What Do we Do Now?

Administrative mistakes happen. The challenge then is to figure out an appropriate response. In Hilson v 1336365 Alberta Ltd., 2019 ONCA 653, <http://canlii.ca/t/j1x45>, three members of the Ontario Court of Appeal heard a case. Two members participated in drafting reasons for decision. By accident the draft decision and reasons was sent to a different member of the court, who had not participated in the appeal, who signed it. The decision and reasons was sent out. When the error was discovered the Court determined as follows:

  • The issued decision was not valid.
  • It would now be unfair to have the third member of the Court review the decision and reasons to decide whether or not to agree with it, or to dissent from it.
  • A different panel of the Court needed to deal with the matter and issue a fresh decision.

This outcome reinforces the importance of ensuring that every member of the panel participate in both making the decision and in drafting the reasons before the decision is released.

More Posts

Immunity from Regulatory Scrutiny?

Mandatory reporting provisions typically protect the reporter from liability or retaliation for making a report in good faith. Do those immunity provisions prevent registrants from

Jurisdiction Over Cosmetic Procedures

Health regulators are receiving frequent expressions of concern about “medical spas” that provide cosmetic procedures. Complex questions arise as to the legal authority to provide

Interpreting Legislation vs Making Legislation

Regulators cannot enact legislation through policy. However, regulators frequently publish policies interpreting or applying their legislation. The line between those two activities is sometimes fine.