|
Administrative - Evidence - General. H.C. v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto
In H.C. v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (Ont Div Ct, 2025) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed a JR, here against a CFSRB order limited to ordering the local CAS "to provide a letter explaining the investigation and why it was unable to disclose more information gathered in the investigation".
The court considered common law evidentiary administrative protections, here where the SPPA was specifically excluded from application:[61] The hearing was procedurally fair. H.C. participated in an electronic oral hearing and had the opportunity to present documentary evidence, give oral testimony, cross-examine witnesses and to make oral submissions. The evidence admitted and considered by the adjudicator was relevant and probative to the issues she had to decide. Although the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22, does not apply to CFSRB, it has broad discretion under the common law to admit or exclude evidence unfettered by the strict rules of evidence: Lorne Sossin, Robert W. Macaulay & James L.H. Sprague, Practice and Procedure Before Administrative Tribunals, s. 22:3.
....
[64] The CFSRB is empowered to ensure a fair but expeditious hearing: Walters v. Centurion Property Associate Inc., 2024 ONSC 7093 (Div. Ct.), at para. 27. The rulings were in keeping with the proper exercise of those powers. As an example, admitting the Investigator’s affidavit and leaving open the question of weight did not render the hearing procedurally unfair. It was clear she had material and probative evidence to give.
[65] The extent of the disclosure sought by H.C. was not necessary given the limited scope of remedies available to the CFSRB adjudicator. Her analysis regarding this was sound. Given the scope of remedies CFSRB could exercise on the facts of this case, the limiting of the issues did not render the hearing unfair. It was within the discretion of CFSRB to limit the hearing to the issues that were canvassed and ordered at the pre-hearing conference pursuant to the CFSRB’s authority under s. 50 of General Matters under the Authority of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, O. Reg. 155/18. . Thales DIS Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Transportation)
In Thales DIS Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Transportation) (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considered the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), here in the course of a successful Crown appeal of a JR finding that the bidding requirements were in violation of CETA. In this quote the court considers the admissibility standards applicable to evidence in an administrative context:[111] With respect to the evidence, the Director had the benefit of affidavit evidence from Thales explaining that it had the capacity to manufacture the card stock in Poland and transport it securely. She also had the Fraud Note. Thales took issue with the Director’s consideration of the Fraud Note on the basis that it was not proper evidence. However, the Director responded to this issue, stating that she was permitted to consider non-affidavit evidence and that the information in the Fraud Note came from a department with a depth of expertise in identity theft and fraud. The rules of evidence are generally relaxed for administrative proceedings, inquiries and investigations, and sworn testimony is not typically required: see e.g., Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22, s. 15(1); Public Inquiries Act, 2009, S.O. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 6, s. 8(1); Laporte v. United Steelworkers, Local 1998, 2019 ONSC 3705 (Div. Ct.), at para. 45; Payne v. Peel (Regional Municipality) Police Services Board, 186 O.A.C. 69 (Div. Ct.), at paras. 1, 7. This was an in-writing administrative process. In these circumstances, the Director was entitled to consider the Fraud Note.
|
