Newfoundland Telephone Co v Newfoundland (Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities)

Last updated
Newfoundland Telephone Co v Newfoundland (Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities)

Supreme Court of Canada 2.jpg

Hearing: November 7, 1991
Judgment: March 5, 1992
Full case nameNewfoundland Telephone Company Limited v. The Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities
Citations [1992] 1 SCR 623, 89 DLR (4th) 289, 95 Nfld & PEIR 271, 1992 CanLII 84
Docket No. 22060
Prior history On appeal from the Court of Appeal for Newfoundland
Ruling Appeal allowed
Court Membership
Chief Justice: Antonio Lamer
Puisne Justices: Gérard La Forest, Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, John Sopinka, Charles Gonthier, Peter Cory, Beverley McLachlin, William Stevenson, Frank Iacobucci
Reasons given
Unanimous reasons by Cory J.
Lamer C.J.C. and Stevenson J. took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws Applied
Public Utilities Act, RSN 1970, c 322

Newfoundland Telephone Co v Newfoundland (Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities), [1992] 1 SCR 623 is a Canadian administrative law case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the reasonable apprehension of bias.

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 (ADMs) such as a board, tribunal, commission, agency or minister.

Supreme Court of Canada highest court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada, the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts. Its decisions are the ultimate expression and application of Canadian law and binding upon all lower courts of Canada, except to the extent that they are overridden or otherwise made ineffective by an Act of Parliament or the Act of a provincial legislative assembly pursuant to section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In Canadian law, a reasonable apprehension of bias is a legal standard for disqualifying judges and administrative decision-makers for bias. Bias of the decision-maker can be real or merely perceived.

Contents

The Court held that the standard of bias may vary depending on the function of the administrative body. Those bodies that are primarily adjudicative in nature will be held to a stricter standard than administrative boards whose roles resemble legislatures.

Background

In 1988, the Newfoundland Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities held a public hearing before five of its commissioners to evaluate the executive pay and benefits package of the Newfoundland Telephone Company.

One of the commissioners, Andy Wells, a councillor for St. John's City Council, made comments to the press describing the executive benefits package as "ludicrous" and "unconscionable" before the hearings began. He gave a series of interviews discussing his opposition to further pay and pension increases.

Andy Wells may refer to:

St. John's City Council has been the governing body of the city of St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador. Since 1888, St. John's city council has governed under the Colony of Newfoundland, the Dominion of Newfoundland and since 1949, Canada.

The Newfoundland Telephone Co. objected to the participation of Wells, claiming that his statements created a reasonable apprehension of bias. However, the Board found that they could not remove one of its own members, and rejected their submissions.

Following the proceedings, Wells continued to speak to the press, making clear his opposition to the executive salaries in question.

On August 3, 1989, the Board issued its decision (3-2 in which Wells was part of the majority), which disapproved of an "enhanced pension plan", ordered a refund to customers for inappropriate executive expenses, but did not make any order with respect to individual executive salaries.

Newfoundland Telephone Co. appealed the order to the Newfoundland Court of Appeal, claiming that the Board's orders were void because Wells' statements to the press showed a reasonable apprehension of bias. The Court of Appeal decided in favour of the Board, but the decision was further appealed to the Supreme Court.

Opinion of the Court

The unanimous Court held that Wells' statements during and after the hearings showed a reasonable apprehension of bias, rendering the decision void.

In reaching this decision, the Court noted that the duty of fairness applied to all administrative bodies, but "the extent of that duty will depend upon the nature and the function of the particular tribunal." [1]

Cory J, writing for the court, described how the duty of fairness applied to the spectrum of administrative bodies.

Those that are primarily adjudicative in their functions will be expected to comply with the standard applicable to courts: there must be no reasonable apprehension of bias with regard to their decision. At the other end of the scale are boards with popularly elected members where the standard will be much more lenient. In such circumstances, a reasonable apprehension of bias occurs if a board member pre‑judges the matter to such an extent that any representations to the contrary would be futile. Administrative boards that deal with matters of policy will be closely comparable to the boards composed of elected members. For those boards, a strict application of a reasonable apprehension of bias as a test might undermine the very role which has been entrusted to them by the legislature. [2]

The Public Utilities Board in question was found to be more legislative in nature, dealing primarily with policy issues. Thus, it applied an "open mind" test which required the party alleging bias to "establish that there is a prejudgment of the matter ... to the extent that any representations at variance with the view ... would be futile." [3]

With respect to Wells' comments before the hearings began, the court found that he did not exhibit a closed mind. [4] On the other hand, a higher standard was necessary once the hearings began. [5] They found that Wells' statements to the press during the hearings "taken together, give a clear indication that not only was there a reasonable apprehension of bias but that Mr. Wells had demonstrated that he had a closed mind on the subject." [6]

As a consequence of the Court's findings of bias, the orders made by the Board were declared void. The Court definitively stated that once there was a finding of bias, the decision made by the administrative body could not stand:

A decision of a tribunal which denied the parties a fair hearing cannot be simply voidable and rendered valid as a result of the subsequent decision of the tribunal. The damage created by apprehension of bias cannot be remedied. The hearing, and any subsequent order resulting from it, must be void. [7]

Related Research Articles

Natural justice Concept in UK law

In English law, natural justice is technical terminology for the rule against bias and the right to a fair hearing. While the term natural justice is often retained as a general concept, it has largely been replaced and extended by the general "duty to act fairly".

<i>R v S (RD)</i>

R v S (RD), [1997] 3 SCR 484 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on establishing the rules for determining reasonable apprehension of bias in the court system by judges, and establishing limits to the application of social context in judging. The case was argued by Burnley "Rocky" Jones of Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Court system of Canada an article about the court system of Canada

The court system of Canada forms the judicial branch of government, formally known as "The Queen on the Bench", which interprets the law and is made up of many courts differing in levels of legal superiority and separated by jurisdiction. Some of the courts are federal in nature, while others are provincial or territorial.

<i>Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)</i> Canadian Supreme Court case

Baker v Canada , [1999] 2 SCR 817 is a leading Canadian administrative law decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court provided guidance on the standard of judicial review of administrative decisions. The issue was what standard of procedural fairness should be applied when considering the judicial review of the waiver of the requirement that applications for permanent residence be filed from abroad. The case also clarified the need for written reasons in some administrative decisions.

<i>Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 963 v New Brunswick Liquor Corp</i>

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 963 v New Brunswick Liquor Corp, [1979] 2 SCR 227 is a leading case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada. This case first developed the patent unreasonableness standard of review in Canadian administrative law.

<i>Law Society of New Brunswick v Ryan</i>

Law Society of New Brunswick v Ryan, 2003 SCC 20 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on judicial review for professional disciplinary bodies in Canadian administrative law. The Court determined that decisions of professional disciplinary committees are reviewed on a standard of reasonableness simpliciter.

The Canadian Forces Drug Control Program is a series of regulations established in 1992 to prevent drug use among members of the Canadian Forces (CF), under the broad regulation-making auspices of section 12 of the National Defence Act (NDA). It prohibits CF members from involvement with most drugs, except alcohol and tobacco, purportedly to maintain discipline within the CF, ensure the safety, reliability and health of CF members, etc. QR&O 20 contains a number of different schemes for drug-testing such as safety-sensitive testing, blind testing, and testing for suspicion under the article for "testing for cause." The regulation enforces administrative and disciplinary action against those who transgress its requirements.

<i>Crevier v Quebec (AG)</i>

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>Dunsmuir v New Brunswick</i> Canadian Supreme Court case

Dunsmuir v New Brunswick2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 SCR 190 is the leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the topic of substantive review and standards of review. The decision is notable for combining the reasonableness (simpliciter) and patent unreasonableness standards of review into a single reasonableness standard.

<i>Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Khosa</i>

Canada v. Khosa, 2009 SCC 12, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision in Canadian administrative law.

Doctrine of bias in Singapore law Principle of appellate law in Singapore

Bias is one of the grounds of judicial review in Singapore administrative law which a person can rely upon to challenge the judgment of a court or tribunal, or a public authority's action or decision. There are three forms of bias, namely, actual, imputed and apparent bias.

Administrative law in Singapore Law of Singapores government agencies

Administrative law in Singapore is a branch of public law that is concerned with the control of governmental powers as exercised through its various administrative agencies. Administrative law requires administrators – ministers, civil servants and public authorities – to act fairly, reasonably and in accordance with the law. Singapore administrative law is largely based on English administrative law, which the nation inherited at independence in 1965.

<i>International Woodworkers of America, Local 2-69 v Consolidated-Bathurst Packaging Ltd</i>

International Woodworkers of America, Local 2-69 v Consolidated-Bathurst Packaging Ltd, [1990] 1 SCR 282 is a leading Canadian administrative law case on the issue of procedural fairness and bias. The Supreme Court of Canada held that full board meetings of the Ontario Labour Relations Board to discuss matters of policy in relation to a case did not violate the principles of natural justice.

<i>Canadian Union of Public Employees v Ontario (Minister of Labour)</i>

Canadian Union of Public Employees v Ontario , 2003 SCC 29, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on arbitration and bias in administrative law. The Court held that it was patently unreasonable for the Minister of Labour to appoint retired judges as arbitrators in labour disputes without considering their expertise in labour relations under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitrations Act.

Procedural impropriety in Singapore administrative law

Procedural impropriety in Singapore administrative law is one of the three broad categories of judicial review, the other two being illegality and irrationality. A public authority commits procedural impropriety if it fails to properly observe either statutory procedural requirements, or common law rules of natural justice and fairness.

<i>Re Shankar Alan s/o Anant Kulkarni</i>

Re Shankar Alan s/o Anant Kulkarni was a 2006 administrative law judgment in which the High Court of Singapore quashed a decision made by the Disciplinary Committee of the Law Society of Singapore against a lawyer, Alan Shankar s/o Anant Kulkarni. The Disciplinary Committee had found Shankar, who was a solicitor, guilty of grossly improper misconduct under the Legal Profession Act. Shankar applied to the High Court for judicial review on the ground that the Committee's ruling was affected by apparent bias.

<i>Canadian National Railway Co v Canada (AG)</i>

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, and whether it has authority to vary or rescind an administrative tribunal decision on questions of law or jurisdiction.

The New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) is an administrative court of the New York City government. It is a non-mayoral executive agency and is not part of the state Unified Court System.

References

  1. ↑ [1992] 1 SCR 623 at para 22.
  2. ↑ Ibid at para 27.
  3. ↑ Ibid at para 25
  4. ↑ Ibid at para 35
  5. ↑ Ibid at para 36.
  6. ↑ Ibid at para 38.
  7. ↑ Ibid at para 40.

Full text of Supreme Court of Canada decision at LexUM  and CanLII

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.