|
Judicial Review - Political Issues. Kaplan-Myrth v. Ottawa Carlton District School Board
In Kaplan-Myrth v. Ottawa Carlton District School Board (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court dismissed a school board trustee's JR against a school board.
Here the court cites a tribunal (from a separate case) to the effect that there is no duty to give 'reasons for decision' on a JR where a political body is involved, and that the reasons may be inferred from the tribunal record:[62] The issue of sufficiency of reasons was addressed in Ramsay, starting at paragraph 54, as follows:54 The WRDSB argues that the reasons provided were sufficient. The Supreme Court has held that there is no duty to give formal reasons in a context where the decision was made by elected representatives pursuant to a democratic process. It submits that a school board's reasoning may be deduced from the debate, deliberations and the statements of policy (see: Law Society of British Columbia v Trinity Western University, 2018 SCC 32, [2018] 2 S.C.R. 293; Catalyst Paper Corp v. North Cowichan (District), 2012 SCC 2, [2012] 1 S.C.R.5) The Act does not require the provision of reasons in writing for a decision. The only statutory requirement it imposes is to provide written notice of the result and applicable sanctions. This was done.
55 The context within which the decision was made was an administrative one, where the WRDSB was enforcing its Code of Conduct as part of the discretion granted to it by statute to manage its own affairs. The trustees had ample opportunity to review and consider the factual findings contained in the Integrity Commissioner's report, as well as the submissions made by Ramsay. They were well positioned to balance statutory and policy objectives in coming to a decision. The notice of the decision references the findings of the Integrity Commissioner's report which implicitly accepts the findings of fact made by the Integrity Commissioner. [63] The same facts are present in this case. As set out above, the Board had the IC report, as well as the Applicant’s lengthy submissions in advance of the meetings. On December 19, 2023, the Board held a meeting in which the findings and recommendations were debated and voted on. On January 16, 2023, a special meeting was held during which the Applicant’s appeal was debated and voted on.
[64] At paragraph 84 of Vavilov the SCC emphasizes that “the particular context of a decision constrains what will be reasonable for an administrative decision maker to decide in a given case. This is what it means to say that "[r]easonableness is a single standard that takes its colour from the context”.
[65] At paragraph 94, the Court carried on to state that:The reviewing court must also read the decision maker's reasons in light of the history and context of the proceedings in which they were rendered. For example, the reviewing court might consider the evidence before the decision maker, the submissions of the parties, publicly available policies or guidelines that informed the decision maker's work, and past decisions of the relevant administrative body. This may explain an aspect of the decision maker's reasoning process that is not apparent from the reasons themselves, or may reveal that an apparent shortcoming in the reasons is not, in fact, a failure of justification, intelligibility or transparency. Opposing parties may have made concessions that had obviated the need for the decision maker to adjudicate on a particular issue; the decision maker may have followed a well-established line of administrative case law that no party had challenged during the proceedings; or an individual decision maker may have adopted an interpretation set out in a public interpretive policy of the administrative body of which he or she is a member. [66] Considering the context in which the decisions were made and the content of the IC report and the Applicant’s submissions, I find that the decision is reasonable, and the reasons are adequate. . Carolyn Burjoski v. Waterloo Region District School Board
In Carolyn Burjoski v. Waterloo Region District School Board (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court considers a JR against a school board decision to stop a "presentation to a Committee of the Whole Meeting", partly on Charter grounds.
Here the focus was on the adequacy of reasons and the political nature of the forum:31. There is no duty to give formal reasons in a context where the decision was made by elected representatives pursuant to a democratic process. A school board’s reasoning may be deduced from the debate, deliberations and the statements of policy that give rise to the decision in question (see: Law Society of British Columbia v. Trinity Western University, 2018 SCC 32, [2018] 2 S.C.R. 293). Accordingly, given that the decision was reached through a democratic process by elected trustees, it was not necessary for the WRDSB to give detailed formal reasons for the decision. In any event, the Chair made known to Burjoski the reasons for his ruling. In my view, the explanation when taken in context was adequate.
|
