|
Administrative Case Dicta - Tribunals - General. R. v. Edwards
In R. v. Edwards (SCC, 2024) the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed an appeal arguing that military judges, being officers in the Canadian Armed Forces, violated Charter 11(d) ["to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal"].
Here the court characterizes a requirement of administrative (tribunal) independence:[116] Administrative independence requires that there be “judicial control over the administrative decisions that bear directly and immediately on the exercise of the judicial function” (Valente, at p. 712; 2747-3174 Québec Inc., at para. 70). In Valente, administrative independence was “defined . . . in narrow terms” (Provincial Judges Reference, at para. 117) to include administrative functions such as “assignment of judges, sittings of the court, and court lists — as well as the related matters of allocation of court rooms and direction of the administrative staff engaged in carrying out these functions” (Valente, at p. 709). Le Dain J. observed that while a greater degree of administrative independence “may well be highly desirable”, it is not “regarded as essential for purposes of s. 11(d) of the Charter” (Valente, at p. 712). . Shearer v. Oz
In Shearer v. Oz (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court dismissed an appeal in an extended RTA struggle that continued years after the tenant had "moved out of the house about eighteen months later [SS: after the tenants taking possession], on July 26, 2019".
Here the court gives a reality check on the limited services that parties should expect from the LTB, as a high-volume administrative tribunal:II. Sufficiency of Reasons
[56] The Board is a high-volume tribunal which must manage its resources carefully. The Tenants complain bitterly about delays they experienced in their own case. If every LTB file consumed the resources dedicated to the disputes between these parties, the process before the Board would grind to a standstill. The Board provided extensive reasons for its decision and thereby reasonably explained why it decided as it did.
[57] In particular, the Board was not required to wrestle minutely with all aspects of the evidence on the issue of heat loss and insulation. It accepted the evidence of the only “neutral third party”, and the conclusions it reached based on this evidence are supported by evidence before the Board.
|
