|
Reasons - Tribunal is Political. Noel v. The Corporation of the City of Dryden
In Noel v. The Corporation of the City of Dryden (Div Ct, 2026) the Divisional Court dismissed a municipal councillour's JR, this brought against council imposing "a number of corrective measures, including a requirement that the Applicant complete workplace civility training and attend Council meetings and City functions virtually until that training was completed" and this after an "investigator concluded that the Applicant had engaged in workplace harassment and bullying directed toward the City's Chief Administrative Officer and By-Law Enforcement Officer".
Here the court finds a reduced duty of provide reasons for decision in this municipal council political context, despite Charter issues being raised:[71] Nor am I persuaded that Council was required to provide formal written reasons explaining every departure from Ms. Durant's original recommendations. The rationale underlying the corrective measures can be readily understood from the record as a whole, including the Durant report, the revised recommendations, and Council's subsequent amendments following the June 9 submissions (see Vavilov, at para. 138). The Supreme Court has expressly acknowledged that certain kinds of decision-making, including when a municipality passes a by-law, do not lend themselves to formal reasons: Vavilov, at para. 137.
[72] The Supreme Court has also held that there is no general duty to provide formal reasons in a context where the decision is made by elected representatives through a democratic process: Law Society of British Columbia v. Trinity Western University, 2018 SCC 32, at paras. 53-55, and Catalyst Paper Corp. v. North Cowichan (District), 2012 SCC 2, at paras. 29, 33.
....
[80] Certainly, it would have been preferable for Council to provide express reasons demonstrating how it balanced the Applicant's Charter interests against its workplace-harassment obligations. However, the absence of formal reasons is not determinative. The Supreme Court has recognized that, particularly in democratic and legislative contexts, detailed reasons for decision are not necessarily required. Reviewing courts may examine the broader record, including deliberations and surrounding materials, to understand the rationale for a decision: Trinity Western University, at paras. 53-55; Catalyst Paper, at paras. 29, 33.
[81] Nor is this a case like CHP v. City of Hamilton, 2018 ONSC 3690, at paras. 61-63, or Guelph and Area Right to Life v. City of Guelph, 2022 ONSC 43, at paras. 78-85, 94, where the record contained no indication that Charter interests had been considered at all. Here, the Applicant's counsel expressly raised Charter concerns before Council. Counsel specifically argued that an attendance restriction would violate the Applicant's freedom of expression, was not minimally impairing, and was not rationally connected to the objectives identified by the City. Council thereafter reconsidered the matter and amended the proposed recommendations. Most significantly, Council modified the attendance restriction so that the Applicant would be permitted to continue participating in Council meetings and City functions by video conference pending completion of training.
[82] The significance of that amendment should not be understated. It demonstrates that Council considered the impact of the proposed measures on the Applicant's ability to continue discharging the functions of elected office. The final decision reflects an effort to preserve those functions while advancing the City's workplace-harassment objectives.
[83] This is therefore not a case in which the court is being asked to invent a balancing exercise after the fact or substitute its own justification for a decision unsupported by the record. Rather, the record itself demonstrates that Charter concerns were raised, considered, and influenced the ultimate form of the decision. . Prinzen v. Hastings and Prince Edward District School Board
In Prinzen v. Hastings and Prince Edward District School Board (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court considered (school board) trustee-brought JRs, these brought against "two decisions that she breached the Trustees’ Code of Conduct (the “Code”) by disclosing confidential information".
Here the court cites authority for law that 'political' bodies (here a school board) needs not give reasons for it's decisions:[33] As noted in Sloat 2024, the Supreme Court [SS: (sic) should be the Ont Div Court] has held that there is no duty to give formal reasons in a context where the decision was made by elected representatives pursuant to a democratic process (para. 73). . Sloat v. Grand Erie District School Board
In Sloat v. Grand Erie District School Board (Div Court, 2024) the Ontario Divisional Court allowed a JR initiated by a school trustee, here against "four decisions [SS: of the school board] that determined that she breached the respondent’s Trustee Code of Conduct (“the Code”)".
Here the court considers the adequacy of the reasons for the school board's administrative decisions:The Board’s Decisions Are Not Reasonable
[72] In each of the Four Decisions, the only reasons the applicant was provided with gave the applicant notice of the sections of the Code she was found to have breached and the sanctions imposed. The applicant submits that there is no way to know which allegations led to the result. The applicant submits that the failure to provide sufficient reasons results in a breach of the duty of procedural fairness and makes the Decisions unreasonable.
[73] The court in Ramsay, supra in the case of a school trustee accepted that the school board’s reasons which provided the applicant with written notice of the result and the sanctions imposed were sufficient and there is no duty to give formal reasons.[2] The Supreme Court has held that there is no duty to give formal reasons in a context where the decision was made by elected representatives pursuant to a democratic process. It submits that a school board’s reasoning may be deduced from the debate, deliberations and the statements of policy (see: Law Society of British Columbia v Trinity Western University, 2018 SCC 32, [2018] 2 S.C.R. 293; Catalyst Paper Corp v North Cowichan (District), 2012 SCC 2, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 5). The Education Act does not require the provision of reasons in writing for a decision. The only statutory requirement it imposes is to provide written notice of the result and applicable sanctions. This was done.
[74] In a situation where no reasons have been provided, and the record does not shed light on the basis for the decision, however, the reviewing court must still examine the decision in light of the relevant constraints on the decision maker in order to determine whether the decision is reasonable. Without reasons, the analysis will then focus on the outcome rather than on the decision maker’s reasoning process. This does not mean that reasonableness review is less robust in such circumstances, only that it takes a different shape.[3]
[75] A reviewing court must develop an understanding of the decision maker’s reasoning process in order to determine whether the decision as a whole is reasonable. To make this determination, the reviewing court asks whether the decision bears the hallmarks of reasonableness — justification, transparency, and intelligibility — and whether it is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on the decision.[4]
[76] A decision will also be unreasonable where the conclusion reached cannot follow from the analysis undertaken or if the reasons read in conjunction with the record do not make it possible to understand the decision maker’s reasoning on a critical point.[5] . Carolyn Burjoski v. Waterloo Region District School Board
In Carolyn Burjoski v. Waterloo Region District School Board (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court considers a JR against a school board decision to stop a "presentation to a Committee of the Whole Meeting", partly on Charter grounds.
Here the focus was on the adequacy of reasons and the political nature of the forum:31. There is no duty to give formal reasons in a context where the decision was made by elected representatives pursuant to a democratic process. A school board’s reasoning may be deduced from the debate, deliberations and the statements of policy that give rise to the decision in question (see: Law Society of British Columbia v. Trinity Western University, 2018 SCC 32, [2018] 2 S.C.R. 293). Accordingly, given that the decision was reached through a democratic process by elected trustees, it was not necessary for the WRDSB to give detailed formal reasons for the decision. In any event, the Chair made known to Burjoski the reasons for his ruling. In my view, the explanation when taken in context was adequate.
|
