|
JR - SOR - Fairness. Wilson v. Intact Insurance Company
In Wilson v. Intact Insurance Company (Ont Div Ct, 2025) the Ontario Divisional Court allowed an insured's joint appeal/JR, this from a LAT SABS ruling that denied them catastrophic impairments benefit.
Here the court explains the 'non'-SOR applicable to review issues of procedural fairness:[7] Although there are sometimes references to a standard of review of correctness on issues of procedural fairness, this is not technically accurate. Parties before administrative tribunals such as the LAT are entitled to procedural fairness. No specific standard of review applies. The reviewing court merely determines whether or not there has been a breach of procedural fairness, following the principles established in 1999 by the Supreme Court of Canada in Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817, and many cases applying those principles since then.[4] . Pacific Coast Terminals Co. v. Nenad Habus
In Pacific Coast Terminals Co. v. Nenad Habus (Fed CA, 2025) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed a labour JR, this against a CIRB order prohibiting "employer reprisals against employees for exercising their rights under Part II of the Code in relation to unsafe work" [s.147 CLC 'General prohibition re employer'].
Here the court cites an SOR for 'procedural fairness':[21] In addition, the applicants say that they were denied procedural fairness when the Board refused to hold an oral hearing despite the requests of all parties. On judicial review for procedural fairness, this Court is to determine for itself whether the Board’s process satisfied the level of fairness required in all the circumstances, in effect applying a standard of correctness: Jagadeesh v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 2024 FCA 172 at para. 53; Canadian Pacific Railway Company v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69 at paras. 44-56.
|
