|
Judicial Review - Political Issues. Amaro v. The Chiefs of Ontario
In Amaro v. The Chiefs of Ontario (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed a JR, this brought by the applicant against the refusal of the Chiefs of Ontario ('COO'), "a private voluntary association of First Nations Chiefs in Ontario", which declined "to support his cause and intervene with political advocacy to address the injustice illustrated by his personal experience".
The court dismissed the JR on 'justiciability' grounds, here their 'political' nature:[4] These reasons will explain why the application for judicial review is dismissed. In summary, this motion is not about the merits of Mr. Amaro’s concerns about the COO’s decision or his goals to achieve policy reform on behalf of all off-reserve First Nations people like him. The barrier to his application is that the COO’s decision as a private voluntary association is not subject to judicial review. The court therefore has no jurisdiction to review the decision. Moreover, the issues raised, and relief sought, by the applicant are not justiciable. The relief sought on this application is demonstrably unsuitable for adjudication and must be dismissed.
....
2. The remedies sought by the applicant are not justiciable.
[61] The respondent also submits the application for judicial review seeks political remedies that go beyond the authority of the courts. They are not available as a matter of law and institutional capacity. The applicant asserts his relief seeks strategic political advocacy and facilitation that aligns with the COO’s overarching objectives as set out in the COO Charter and consistent with principles of administrative law.
[62] Justiciability relates to the subject matter of a dispute. Justiciability is a set of judge-made rules, norms and principles delineating the scope of judicial intervention in social, political and economic life. If a subject-matter is held not to be suitable for judicial determination, it is non-justiciable: Highwood, at para. 33. Political questions are demonstrably unsuitable for adjudication. These will typically involve moral, strategic, ideological, historical or policy considerations that are not susceptible to resolution through adversarial presentation of evidence or the judicial process. The question is whether the matter is purely political in nature or whether there is a sufficient legal component to anchor the issue and warrant judicial intervention: Tanudjaja v. Canada (Attorney General), 2014 ONCA 852 at para 21.
[63] I observe that the question of justiciability speaks to another factor the court may consider when determining the public versus private nature of a matter, being the suitability of public law remedies. If the nature of the matter is such that public law remedies would be useful, courts are more inclined to regard it as public in nature: Air Canada, at para. 60.
....
[65] I agree with the respondent’s submission that this application is not justiciable. Public law remedies would not be useful. The COO is not a governmental actor with responsibilities or powers in respect of the decision or the issues to which the subject matter relates. The relief sought is vague in scope and obscured by the applicant’s personal legal issues and broader political matters. The applicant seeks relief that would compel the organization to engage in activities for which there is no judicially discoverable and manageable standard. To require the respondent to engage in “appropriate political advocacy and facilitation” of meetings, and “meaningful resolution” of his dispute with the Walpole Island First Nation takes the court beyond its institutional function.
[66] The application is not justiciable and is dismissed for the foregoing reasons. . 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.
|
