|
Bias - Investigations. Jubenville v. Chatham-Kent (Municipality)
In Jubenville v. Chatham-Kent (Municipality) (Ont Div Ct, 2025) the Ontario Divisional Court allowed a JR, here brought by a municipal councillour against a municipal Integrity Commissioner’s findings of "a breach of s. 10 of the Code of Conduct" and a Council decision to suspend the applicant’s salary for 90 days.
Here the court considers the bias 'test' for findings of investigative bodies:VIII. Analysis
A. Would a reasonable person apprehend that the Integrity Commissioner was biased?
[30] The Applicant asserts that the Integrity Commissioner exhibited bias because, in her view, the Integrity Commissioner made findings of fact not supported by the evidence.
[31] The law is clear that, as the Integrity Commissioner’s role is investigative and not adjudicative, the test for showing bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias is whether she exhibited a closed mind such that she predetermined the issue. As stated in Chiarelli v. Ottawa (City), 2021 ONSC 8256, 27 M.P.L.R. (6th) 1 (Div. Ct.), at para. 76 (citing Bell Canada v. Communication, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada (1997), 127 F.T.R. 44, at para. 30):The standard of conduct which is applicable to those performing an adjudicative function is different from those performing a purely administrative or investigative function. In the case of an administrative or investigative function, the standard is not whether there is a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the investigator, but rather whether the investigator maintained an open mind, that is whether the investigator has not predetermined the issue. [32] I find that there is no evidence that the Integrity Commissioner had predetermined the issue or had a closed mind. She describes the results of her investigation and then provides findings based upon those results.
|
