Federal Appeal

Administrative Law

No legitimate expectation of oral hearing before recommendation to revoke appointment

Applicant was advised that respondent proposed to review his appointment to order in light of criminal conviction in United States for fraud and obstruction of justice. Applicant requested in person oral hearing before respondent, but request was refused. Applicant asked respondent to reconsider decision, but it refused. Applicant applied for judicial review. Federal Court Judge found that applicant did not have legitimate expectation that oral hearing would be held prior to recommendation to Governor General that appointment should be revoked. Federal Court Judge found that applicant’s procedural entitlement fell toward low end of scale. Federal Court Judge dismissed application. Applicant appealed. Appeal dismissed. In circumstances, respondent was not required to give applicant oral hearing in order to ensure that he was afforded procedural fairness. Since it was not function of respondent to determine whether applicant’s conviction in United States was proper, respondent’s recommendation would not turn primarily on assessment of applicant’s credibility.

Black v. Advisory Council for the Order of Canada (Nov. 18, 2013, F.C.A., John M. Evans J.A., Trudel J.A., and Webb J.A., File No. A-462-12) Decision at 222 A.C.W.S. (3d) 290 was affirmed.  234 A.C.W.S. (3d) 246.

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?