Why is procedural fairness important

Although the officer had discretion whether or not to approve the application, the Court made clear that discretion is not without limits.

They also gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias, which is a topic worthy of an article unto itself. The Court outlined a non-exhaustive list of factors that determine the content of procedural fairness owed in individual cases.

Those factors repeatedly continue to be recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada. In Canada Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v. Vavilov the Court listed these factors as including:. The Court in Baker also stated that in certain circumstances, the duty of fairness requires a written explanation for a decision. If you would like to know more about the duty of procedural fairness, there is no shortage of reading material. More than articles and more than 6, reported Canadian cases discuss the Baker decision.

Although Baker is now 20 years old, its timeless truths of fair dealing, humanity and compassion continue to resonate within the legal profession and among Canadians. In , it remained among the top 10 cases in Canada. Their research has shown that if courts are respectful, neutral, easy to understand and give people involved in the case have a voice, they can build trust in the law. It is this trust which causes people to comply with court orders, to co-operate with the police and ultimately to obey the law.

This report, sets out why procedural fairness matters for courts, explains the factors which affect whether people feel fairly treated and puts forward some practical ideas on what courts can do about to improve it. It is intended as a practical resource for people working in courts, as well as a guide to research in this area. But by focussing on the experience of members of the public caught up in the justice system — whether as defendants, victims or witnesses — courts can make a real difference to public trust in the law.

For a more detailed discussion of practical justice, see Ch 8. It is: what does the duty to act fairly require in the circumstances of the particular case? An adverse security assessment is one that is prejudicial to the interests of the person, and contains a recommendation that prescribed administrative action, the implementation of which would be prejudicial to the interests of the person, be taken or not be taken: Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act Cth s Additionally, a person who receives an adverse security assessment will not be eligible for a protection visa: Migration Act Cth s 36 1B.

Ibid [88]. Is there a duty? Additionally, a person who receives an adverse security assessment will not be eligible for a protection visa: Migration Act Cth s 36 1B [43] Leghaei v Director General of Security [] FCA 10 November [83].