|
Fairness - SOR (3). Christian Heritage Party of Canada v. Hamilton (City) [IMPORTANT, holding 'none']
In Christian Heritage Party of Canada v. Hamilton (City) (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal, here brought against an earlier dismissal of a JR application - that against "whether the respondent, City of Hamilton (the “City”), acted unfairly or unreasonably in rejecting a proposed advertisement for City-owned transit shelters from the appellants, Christian Heritage Party of Canada and Christian Heritage Party Hamilton-Mountain Electoral District Association (collectively, “CHP”)".
Here the court addresses the ongoing conflict between whether the SOR for issues of procedural fairness was 'none' or 'correctness' (deciding that 'none' is preferable):[23] With respect to the appellants’ argument that the City breached its duty of fairness, as this court has noted, there is no standard of review per se in relation to alleged breaches of procedural fairness: “While there are cases in which the ‘correctness’ standard of review has been held to apply on a judicial review for procedural fairness, the use of the correctness approach can be awkward and confusing in such a context”: Afolabi v. Law Society of Ontario, 2025 ONCA 257, 44 Admin. L.R. (7th) 191, at para. 60 (footnote omitted). As the Supreme Court observed in Moreau-Bérubé v. New Brunswick (Judicial Council), 2002 SCC 11, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 249, at para. 74, procedural fairness requires no assessment of the appropriate standard of judicial review. Rather, the question for the reviewing court is to assess whether decision-maker discharged its duty of fairness. In this case, the Divisional Court concluded that the City has done so.
|
