ADMIN_-_Chapter_2_

Administrative Law

Chapter 2 - Administrative Tribunals and Agencies

The Structure of the Executive Branch

  • The executive branch's structure has evolved significantly over the past century, contrasting with the more stable structures of the legislative and judicial branches.

  • This evolution is largely due to the rise of administrative agencies that address the complexities of modern Canadian society.

  • Administrative agencies now fulfill roles traditionally handled by government departments, operating largely independently from the government.

  • Some experts refer to this vast network of administrative agencies as a "fourth branch of government."

Protections from Political Interference

  • Administrative law mandates that tribunal decision-making remains free from political interference, except where authorized by Parliament through the tribunal’s enabling legislation.

  • It requires all legal and political actors to operate within their designated jurisdictions.

  • The law ensures a fair process for all parties, guaranteeing individuals the right to be heard and the right to an unbiased decision-maker.

Government Functionality of Agencies, Boards, and Commissions

  • Government agencies, boards, and commissions perform varied functions beyond adjudication:

    • Advisory roles, providing policy advice.

    • Setting regulatory standards for industries.

    • Regulating businesses and professions.

    • Offering goods and services to the public.

    • Determining rights of individuals and groups under statutory frameworks.

Categories of Administrative Agencies

Ten Types of Agencies

  1. Advisory Agencies

    • Offer advice to government ministries or departments (e.g., Ontario Immunization Advisory Committee).

  2. Operational Service Agencies

    • Deliver goods/services to the public at low or no cost (e.g., Legal Aid Ontario).

  3. Operational Enterprises

    • Sell goods/services commercially (e.g., LCBO), possibly competing with private sectors.

  4. Regulatory Agencies

    • Make independent regulatory decisions in public interest (e.g., WSIB, LSO, CRTC).

  5. Adjudicative Tribunals

    • Determine legal rights independently (e.g., Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario).

  6. Crown Foundations

    • Manage donations to support public organizations.

  7. Trust Agencies

    • Administer funds/assets for named beneficiaries (e.g., Workplace Safety and Insurance Board).

  8. Watchdog Agencies

    • Monitor government actions to inform the public (e.g., Ontario Ombudsman).

  9. Non-Scheduled Agencies

    • Diverse in function, such as university and hospital governing boards.

  10. Commissions and Inquiries

  • Investigate specific issues, providing findings/recommendations.

Reasons for Government Delegation to Tribunals

  1. Independent Review of Decisions

    • Establish mechanisms for reviewing governmental decisions.

  2. Dispute Resolution

    • Address disputes between individuals or companies rather than between the government and citizens.

  3. Serious Consequences of Decisions

    • When decisions carry significant implications for individuals or society, informal processes are insufficient (public health, individual livelihoods).

Multi-Purpose Agencies

  • Some administrative agencies combine functions like advisory, regulatory, and adjudicative roles. They may apply different rules and procedures depending on the context, and functions may overlap in certain tribunals.

Rationale for Establishing Administrative Agencies

  • Establish agencies to enhance independence, manage workload efficiently, minimize conflicts of interest, provide flexibility in staffing and costs, and ensure public representation and expert involvement.

  • Agencies enable the government to address social issues dynamically and dissolve when no longer needed.

Principles of Administrative Law

Separation of Functions

  • Agencies must appoint different personnel to handle varied roles ensuring fairness (e.g., separate prosecutors and judges). Procedures must adapt according to the function.

No Delegation of Authority

  • Tribunal members cannot delegate their decision-making authority and must independently evaluate evidence and outcomes.

Tribunal Powers and Responsibilities

  • Governed by enabling legislation and common law, tribunals adjudicate similarly to courts but in a more relaxed setting. They hold hearings, require witness attendance, and decide disputes.

Advantages of Tribunals

  • Community involvement boosts legitimacy; specialized expertise enhances decision quality; processes are more accessible and cost-effective; adjudication can occur quickly.

Differences Between Tribunals and Courts

  • Tribunals maintain procedural fairness while enjoying flexibility in evidence rules, unlike courts which are bound by stricter procedures and guidelines.

  • Seating arrangements differ, with outlining arrangements in courts; tribunals enable a more inclusive atmosphere.

Adversarial vs. Inquisitorial Models of Adjudication

Adversarial Model

  • Encourages parties to determine evidence submission, with tribunals playing a passive role.

Inquisitorial Model

  • Active role for tribunals in evidence gathering; adjudicators can independently investigate, enhancing thoroughness in decision-making.

Active Adjudication and Reform Considerations

  • Some processes may blend adversarial and inquisitorial methods, enhancing accessibility and justice. Calls for reforms aim at improved transparency, accountability, and operational efficiency in Ontario’s administrative agencies.