Writing reasons for a regulatory decision is not easy, especially for non-lawyers. An administrative body’s reasons are the primary basis upon which a court will review its decision. A decision from Newfoundland and Labrador illustrates the kinds of missteps that can catch an administrative body up.
In Sparkes v Newfoundland and Labrador (Occupational Therapy Board), 2025 NLSC 130 (CanLII), a complaints’ screening committee cautioned/counselled an occupational therapist for “diagnosing” a client without legal authority, inappropriately discontinuing services, and failing to seek assistance in respect of difficult interactions at a school. The Court found that the committee’s decision was unsupported by its reasons. The Court noted the following:
- The reasons consisted of broad conclusions. They did not “engage with the evidence”. The reasons need to contain reference to the evidence, contain an analysis, and reach a conclusion. “The Record is the evidence before the decision maker; the reasons are the analytical process of applying the standard and explaining the probative value of the evidence, and the conclusions are the outcome.” Simply referring to the evidence and stating a conclusion is insufficient. For example, the reasons in this matter did not indicate where the occupational therapist in fact communicated a diagnosis to a client and did not explain why any such communication amounted to a diagnosis. There was no explanation for the reasoning of the committee.
- The reasons were not responsive to the submissions of the occupational therapist. For example, here the occupational therapist said that she did not actually use the specific diagnostic term in her records or with clients. This seemed consistent with the investigation file. On the third matter, the occupational therapist submitted that she did not involve her colleagues in the dispute with the school because her workplace was toxic, she was bullied, and she felt unsafe. The reasons did not address these issues. The Court said: “Once she raised these and other issues, it was incumbent on the CAC to respond to the more significant ones.”
- The committee changed the essence of the second complaint without notice to the occupational therapist and giving her an opportunity to make submissions. The complaint related to discontinuing services without transferring care. The committee found this allegation was not established but cautioned the occupational therapist for failing to use a client-centred approach with the client.
- In evaluating a committee’s reasons, a court will look to the Record to see if that makes the reasons clearer. However, the Record can only provide context. The Court said:
- While a review of the Record may promote a better understanding of the reasoning on a critical point, it is not a substitute for a complete absence of reasons. In CAC’s decision, there is virtually nothing in the way of reasoning. A review of the Record should not be akin to a murder mystery with the judge as the Chief Detective.
While courts do give leeway to an administrative body’s reasons for decision, they still must meet a basic level of explanation (often called “justification”), intelligibility and transparency.
