Chapter 8 in Mullan Diana MorrisApril 8, 2009.ppt

Chapter 8 in Mullan Diana Morris April 8, 2009 THE CHAPTER AT A GLANCE Mullan begins explaining procedural fairness rights by justifying oral or in person hearings. Then proceeds with outlining relevant constitutions Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (CCRF) Canadian Bill of Rights Common law cases where the principle of “procedural fairness” rights were not applied in the original decisions. Cooper v. Board of Works for Wandsworth District Board of Education of the Indian Head School Division No.19 of Saskatchewan v. Knight. Nicholson v. Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Board of Commissioners of Police Justifying administrative process Justification of oral or in-person hearings= procedural fairness. There is a sense that these types of hearings will produce better and fairer outcomes because plaintiff’s can hear all the evidence and listen to all the various perspectives on a question. Also, affected parties would be more likely to accept the outcome when they participate in a hearing versus a decision being made in secret by faceless or nameless bureaucrats. Their participation in the decision making process would involve being able to confront the actual decision maker. This also contributes to the belief in the participation in a democratic process. There is also an accountability aspect. Open courtrooms force the decision maker to be more careful and reflective in the ways they act and in the conclusions they reach because they are subject to public scrutiny and criticism. Sources of Process Claims: Constitutional and Quasi-Constitutional Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (CCRF) According to Mullan, the CCRF is the clearest source of constitutional protection for procedural claims in Canada because it enshrines a right to “the fundamental principle of justice”. S. 7 and S.11 of the Charter are subject to legislative override created by s. 33(1) notwithstanding clause. Therefore, there is a justifiable reason in a free and democratic society