|
Fairness - Ministerial Decisions. Mowi Canada West Inc. v. Canada (Fisheries, Oceans and Coast Guard)
In Mowi Canada West Inc. v. Canada (Fisheries, Oceans and Coast Guard) (Fed CA, 2026) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from a JR dismissal, here brought against "a decision made by the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard (the Minister) on February 17, 2023, to refuse to re-issue aquaculture licenses to salmon farms operating in the Discovery Islands".
Here the court considers the fairness duty owed by the Minister in this context:[40] As found by the Federal Court, it is beyond dispute that a duty of fairness is owed by the Minister in making decisions under the Act: see Federal Court Decision at para. 95; Mowi I at para. 154. It is, after all, an administrative decision that affects the rights or interests of a person, and as such it triggers the application of the audi alteram partem rule, which in turn encompasses an affected party’s right to know the case against them, and to be afforded an opportunity to respond: Air Canada v. Robinson, 2021 FCA 204, at para. 54.
[41] That being said, what the duty of procedural fairness may reasonably require of a decision maker is context-dependent and will inevitably vary depending on the legislative and administrative scheme and the particular circumstances of each case: Cardinal v. Director of Kent Institution, 1985 CanLII 23 (SCC), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 643 at p. 654; Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817 at para. 21; Canada (Attorney General) v. Mavi, 2011 SCC 30 at paras. 38-42. In the case at bar, it is clear that the discretionary nature of the Minister’s decision and the absence of a statutorily mandated process bring us closer to the lower end of the spectrum and away from the more rigorous requirements that would have to be met in an adversarial, judicial, or quasi-judicial process.
|
