Functus officio

Last updated

Functus officio refers to an officer or agency whose mandate has expired, due to either the arrival of an expiry date or an agency having accomplished the purpose for which it was created. [1] When used to describe a court, it can refer to one whose duty or authority has come to an end: "Once a court has passed a valid sentence after a lawful hearing, it becomes functus officio and cannot reopen the case."

Contents

Relationship to doctrine of res judicata

Functus officio is thus bound up with the doctrine of res judicata , which prevents (in the absence of statutory authority) the re-opening of a matter before the same court, tribunal or other statutory actor that rendered the final decision. There are many exceptions; for instance, where a statute authorizes variations of the original decision, the decision maker may revisit his or her previous decision. Common examples include legal competency hearings, parole board hearings and family law proceedings. There is an important difference between res judicata and functus officio: the former refers to the end of a case, while the latter refers to the expiration of an office. Functus officio derives from "fungi": to perform, end or expire (cognate to the ordinary English word "defunct"). Res judicata means "the thing has been decided" and derives from the principle "interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium" (it is for the good of the commonwealth that there be a terminus to litigation).

Canadian doctrinal and judicial writing on functus officio is sparse, [2] even though the rule itself derives from a 19th century case of the English Court of Appeal. [3] In the case of Chandler v Alberta Association of Architects, Sopinka J. summarized in relation to the principle of functus officio: "The general rule (is) that a final decision of a court cannot be reopened ... the rule applied only after the formal judgment had been drawn up, issued and entered, and was subject to two exceptions: where there had been a slip in drawing it up, and where there was an error in expressing the manifest intention of the court." This Court affirmed that the rule need not always be rigidly applied to tribunals in the administrative law context when the policy reasons for it are not present. [4]

Right to appeal

The existence and scope of a right of appeal has often been made the focus of analytical attention in applying the functus officio doctrine. Such was the case when the power of the Court of Chancery to rehear cases was extinguished by the Judicature Acts in 1873 by fusing common law and equity jurisdictions into one court and providing for a single appeal to a newly created Court of Appeal. [3] Originally, this was also the focus of the functus officio analysis for administrative tribunals that had rights of appeal tightly constrained by statute. [5] However, the underlying rationale for the doctrine is clearly more fundamental: for the due and proper administration of justice, there must be finality to a proceeding to ensure procedural fairness and the integrity of the judicial system. [6]

As a general rule, once . . . a tribunal has reached a final decision in respect to the matter that is before it in accordance with its enabling statute, that decision cannot be revisited because the tribunal has changed its mind, made an error within jurisdiction or because there has been a change of circumstances. . . .

To this extent, the principle of functus officio applies. It is based, however, on the policy ground which favours finality of proceedings rather than the rule which was developed with respect to formal judgments of a court whose decision was subject to a full appeal. If a court is permitted to continually revisit or reconsider final orders simply because it has changed its mind or wishes to continue exercising jurisdiction over a matter, there would never be finality to a proceeding, or, as G. Pépin and Y. Ouellette have perceptively termed it, the providing of [translation] “legal security” for the parties. [7] This concern for finality is evident in the definition of functus officio: [8]

[translation] Qualifies a court or tribunal, a public body or an official that is no longer seized of a matter because it or he or she has discharged the office. E.g. A judge who has pronounced a final judgment is functus officio.

The principle ensures that, subject to an appeal, parties are secure in their reliance on the finality of superior court decisions.

In the context of arbitration, courts have barred arbitrators from correcting anything in final awards other than clerical, typographical or computational errors. As there is no appeal from arbitral awards, the doctrine has permitted erroneous awards to stand. [9]

Codification in rules of civil procedure

This common law rule is further reflected in modern rules of civil procedure [10] and the interpretation of criminal appeal provisions. [11] Whether in its common law or statutory form, the doctrine of functus officio provides that only in strictly limited circumstances can a court revisit an order or judgment. [12] Otherwise, there would be, to paraphrase Charron J. A., [13] the recurring danger of the trial process becoming or appearing to become a “never closing revolving door” through which litigants could come and go as they pleased.

Separation of Powers

Whether a court has the requisite authority to act raises the separation of powers. If a court intervenes in matters of administration properly entrusted to the executive, it exceeds its proper sphere and thereby breaches the separation of powers. By crossing the boundary between judicial acts and administrative oversight, it acts illegitimately and without jurisdiction. [14] [15]

Related Research Articles

Canadian federalism involves the current nature and historical development of the federal system in Canada.

<i>Res judicata</i> Claim preclusion in law

Res judicata or res iudicata, also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin term for judged matter and refers to either of two concepts in common law civil procedure: a case in which there has been a final judgment and that is no longer subject to appeal; and the legal doctrine meant to bar relitigation of a claim between the same parties.

Pith and substance is a legal doctrine in Canadian constitutional interpretation used to determine under which head of power a given piece of legislation falls. The doctrine is primarily used when a law is challenged on the basis that one level of government has encroached upon the exclusive jurisdiction of another level of government.

Section 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides for remedies available to those whose Charter rights are shown to be violated. Some scholars have argued that it was actually section 24 that ensured that the Charter would not have the primary flaw of the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights. Canadian judges would be reassured that they could indeed strike down statutes on the basis that they contradicted a bill of rights.

Canadian constitutional law is the area of Canadian law relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Canada by the courts. All laws of Canada, both provincial and federal, must conform to the Constitution and any laws inconsistent with the Constitution have no force or effect.

<i>Doucet-Boudreau v Nova Scotia (Minister of Education)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Doucet-Boudreau v Nova Scotia [2003] 3 S.C.R. 3, 2003 SCC 62, was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which followed the Nova Scotia Supreme Court's finding that a delay in building French language schools in Nova Scotia violated the claimants' minority language educational rights under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This finding led to an important debate regarding the scope of section 24(1) of the Charter, which provides for remedies for those whose rights are infringed, and the applicability of the common law doctrine of functus officio. While the Supreme Court of Canada split on what constitutes an appropriate usage of section 24(1), the majority favoured a section 24(1) with broad, flexible capabilities.

In law, the enforcement of foreign judgments is the recognition and enforcement in one jurisdiction of judgments rendered in another ("foreign") jurisdiction. Foreign judgments may be recognized based on bilateral or multilateral treaties or understandings, or unilaterally without an express international agreement.

In Canadian constitutional law, the doctrine of paramountcy establishes that where there is a conflict between valid provincial and federal laws, the federal law will prevail and the provincial law will be inoperative to the extent that it conflicts with the federal law. Unlike interjurisdictional immunity, which is concerned with the scope of the federal power, paramountcy deals with the way in which that power is exercised.

Nova Scotia v Martin; Nova Scotia v Laseur, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 504, 2003 SCC 54, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision. The Court re-examined the authority of tribunals to hear constitutional challenges and their power to strike down legislation under section 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. In doing so the Court overturned the previous decision of Cooper v. Canada , (1996). Also, the Court struck down provisions within Nova Scotia's Workers' Compensation Act that prohibited people who were disabled by chronic pain from benefits as a violation of section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

<i>Cuddy Chicks Ltd v Ontario</i> (Labour Relations Board) Supreme Court of Canada case

Cuddy Chicks Ltd v Ontario (Labour Relations Board), [1991] 2 SCR 5 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the jurisdiction of tribunals to hear constitutional challenges of the tribunal's enabling statute.

In Canadian Constitutional law, interjurisdictional immunity is the legal doctrine that determines which legislation arising from one level of jurisdiction may be applicable to matters covered at another level. Interjurisdictional immunity is an exception to the pith and substance doctrine, as it stipulates that there is a core to each federal subject matter that cannot be reached by provincial laws. While a provincial law that imposes a tax on banks may be ruled intra vires, as it is not within the protected core of banking, a provincial law that limits the rights of creditors to enforce their debts would strike at such a core and be ruled inapplicable.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian administrative law</span> Law governing the government agencies of Canada

Canadian administrative law is the body of law that addresses the actions and operations of governments and governmental agencies in Canada. That is, the law concerns the manner in which courts can review the decisions of administrative decision makers such as a board, tribunal, commission, agency, or Crown minister, while exercising ministerial discretion.

<i>Canada (Director of Investigation and Research) v Southam Inc</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Canada v Southam Inc, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on judicial review. In this case the Court first set out the standard of review of "reasonableness simpliciter", which directs the court to only review decisions that are "not supported by any reasons that can stand up to a somewhat probing examination".

<i>National Corn Growers Assn v Canada (Import Tribunal)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

National Corn Growers Assn v Canada (Import Tribunal), [1990] 2 SCR 1324 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on judicial review and statutory interpretation.

<i>Crevier v Quebec (AG)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Crevier v Quebec (AG), [1981] 2 S.C.R. 220 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision in administrative law. The court had to decide whether a Quebec-created Professionals Tribunal was unconstitutional due to being a "s. 96 court" according to the Constitution Act, 1867, whose members can only be federally appointed. It found that any legislation which has a privative clause purporting to exclude review of jurisdictional matters is outside the jurisdiction of a provincial legislature.

<i>Paul v British Columbia (Forest Appeals Commission)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Paul v British Columbia (Forest Appeals Commission), 2003 SCC 55, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision in administrative law and aboriginal law. The case stands for the proposition that a provincial administrative actor granted the power to determine questions of law may adjudicate matters within federal legislative competence, including s. 35 aboriginal rights matters.

<i>Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v United Steelworkers</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v United Steelworkers, 2013 SCC 6, arising from the Ontario courts as Re Indalex Limited, is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that deals with the question of priorities of claims in proceedings under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, and how they intersect with the fiduciary duties employers have as administrators of pension plans.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ouster clause</span>

An ouster clause or privative clause is, in countries with common law legal systems, a clause or provision included in a piece of legislation by a legislative body to exclude judicial review of acts and decisions of the executive by stripping the courts of their supervisory judicial function. According to the doctrine of the separation of powers, one of the important functions of the judiciary is to keep the executive in check by ensuring that its acts comply with the law, including, where applicable, the constitution. Ouster clauses prevent courts from carrying out this function, but may be justified on the ground that they preserve the powers of the executive and promote the finality of its acts and decisions.

<i>Marine Services International Ltd v Ryan Estate</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Marine Services International Ltd v Ryan Estate, 2013 SCC 44 is a leading case of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the coexistence of Canadian maritime law with provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights, and it marks a further restriction upon the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity in Canadian constitutional jurisprudence.

<i>Canadian National Railway Co v Canada (AG)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Canadian National Railway Co v Canada (AG), 2014 SCC 40 is a significant case from the Supreme Court of Canada in the area of Canadian administrative law, focusing on whether the standard of review framework set out in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick applies to decisions of the Governor in Council of Canada (i.e., the Cabinet of Canada), and whether it has authority to vary or rescind an administrative tribunal decision on questions of law or jurisdiction.

References

  1. ↑ "Functus Officio Definition".
  2. ↑ See In re Swire (1885), 30 Ch. D. 239 (C.A.); Paper Machinery Ltd. v. J. O. Ross Engineering Corp., 1934 CanLII 1 (S.C.C.), [1934] S.C.R. 186.
  3. 1 2 In re St. Nazaire Co. (1879), 12 Ch. D. 88 (E.W.C.A).
  4. ↑ Chandler v. Alberta Association of Architects, 1989 CanLII 41 (S.C.C.), [1989] 2 S.C.R 848.
  5. ↑ See Grillas v. Minister of Manpower and Immigration , 1971 CanLII 3 (S.C.C.), [1972] S.C.R. 577.
  6. ↑ Chandler, supra, at pp. 861–62.
  7. ↑ G. Pépin & Y. Ouellette, Principes de contentieux administratif, 2nd ed. (1982), p. 221.
  8. ↑ H. Reid, Dictionnaire de droit québécois et canadien (2001), at p. 253.
  9. ↑ "The Functus Officio Problem in Modern Arbitration and a Proposed Solution". New York City Bar Association. Committee on Arbitration.
  10. ↑ See, e.g., Nova Scotia Civil Procedure Rules, Rule 15.07.
  11. ↑ See R. v. H. (E.F.), 1997 CanLII 418 (ON C.A.), (1997), 115 C.C.C. (3d) 89 (Ont. C.A.).
  12. ↑ See Nova Scotia Civil Procedure Rules, Rule 15.08.
  13. ↑ H. (E.F.), supra, at p. 101.
  14. ↑ "Doucet-Boudreau v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education), 2003 SCC 62 (CanLII), [2003] 3 SCR 3". CanLII. 6 November 2003. Retrieved 19 September 2021.
  15. ↑ "Functis Officio". Wingate. 15 August 2009. Retrieved 30 December 2013.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.