|
Administrative - Evidence - General. 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.
|
