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

Designing a Whistleblower Policy

Regulators are increasingly developing whistleblower (or safe reporting) policies. Typically, there is a separate policy for reporting on integrity concerns relating to regulatory staff, committee

Warning the Public

When regulators become aware that unregistered individuals may be performing restricted procedures or holding themselves out as registrants, they sometimes issue public notices. The notice

Relying on Police Evidence

Police have extraordinary powers to obtain evidence of a suspected crime. However, the judicial scrutiny of the exercise of that authority is correspondingly rigorous. Issues

Correctly Clarifying Changes

Many regulators rely on third-party organizations to assess a candidate’s credentials for registration. Regulators then need to ensure that the accreditation body makes defensible decisions.