Home » International Law » Duty to Protect / Correct Utilizing a Universal Standard of Principles (Part Two)

Duty to Protect / Correct Utilizing a Universal Standard of Principles (Part Two)

Issues Pending:

Archives

After determining which rights were violated (whether unintentional or outright fraud) utilizing a universal standard of principles and ULTRS (universal language for testimony and reports) to determine which duty was triggered, we can begin to rectify the situation.

This leads to two questions: 1. Where does this situation fall on the spectrum of fairness and, depending on where it falls, 2. What does that translate into in terms of specific procedures that must be followed?

Spectrum of Fairness

The court in Baker v. Canada (Minister of Immigration and Citizenship) listed four factors which help determine where on the spectrum of fairness a given decision lands. Note that the “legitimate expectations” of the person challenging the decision is a consideration, but it is considered before the factors listed below. The doctrine of “legitimate expectations” does not affect where the decision lands on the spectrum of fairness. Rather, it tells us some of the specific procedures that must be followed.

i. Nature of the decision being made and the process followed in making it: here, an assessment of how formal or informal the decision at hand is made. The more adjudicative the administrative decision maker’s nature and the process it follows (i.e. a formal decision), the more procedural safeguards necessary. The more operational or administrative (i.e. an informal decision), the less procedural safeguards necessary

ii. Nature of the statutory scheme and the terms of the statute pursuant to which the body operates: here, an assessment of the statutory scheme is made. If no further remedies or appeal are available under the statute, more procedural safeguards are necessary because the first level of the decision must be procedurally fair.

An assessment of the complexity of the decision being challenged is also made. If it is a relatively simple decision, it will fall at the lower end of the spectrum.

iii. Importance of the decision to the affected parties: here, an assessment of how important the outcome of the decision is to the parties affected. Where the decision is important to the affected parties, high procedural safeguards are necessary. For example, in Kane it was held that a high standard of procedural fairness is required when the right to continue in one’s profession/employment is at stake.

iv. Choices made by the decision-maker: here, an assessment of the power given to the administrative decision maker over its own procedures is made. If they have a lot of power, they are under a high procedural obligation and the decision is at the higher end of the spectrum.

Once these factors are considered, we end up with a point on the spectrum. The next question is: how does this translate into specific procedures?

Specific Procedures

The specific procedures required differs case by case. In Mavi, Justice Binnie stated that we ultimately need a fair process by considering what is relevant in the circumstances. There are general considerations that the court looks to when determining specific procedures:

  • The determination of specific procedures is a balance of fairness, efficiency and predictability of the outcome; and
  • The people affected by a decision have the opportunity to be heard and considered.

The doctrine of “legitimate expectations” can create specific procedures that must be followed where the administrative decision maker has made a certain representation or promise regarding specific procedures that will be followed.

An oral hearing is not necessarily required under the common law where a statute does not specify whether an oral hearing must be held. In Khan, the court held that, if an administrative decision maker is going to decide adversely against someone’s credibility and that person is affected by a decision of the administrative decision maker, an oral hearing must be held.

The enabling statute may state whether reasons for the decisions are required. An administrative decision maker who is subject to the SPPA must give reasons to the affected parties if they ask for them. At common law, Baker clarified that where a decision has important significance for an individual, where there is a statutory right of appeal or in other circumstances, some form of reasons should be required. In Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses’ Union, the court held that, at the procedural fairness stage, the only consideration is whether there is a duty to provide reasons. The adequacy of reasons is not a relevant consideration at this stage. In Baker, it was held that where some form of reasons are required, there is flexibility as to what those reasons generally look like. The courts are very flexible as to what counts as reasons.

Conclusion

At this stage of the analysis, there is a two step test. Determining what procedures are required after determining where on the spectrum a given decision lands is a contextual analysis.

My next blog entry will focus on procedural obligations arising under the constitution.

Recent Posts: SW Laws blog \ Referrals

Protect Your Right to Life and the Environment with a “Land Trust”

Any trust, either a complex trust or a simple trust, gets a tax deduction for money it pays out to the beneficiaries. Thus, it is relatively easy to “zero out” a trust’s income and avoid paying taxes on trust money. A complex trust may have to file a 1041 tax form, but if there isn’t […]

Keep your Affairs out of Court: Put your Property in the Name of the Trust

Keep your Affairs out of Court: Put your Property in the Name of the Trust

AKA: Avoiding probate, (How to fund the trust): If You Have a Revocable Living Trust, congratulations. Thats just the first step… DONT FORGET TO TRANSFER ALL ASSETS TO THE NAME OF THE TRUST. There’s a big estate planning problem out there. The titling process is getting neglected causing families to go through probate. However, when the […]

Is your Personal Injury Accident Claim worth Pursuing? via Chris Limberopoulos

Is your accident claim worth pursuing? Based in Tampa, Florida, attorney Christopher “Chris” Limberopoulos emphasizes a knowledgeable approach to auto accident law. Guiding the Florida Law Group, Chris Matthew Limberopoulos has an extensive background in auto product liability and cases involving accidents related to defective parts installed in vehicles. Among those parties that can be […]

Where do Your Tax dollars go? via U.S. Supreme Court Council

Your tax dollars are being spent on government programs that sponsor the victimization of women, children and the elderly. See charts detailing the tax consequences on a dollar doubled at http://www.legalees.com/dollar-double… It’s only part of the information in my Advanced Tax Tactics. Use promocode “YouTube” to get 30% off at https://legalees.com/advancedtaxtactics/ Postpone, shift or change […]

More on Wordpress

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Blog:: Forensic Files

$7.5M Award paid for BIASED evidence analysis via FOX6Now.com

$7.5M Award paid for BIASED evidence analysis via FOX6Now.com

MILWAUKEE —  Robert Lee Stinson spent 23 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. Now, he is finally getting justice for a conviction based on flawed evidence. His long-awaited day in court came amid a national effort to put forensic science on trial.   For decades, television shows have conditioned people to […]

7 Countries with the Best Forensic Technologies via iTHINK

7 Countries with the Best Forensic Technologies via iTHINK

Civilizations that have thousands of years invested in perfecting a field tend to NAIL IT with more accuracy…. Many research and development solutions can be obtained through information sharing from countries that have had centuries of trial and error based experiementation. Seek to learn from mentors in the field, and save yourself from complicating your […]

RELATIVE POVERTY not Poverty causes crime.

Psychology Professor Jordan Peterson explains the clear documented science why it’s relative poverty and not poverty itself that causes crime, AKA the Gini Coefficient He goes on further explaining the role of the male dominance hierarchy in context of relative poverty and crime. Dr. Peterson’s new book is available for pre-order: 12 Rules for Life: […]