|
Reasons - Tribunal is Political. Sloat v. Grand Erie District School Board
In Sloat v. Grand Erie District School Board (Div Court, 2024) the Ontario Divisional Court allowed a JR initiated by a school trustee, here against "four decisions [SS: of the school board] that determined that she breached the respondent’s Trustee Code of Conduct (“the Code”)".
Here the court considers the adequacy of the reasons for the school board's administrative decisions:The Board’s Decisions Are Not Reasonable
[72] In each of the Four Decisions, the only reasons the applicant was provided with gave the applicant notice of the sections of the Code she was found to have breached and the sanctions imposed. The applicant submits that there is no way to know which allegations led to the result. The applicant submits that the failure to provide sufficient reasons results in a breach of the duty of procedural fairness and makes the Decisions unreasonable.
[73] The court in Ramsay, supra in the case of a school trustee accepted that the school board’s reasons which provided the applicant with written notice of the result and the sanctions imposed were sufficient and there is no duty to give formal reasons.[2] 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 Education 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.
[74] In a situation where no reasons have been provided, and the record does not shed light on the basis for the decision, however, the reviewing court must still examine the decision in light of the relevant constraints on the decision maker in order to determine whether the decision is reasonable. Without reasons, the analysis will then focus on the outcome rather than on the decision maker’s reasoning process. This does not mean that reasonableness review is less robust in such circumstances, only that it takes a different shape.[3]
[75] A reviewing court must develop an understanding of the decision maker’s reasoning process in order to determine whether the decision as a whole is reasonable. To make this determination, the reviewing court asks whether the decision bears the hallmarks of reasonableness — justification, transparency, and intelligibility — and whether it is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on the decision.[4]
[76] A decision will also be unreasonable where the conclusion reached cannot follow from the analysis undertaken or if the reasons read in conjunction with the record do not make it possible to understand the decision maker’s reasoning on a critical point.[5] . 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.
|
