Toronto (City) Board of Education v. O.S.S.T.F., District 15
Encyclopedia
Toronto Board of Education v. O.S.S.T.F., District 15, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 487 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada
on judicial review of administrative decision
s. The Court held that the review of a just cause
dismissal was patently unreasonable on the basis that the decision had no evidentiary basis.
, a secondary school teacher, had made many applications for a position of vice-principal. He was granted several interviews but never hired. He filed a complaint to the human rights commission for discrimination. His claim of systemic discrimination was not made out and his claim was rejected.
Bhadauria was subjected to psychiatric assessment to two separate doctors. Both doctors believed he was intent on frightening the board of education but was not likely to be violent. One opinion stated recommended therapy. On receipt of both medical opinions Bhadauria's position as a teacher. Bhadauria filed a grievance through his union for termination without just cause.
The Board of Arbitration found that Bhadauria was dismissed without just cause and was given an award. The Board of Education applied for judicial review to the divisional court who quashed the ruling. On appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal the arbitration award was restored.
The issue before the Supreme Court was whether "the Board of Arbitration made a patently unreasonable decision in ordering that Mr. Bhadauria be conditionally reinstated in his position as a teacher with the appellant Board of Education."
Cory found that the proper standard of review of a finding of "just cause" is one of patent unreasonableness based on the privative clause
of the board's constituting legislation and the factual nature of the question. Courts should give great deference where the decision rests largely on findings of facts based on evidence presented at a hearing.
The arbitration board had found that Bhadauria's misconduct was temporary as it was due to his frustration at the school board, and that he was not beyond redemption. The Court held that there was no evidence at all that supported these claims and so ruled that the conclusion was patently unreasonable.
Supreme Court of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada and is the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts, and its decisions...
on judicial review of administrative decision
Canadian administrative law
Canadian administrative law is the body of law that addresses the actions and operations of governments and governmental agencies. That is, the law concerns the manner in which courts can review the decisions of administrative decision-makers such as a board, tribunal, commission, agency or minister...
s. The Court held that the review of a just cause
Just cause
Just cause or Bare sagen is a common standard in labor arbitration that is used in labor union contracts in the United States as a form of job security.-Use in Labor Union Contracts:...
dismissal was patently unreasonable on the basis that the decision had no evidentiary basis.
Background
Jagdish BhadauriaJag Bhaduria
Jagdish Singh Bhaduria is a former Canadian politician....
, a secondary school teacher, had made many applications for a position of vice-principal. He was granted several interviews but never hired. He filed a complaint to the human rights commission for discrimination. His claim of systemic discrimination was not made out and his claim was rejected.
Bhadauria was subjected to psychiatric assessment to two separate doctors. Both doctors believed he was intent on frightening the board of education but was not likely to be violent. One opinion stated recommended therapy. On receipt of both medical opinions Bhadauria's position as a teacher. Bhadauria filed a grievance through his union for termination without just cause.
The Board of Arbitration found that Bhadauria was dismissed without just cause and was given an award. The Board of Education applied for judicial review to the divisional court who quashed the ruling. On appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal the arbitration award was restored.
The issue before the Supreme Court was whether "the Board of Arbitration made a patently unreasonable decision in ordering that Mr. Bhadauria be conditionally reinstated in his position as a teacher with the appellant Board of Education."
Reasons of the court
Justice Cory, writing for the majority, allowed the appeal.Cory found that the proper standard of review of a finding of "just cause" is one of patent unreasonableness based on the privative clause
Privative clause
In administrative law, a privative clause is a provision in a statute that tries to remove a court’s ability to review decisions of a tribunal . In the UK they are known as "ouster clauses"....
of the board's constituting legislation and the factual nature of the question. Courts should give great deference where the decision rests largely on findings of facts based on evidence presented at a hearing.
The arbitration board had found that Bhadauria's misconduct was temporary as it was due to his frustration at the school board, and that he was not beyond redemption. The Court held that there was no evidence at all that supported these claims and so ruled that the conclusion was patently unreasonable.