing. (1 suppose il could he argued in somcquarters Ihal "policics" rcprescnl
a salllcwhnt more demanding stand ard th an "guidelincs". Beauly, after ail, is in
the beholdcr's cyes.)
1 would also add, if 1 may, that the rcader will note lhal 1 use Ihe words
"'Iribunal " and "agcncy" interchangeably, not because 1 bclieve il correct to do
sa, but because Ihal is a corn mon usage. T o me agcncies are agcncies, tirs! and
fo rcmosL. Thc courts sccm to idcali ze the word "tribunal" , bUl thcy also whcll
s pcaki ng ofagencies cali Ihem " inferior" . lnlcreslÎngly enough, very few agcnc ies
.5 1am spealr:ing of the IUlhorily 10 make regulatiOlls 1U1)ccling substantive mllucrs, ratherthan rulc s
or praclÎCe and procedure whîch regulation-making authority is commonly give n 10 ageocics,
6 Sec S .../.I// v. COIzodll ( 1990) 3 1 F.T,R. 24; EliwlHth Fry Society ofSlJ.Jl/nt:. v. Saska/clseM'an
(ugal Aid CO/llmiu iQII) (1988) • .56 D,L.R, (4Ih ) 9.5 (Sask C.A,),
6-5
(A.T.)(200B - Rel. 5)
6.2
ADMIN ISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS
in Canada a rc callcd by thCÎr l:rcalo rs, " tribunals" in lhc ir mandaling Icgisl:1L ion
and J belicvc fur obvious rcasons -
Ihey ti rsl and foremosl arc
;11\
agcncy
or
Parliamcllt or the Legis la tures, whic h courts (bas ically) a rc not.
Bcforc procccdi ng rurthcr, howcvcr, il may bc uscful 10 idcl1Iify what 1
bc licve is Ihe major fac tor in :uJrninistrali vc law whic h has gi \'cn risc 10 the major
role played oy po licy-ma king in agcncy decision-making 31ll1lhc rc su1ting con-
fusion rcspcc ling mlc-making. Thi s is the legal reslrainl upon ugcncics to use
their dcc isio ns as precede nts. or, in olher words, the inapplicabilty o f starc dccisis
in udmini strati vc dcc is io n-making.
6.2 THE ROL E OF PRECEDENT IN AGENCY DEC ISIONMAKING (STA RE DECISIS)
Unl ike admi nistrative bodies, the trnditional courts are gcnc rally hounc.J 10
fo llow Ihe ir own m lings. In so doing, parties in COllrt proccedings rcl y hca vily on
the doctrine of precedent or slare decis is 10 subslantiate Iheir daims. Judic inl
dccisio ns arc usually calcgorizcd as e ilhe r authorilati ve or persuas ive. If amhoritati ve. thcy muSI bc slrictly fo llowed ; if pcrsuasive, lhey may follow them. T he
authorilative o r persuasive sta tus of decisons depends upon Ihe level o f Ihe Cou rt
wh ich issued them. W ilhin a j urisdiction (e.g. a province. and one may trcal the
fe dera l court as a separale prov ince simply for Ihe purposes o f Ihi s discussion),
the decisio ns o f a highe r court are aulhoritali ve (or binding) upon alli ower courts.
Decisions o f the saille level o f court are persuasive (although courts gClle rnlly say
tha l Ihey s ho uld he rcluetanl to depart from the ir own earlicrdedsions). Decisions
of courts o f OI hc r jurisd ictio ns (c.g. courts of provi nces, olhe r than the province
of the court hearing Ihe case) o f w hatc ve r Icvel are persuasive. Dec is ions of the
Supremc Court a rc aulho rit ativc everywhere in Canada. Deci siolls of the ]>ri vy
CounCÎ I pri or 10 1949 a rc also authoritali vc ac ross C anada. In delermining whic h
judicial deci s io ns arc authorilati vc for admini strati ve agencics Olle can use as a
gencral rulc of Ihumb Ihal decisions o f the courts o f Ihe saille juri sdieli on as the
ageney will be autho ritati ve if Ihe judges o flhat court are appo inled by Ihe fede ral
govcmme nt ( i.e. courts known as s. 96 eourts - referring 10 the appoinlme nl
power set out in s. 96 of the Conslituti on) while deci sions of eourts whose judges
arc appointcd by the provi ncial govemme nt w ill he me rel y persuasive. Decis ions
of courts of or her juridiclions, of whalcver Icvel are me re ly pe rsuas ive to an
agency. Decis ions o f the Supreme Court of Canada arc authoriati vc for ail Ca ~
nadian agcncies.
ln pcrforming their mandales ageneics s hould stri ve for conlinuity, cons isle ney a nd a degrce of predictabilty. Justice dcmands Ihat equality o f trealmen l
a nd impartiality preva il w he n the me rils of a case are eonside red. On Ihe olher
ha nd, in Ihe face of legal uncerta inlies a nd novel situations, il is not desira ble 10
accord precede nt and sta re dec is is a pivotai role. FaclS are o rte n not compa ....... blc.
Old precede nls are ex panded. twi sted a nd contortcd 50 many limes thallhey o rte n
6·6
ADJUDICATION, GU IDELINES AND RULE·MAKING
6.3
no longer sland for the samc principlc the)' origlnall)' proclaimcd. Furthermorc,
Ihe public intersi is not scrved by rClclling antiquated slories which change wilh
each relclling. Precedents can bccome worn oui and SOlllctimes serve no uscful
purposc.
Decisions of administrative llgcncics do not crealC precedents for auyonc,
including Ihe ageney. They arc, al !>est, persuasi ve. While agcncics should siri ve
for consistency Ihe)' arc nol bound by Il mcchani slic application of carlicr admin·
Îslralivc dccision s. Rigid adhcrcncc 10 consistency can discrcdit an agcny' s ability
improvise or adapt. 1 shall discuss the frcedam of agcncies from precedent in
the nex! section.
(0
6.3 THE POWER OF AN AGENCY 1'0 DEPART FROM
PREVIOUS DEC ISIONS
Whcn 1 use the lerm " precedent" in Ilti s discussipn 1 am referring 10 the
situation when an agency is urged 10 irllerprete a law, or exercise ilS discrction ,
in a certain wny bccausc the agency had inlcrprctcd il or exercised ils discrction
in Ihal way in the pasl.1
The question as lO Ihe role of prccedcnl for agcncies mosl commonly arises
in one of lWO situations: i. where an agcncy is cmpowercd 10 considcr an issue
involving Ihe same party on a rcgularor periodic basis (e.g. raIe scuing); ii. whcrc
an agcncy is rcquired to adjudicate an issue similar 10 thal in other cascs. In cithcr
case, the prevailing rule is casy 10 Slale: an agency is nOI bound by ils prior
deCÎsions. 1 . 1 StaLed othcrwise, the notion of slare decisis is not applicable in Ihc
1 roor the effcci of a 51alulOl')' di reclioo Ihal a dccision of the Onlario Labour Relations Board was 10
br. conclusive for ail purposes see the Ontario Courl of AppcaJ decision in C. U.P.E. Weall 394 v.
Exlt!ndlcart! Htallh Strvicts IrIC. ( 1993). 14 OR (3d) 65, 104 D.LR. (4Ih) 8, 64 DAC. 126,93
eLL.C. 14.052 (C.A.). The Coun hcld tha! Ihm section did notmake the Board's intcrprclation
of a stalutory pro ... ision conclusive aod bioding upen a subsequenl dccision-maker in a dirrerent
maller.
1.1 Sce for exam ple, ClHllmUnicQliQlu. t:lltrgy aM Pa/ltrwo rktrs UIIUJtl of Canada: U)(:al 219 v.
SI. Al1Ilt-Nackall'ÎC PU/fi Co. ( 1999), 2 12 N.B.R. (2d) 120,541 A.P.R. 120 (N.B. Q.B.), where
Ihe N.B. Coun of Quecn' s Bench hc ld Ihallhc New Brunswick Labour and Employmcnl Board
w.s not bound by precedc ntlO follow
carlier dccisio n of the Board as 10 what c ... idclK.'C was
necessary 10 eSlablish union membcrsh ip (as per UI/itt!d 8rothuhoud ofCOfJHllftrs and Joint!rs
of Amuicn, u)(:al/02J v. LIIvio/ettt (1998), 199 N.B. R. (2d) 270 (C.A.». Sec also Or!tariv
(Millister of Munici/ml Alfa;r! " HOlUillg} v. Tra/lscal/ada Pil'dillt!S Lld. (2000), 186 D.L.R.
(4th) 403 (On l. C.A.) ("A tribunal is IlOt bound 10 follow ilS own dccisions on si milar issues,
nllhough itlll3y consider an earlierdccision persuasive and find that il is of assistance in dtciding
the issue bcfore il.")
Ta the same effcct sec Qulbel: (Cummissiul! dt!s affaires socials) c. Tremblay 1992
CarswellQue lOS, 1199211 S.C.R. 952, 90 D.L.R. (4th) 609. 3 Admin. L.R. (2d) 173 (S.C.C)
(confiicling decisions may bc gi ...en as agency dc ... elops ils th inking of an issue): UI/iled Sttd·
wvrlcers vi Americ'a, Local /4097 v. j-"ralilcs ( 1990), 7S O.R. (2d) 382 (Di .... CI.) (agcoq not
bound by Slllrc decisis).
Nor dots the faclthat a coun on judicial re ... iew may h .... e found one paocl's decision noc
.n
6·7
(A.T.)(2009 - Rel . 7)
6.3
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS
adminis trative sphcrc. Agcncies arc not on ly al liberty nol 10 Irea L thcir carlicr
decisÎt)1lS as prcccticlll, Ihey arc positi vely obligcd nOllO do 50.
This is c leur in respect to mallers wherc the agency has sorne di scrctionary
aUlhority which il has 10 decide how 10 cxcrCÎse or a decis ion învolves sOllle
policy c lement which the agency is 10 forumulate.
ln Hopedale Developmellls Lld. v. Oakville (Townr the Ontario Court of
Appeal held thallhe Ontario Municipal Board cou Id not dccidc the case bcforc il
solely o n the bas is of principles cnuncialcd in earller dccisions. As McGil livrey
lA ' Ialed <at pp. 487-488 D.L.R.):
ln laying ... down ... pri nciples and stipulating that the dcfcndant must come
within them the Board has soughl. one must conclude. to reduce the scope of the
ta have becn patently unn:asonable blnding ()(her panels of the same agcney 10 rcach the S:1I0 C
conclusion. A judicial fi nding that a dccision is not pateotly llnreasonnb le is notlhe $lIffiC as D
finding thal it is COlTeCI - IInd ()(hcr panels of Ihe same agcney lIluy arri ve al Olher dccisions
which a~ al50 IlOt palently unn:a9Onable. (Sec E.ssexCounty Romtm Cllthu& SdlooI 8 oord (17le
Wi/ldsur·Essex Ca/hoUe School Board) Il. Ontario English Cotho/ic Teach~f1' AJSociatioll
(200 1) • .56 O.R. (3d) 8.5 (C.A.).) Sec alsoDom/arlnc. Il. Qutlne(CQlllmissiun d'ap~f l'n Mallire
de US;CHlS professionnelles, 1199312 S.C.R. 1.56 (fact mat differenl agencies IookÎng al same
pro vision may ha ve interpreted il differentl ydoes not in ilSelf mean that the dccisionsart patenlly
unreasonable).
Sec al50 Mytrs v. Mall/relle, 2003 CarswellNS 209 (N.S. C.A.) (Board IlOt bound by ils
prior decÎsions); Daley v. Econom icll/ Mu/ua/ {1!Surallce Co" 2004 CarswellOru .5696 (Ont.
S.C.J.). re verscd on other grou nds (2005), 2005 CarswcllOnt 1425, 206 a ,A.c. 33 (Onl. C.A.)
(Cou n not required tO follow earlier decisions of Financial Services Commission of Ontario bul
states that reasoni ng in cases heard by the Commission may bc o f assistance in lighl of Com·
mission 's expc nisc).
Similarly, sec the dccision of the Albcna Court of Appeal inMaÎt/a/ld Cap iUl/ Lld. Il. AI/bena
(~euritîl~s Commission). 2009 CarswcllAlt1110, 2009 ABCA 186 (Alta. C.A.):
As for the seco nd suggesti on that. by imposing an administrative penalty highcr th an thol
proposc:d b y Staff cou nse!. thc llanel hM! abandoncd ilS adjudi cati vc funcl ion, we l'incl no
authority thal suggtsls the pancl WI' bouod by the Securilits . .kt or Olher authority to abey
the position of counsel as to sanction. On thc eontrary, il was ultimotcly tne panel 's dut y 10
deterrninc the public intercsl. Here the panel was ccnainly entitled to give weighlto the issue
of dctcm:ltCe wnere. Da tne evidcnce. OYef .soo inveslors were promplcd 10 invtsl in excess
of $2,.500,000: ste C.g. Cana K"aJ ReJOUFCts CO'l}" Re, 12004J 1 S.C. R. 612, [2004J S.CJ .
No. 22 2004 SCC 26 (S.C.C.), al paras. 4, 43 - 70. The panel wos, in ser vice of the Icgislati vc:
objectives. entitlcd 10 mo ve away from prior decisions madc by carli..:r pancls 00 the subject
of sanction if it werc satisrlCd thattne public intcrest requircd it to do 90. Eatlicr decision5
are notcarvcd in stooc. For administrative tribunals. and where, as with saoclÎOn.theqllestion
invol ves mixcd fact and law, and the Mfact · inlensivc clemenlS" are not"easilyextTactcd" from
Mdiscrctely franlCd questions of law". a decisÎOn is likely 10 be Mnot one that will detcrmine
future cases except in90far as il is a uiCful case for comparison": Ryall v. La", Sode" (Nt....,
BnmsM·ick),1200311 S.e.R. 241. 120031 S.C,J. No. 11.2003 SCC20 (S.C .e.). at parn. 41 .
Accordingly. the prese ntation of carlier au lhorities by StatT counsel in ilS brief, which doubt·
less influenced Ihe prese ntation of Staff counsel, oould nOI crimp the pancl's jurisdiclion 10
require imposing thase earlier more lenient Icvels of sanction. A fortiori, it could no! he a
(!cnial of natural justice for the panel to exercise the jurisdiction give" to il by Ihe Legislature.
8(1965(1 0.'.259. 47 D.L.'. (M) 482 (C.A.).
6-8
ADJUDICATION, GUIDELINES AND AULE-MAKING
6.3
inqui ry. Ta lay Ihem down as principles by which the Board would heguidcd may
thercforc. he both rcasonablc and wisc but 10 say Ihal Ihe appcllanl mUSl comply
with .hem bcforc the Board will allow the application in clcarly wrong and the
Board, if il 50 fcucred ilSjurisdiction, would bc in CITOr.
On the faels of Ihe C<lSC, howcvcr, the Coun held that the Board had in faci/IOI
relied exc lusivcly on principlcs dcrived from precedent to dctcrminc thcoutcolllC
of Ihe application beforc il. Rather, il had conductcd a pToper inquiry by giving
full weight and consideration 10 ail mallers which il was called upon todeLcrmÎnc.
Sec also the English c..:asc of Merchamlise TrallSport Ltd. v. British Trallsport
Commission, whcrc Ihe Coun of Appeal issucd a simil ar warning to the Transport
Tribunal nOl to permit 15 discrelionary powcrs to bccomc "hidcbound by autllor·
ily ."9
The principlc also cx.lends 10 inlcrpretations of law. Thus, il secms thal while
agcncies are bound by the decisions of superi or courts as to the mcaning of law
Iheir own dccisions have no such effect.
ln Portage la prtJirie (City) v. Inter-City Gas UtUüics 'u the Manitoba Court
of Appcal rejected the contention that the prov incia l Public Ulil ities Bopard was
bound by its prior inlerpretations of the term "public inlerest" whcn approving
ulilily rates. Counse l l'or Portage la Prairies argucd Ihal the Board crred in Ilot
applying the same dcfinition of "public interest" in this case as it had employed
in a dccision some eight ycars carlier in 196 1. Thc Court, howcver, could see no
reason for the Board ta rcly on somclhing which il "said or did in 1961, in
complelcly differenl cirrcumslances, having li ule, if any rclcvance la the situatÎon
of the present timc". 11 Frecdman J.A., speaking l'or the Court, held !.hat the Board
COlI Id delinc Ihe "public interest" brondly or narrowl y, as il secs fit, and as
cin;umstances dictatcd. This was a qucstion of poliey for the Board alonc 10
decide; it was Ilot Ihe place of the Court of Appeal to Înlcrvcnc. Later, in a case
lIgain involving the aUlharily of an agency, this lime the Alberta's Industrial
Relations Ooard, 10 dcparl from an earlier legal intcrpretation C hief Justice Milvain of the Alberta Supreme Court said thal " 1 am sure the Board is not boulld 10
follow its own previous conclusions as to the law. It may repcnl and recanL"1 2
ln Tllrnb"l1 Real /:'sta/c Co. v. Sewell u the New Brunswick Cou n of Appcal
deall with a situation involving the regu lar annunltax assessmenl of a property
owncr's ho ldings. In 1933 and 1934 the tax assessmcnl officers had givcn the
propcrty ow ner the bcncfi t of a favourable intcrprctatio n o f one of the provisions
found in the Assessment ACI oftheCity of Saint Jo hn. This rcsulred in asignificant
lax. sav ings. In 1935, the lax assessors altered thcir previous approach and the
9(196212Q.B.173(C.A.)atp. IB6pc::rSellenU.
10 ( 1970), 12 D.L.R. (3d) 388 (Man. C.A.).
11 (1970). 12 D.L.R. (3d) 388 (Man. C.A.) al p. 397.
12 uthbridge Northem Irrigmirm Oislricl v. AItH:rta (1,ldllslri(l1 Reltl/io(ls 8()(lrd) 1197315 W.W.R.
71,38 D .L.R. (3d) 121 (Alta. T.D.) at p. 125 D.L.R.
13 (1937J 2 D.L.R. 218. 12 M .P.R. 136 (N.B. C.A.).
6-9
(A.T.)(2009 - Ael . 7)
6.3
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS
propcrly owncr was hi! wi th a much higher lax bill. Not surprisi ngly. he prolcstcd.
The New Brunswick Cou rl
Appeal hcld, however, that the lax asscssors wcre
no t bound hy thcir l'fioT Interpretations. The power of the asscssmenl orficers was
10 be exercised ancw caen ycar; :1 dccision in one instance could nol bind the
exercise of their di scret ion thcrcaftcr. 14
or
The power and dut Y 10 depar! From prcvious positions und Interpretations
must bc di slingu ishcd Fro m fairncss issues. Where fairn css applics :. party mu st
have sorne notice and an opportunity to make submissions whcre an agcncy is
considcring dcparting From Il prcviously establi shcd position or Interpretation o n
wh ich the party may bc rclying.14•
The prohibition againsl binding oncscl f 10 o nc 's carli er decisions does not
prccludc an agency considcring past decisions and the appropriatcness of applying
thcm 10 the case beforc one. And , in considering the approprialc ness o f (hat
applicatio n, Ihe agcncy can (akc inlo account as a factor the value of consistency
in the maller .l~ 1
14 S<:e atso C.U.P.E. Local 1394 l'. I!:.r/(mdicare Htailll Care Strviccs Illc. ( 1993), 14 O.R. (3d) 65,
93 C.L.L.C. 14052, 104 D.L. R. (4th) 8, 64 DAC. 126 (C.A.) and Ctlllada (Miuu/trof Employ//ltlll '" Im migra/ion) v. law/mri ( 1992), 59 F.T.R. 22 (T.D.). l'hat last case involved a "credible
basis" inquiry undcr the Imm igration AC1 held to consider whethe.r cenain childrcn had acredible
l>3$is for a refugte status claim. Thc Fedcral Cou rt Trial Di vision hc ld mm it wu not open 10 the
Immigration and Refugee Board tO find that credible basis $(I1e1y o n an carlier Board dccision
that !he parents of the chi ldrcn ha(! a cl"I:dible basis. 1be matter had 10 be dClennined on ilS own
mcrits.
14a Sec, in illustration, Ke.lIey v. New Bnl/ls"K'id: (Worlql/ace. Htal1h. Saftty '" COIII~tlSation CO/llmission), 2009 Carswel1NB 228, 2009 NBCA 30 (N. B. C.A.) whe.rc the Nova ScOlia COlIn of
Appea l he. ld that an agency must give a pany notice if il considcrs acling OIhcr Iha n it has in the
pasl and providc the pany with (ln opponunity 10 make representations.
14 ./ See, in illustration, Alberta (Minilltr of Munici{lU{ AjfuirJ) l'. Albf!rta (MwlicifJflI GOI·trnmellt
Hoort/J , 2005 Carswell Alta 1737,2005 ABQB 866,45 Admin. L.R. (4th)9 (A lta, Q.B.), affirmcd
2001 CarswelJAl ta 839, 2007 ABCA 2 17, 62 Admin. L.R.l4Ih) 243 (A lta. C.A.). In thatease,
the Alberta Cou rt of Appea l affi rmed th e decision of the province'. Court orQueen's Bench in
which the Queen's Benc h judge stated. among other chings:
1 ean not C{)nClude that an administrative lribunal em by fol1owing ilS ow n decisiollS. Whi le
such Iribunals are prec1udcd from fcuering their discrelion or avoidi ng lheirdecision-making
rcsponsibi li ties, that dOts not mean Ihat lhey cannat refer 10 pasl dcc isions and allempt 10
rnaintain a rcasonab1e degrce or consiSlency in appropriait cases.
See alsa Ontario (Mil!is/er of Municipal AfJairs '" Housing ) v. Tmllsc(lnada Piptfi'ICS
Lld. (2000), 186 D .L.R. (4th) 403, 2000 Carswe1lOnt 1072 (OnI. C.A.), leave 10 appeal refu sed
(2000), 2000CarsweliOnt 4249, 2000 Cars wellOnl4248 (S.c.c.). ("A tribunal is nol bound 10
follow ilS ow n de cisionson similar issues ahhough it may considcr lin earlier dcc ision persuasive
and fi nd Ihm it is of assistance in deciding th e iss ue bcfore il. ")
111c Albena Coun of Appeal in l ohnston l'. Alberta (DirtL'wr of Vi/al Stalistics). 2008
Cars wcllAlla 644, 2008 ARCA 188 (Alta. C.A.) recognizcd Ihal consislency wa, a desirable
cnd in agency decisiou-making and noced that it could be ach)cvcd through the development of
• body of decisions as we il as through the creation of policies:
Al lhough consis tency is a desired objective, the. mcans of achieving that objective may vary,
and are noc reslriCled to the fonnulat ion of a poliey. Indced, one mcthod of ach ievîng consis-
6·10
1
ADJUDICATION. GUIDELINES AND RULE-MAKING
6.4
The purpose of nol cnclIl11 bcring agc nc ics with the dcad wcight of precede llt
Îs 10 guara nlce a nex ibilily and rcspo nsivcncss in the ir decision-making whic h is
Ilo t aJways fo rthcoming in Ihe courts. Hellec a il the necd to cOlIsidc r cac h case
on ils own mcrÎl. The danger is, howcvcr, Ihal in releasing agendes from the
moorings of s ture dccisis, the)' are bcing rumi shcd . in erfeel, with a licence 10 bc
inconsistc m. Inconsistency c reatcs ils Qwn form of injustice, bccause illhoorcti cally o bvîates the nced to Ircal li kc cases alikc. Furthcrmo rc. il means Ihal Il party
m a)' tailo r ils aCLi vÎlcs according 10 a givc lioc o f agenc)' dccis io ns, o nly 10 o ne
day have the same agenc)' "repent and rccunl", thcrcby throwing ils affairs inlo
di sarray.
1 believe Inal (hal il is Ihis inabilily of agcllcies 10 resort la precedent whic h,
in a n effo rt 10 avoid j>urely ad hoc decision-making and la allain consislc ncy in
dccisio n-maki ng whc rc appropriale which has led 10 the g real ra ie played by
g uidc lincs (and rule-m aking) in agency life. 14.1
6.4 A GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AUTHORITY OF
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
Writers. the courts, lcclurers a nd o the rs have tried to categorize age ncics by
a descripli vc word of whUI func tio n thc agency pcrfo rms. Thus sorne still cali
certain agcncics " Iegisluti ve" agencics; othe rs are calJed "regulalory lIgcncies"
w hile som e a recalled "adj udicative" agencies. 1 assumc lhal il.is casie r fo r a judge
10 use Ihcse classifica tions than il is for those of us who have had prac lical
e xpe rie nce in Ihe design, c reation, supe rvision and o pcratio n oflh e agency syste m.
Eve ry sa o ftc n a court w ill decry the classificatio n syste m by fu nction as the
S upre me Court of Canada did in the Callada (Atlom ey Gelleral) v. lnllit Tapirisat
of Calladn l ' case a nd hav ing decried func tio nalis m il we nl right ahead and used
the functio nal classifica tion ta explai n why il hcld Ihal the Cabine t had no dut y
to be fa ir in Ihat casc because il was pcrforming a legis lali ve fun ctio n .
1 sec no nccd in thi s Chapler 10 get inlo the differe nces of func lion in
admini strati ve agcnc ics. S uffice il ta say, thcre arc about 2,500 admini strati ve
agc nc ics in Canada and sorne do thi s and sorne do tha!. ft is o nly whe n o ne looks
c1early and in substantial dctail ut Ihe ir mandal.e and ho w the y carry il o uI that
o ne can visualize w hc lhcr a n agency cou Id, evcn if it wantcd , ta rule- make, whilc
it is quile clear (hat most administrati ve age ncies may we il ncecl to policy-make
fro m lime 10 lime.
!Cncy is by way of a body of decisKJns, as is implc.mented by couns in thei r dissemi nllüon of
juri sprudence.
t4.2 A t the same lime, neithcr past dccisions or guidclincs issued by an agency are "nothings" which
can simply bc ignored. Sec the discussio n laler in Ihis !ClI\ under hcadin g 6.20 " Practicc Hi nts
in Dell ling With Agcncy G uiddi ncs for Ageneies II nd Prac\i\ioners" under tOc beadi ng "Cannot
Simply Ignore Guiddines".
1.5 [ 19801 2 S.C. R. 73.5, It S D.L.R.(3d) 1.
6-11
(A.T.)(2010 - Rel . 1)