Procedural justice generally has two requirements. This is the fair hearing rule and the anti-bias rule. Disclosure means that the parties share important evidence that they want to give to the decision-maker to make their decision. Each party needs to know what information the other party is relying on so that it can present well-founded arguments for all the evidence. Administrative bodies holding hearings may have disclosure requirements in their rules of procedure. If one party fails to disclose to the other party the relevant evidence on which it relies and the decision-maker goes to the hearing without giving the other party an opportunity to review the documents or request an adjournment, this could be procedurally unfair. If you want to know more about the duty of procedural justice, there is no shortage of reading material. More than 250 articles and more than 6,000 reported Canadian cases deal with the Baker decision. 14.23 Assessing questions to determine what fairness requires in individual cases can significantly reduce the content of procedural justice. This may be the case, for example, when national security issues arise. In Leghaei v.
The Director General of Security, the Federal Court of Justice has considered the obligation to ensure procedural fairness in the conduct of an “adverse security assessment” by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO).  The principle that the person affected by a decision should be able to present his or her case in a complete and fair manner underpins the duty of fairness of the proceedings and is rooted in the right to be heard.  Oral hearings may sometimes be required because of the duty of fairness, but they are not the norm and are not always necessary to comply with this obligation. An oral hearing may be required in systems similar to those of a tribunal such as the RTB, the Labour Board or the Human Rights Tribunal. Courts have stated that oral hearings are necessary when a decision depends on determining the credibility of the witness, i.e. whether or not to believe a witness.  If a decision-maker does not allow a person to speak or comment during an oral hearing, it could be procedurally unfair. Sometimes unexpected things happen that make it impossible for you to attend a hearing or meet certain deadlines required in your administrative procedure.
While there is usually no guarantee that you will have more time to hold your hearing or meet your deadlines, most courts have the discretion to give you more time or postpone the hearing in extreme circumstances. If you request additional time and the decision-maker does not grant it, it may be a breach of procedural fairness, depending on the circumstances. One of the major Supreme Court of Canada cases declaring the duty of procedural fairness is Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration). Procedural justice (also known as procedural justice) is an evidence-based practice that is reliably associated with higher levels of compliance and satisfaction with decisions made by authority figures. Increasingly, national judicial organizations have recognized the importance of promoting procedural justice. Recently, the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators passed a resolution calling on state court officials to promote the implementation of the principles of procedural fairness. a resolution to support the implementation of clear communications and simplified procedures in the courts; and a resolution encouraging leadership to promote equality of justice. Procedural Justice Assessment: To assist court administrators in reviewing procedural fairness in their own courts, this last section provides a brief assessment tool. Each court has strengths that it can draw on to improve the perception of procedural fairness by court users. These factors are repeatedly recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada. In Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v.
Vavilov, the Court listed the following factors: “The purpose of `procedural fairness` is to ensure that administrative decisions are made in a fair and open process appropriate to the decision taken and its legal, institutional and social context, with the possibility for those affected by the decision, to present their views and evidence in their entirety and to have them taken into account by the decision-maker. We strive to help judges and courts implement policies and practices that promote procedural justice in courtrooms and courthouses. In addition, we deal with policing, which is currently at the centre of most criminal law research on procedural fairness, but we retain the focus on the courts. Procedural justice may not apply in cases where a decision affects such a large number of people that it amounts to a legislative act. An obligation to ensure procedural justice may be expressly excluded by legislation, but legislation is generally interpreted in a manner consistent with the existence of an obligation to grant procedural justice. 14.20 Fair trial has traditionally included two requirements: the fair trial rule and the anti-bias rule.  The hearing rule requires a decision-maker to give a person an opportunity to be heard before making a decision that affects his or her interests.  In Kioa v.
West, Justice Gibbs stated that “the basic rule is that a legal authority empowered to interfere with a person`s rights is required to consult with it before exercising its power.”  The rule against bias ensures that the decision-maker can be objectively considered impartial and cannot be considered a preliminary ruling.  Procedural Fairness in California: Initiatives, Challenges, Recommendations (May 2011), written by the Center for Court Innovation, describes ongoing initiatives in California`s civil and traffic courts and recommends ways to improve and improve the public`s perception of procedural fairness. The report also includes a brief self-assessment tool that allows court administrators to assess procedural fairness in their local jurisdictions. The Court held that “[t]he concept of procedural fairness is very different and that its content must be decided in the specific context of each case”. Aronson and Groves, above No. 1, 491. This reflects the language of Mason J. in Kioa v. West, who stated that “the crucial question in most cases is not whether the principles of natural justice apply. It reads as follows: What does the duty to act fairly in the circumstances of the case require? “: Kioa v.
West (1985) 159 CLR 550, 585. If procedural justice has been denied, the decision made is invalid, whether the decision itself was the right or preferable decision or not. 14.14 The manner in which a person`s interests are affected is relevant to whether there is an obligation to grant procedural justice. There is less likely to be an obligation to ensure procedural justice if a decision affects a person as a member of the public or class and not as an individual.  Procedural justice may not apply if a decision “affects so many people that it is in fact a legislative act; or where the range of public policy considerations that the decision-making body can legitimately take into account is very wide”.  Practical suggestions. Justices Burke and Leben made many suggestions on how judges could improve the public`s perception of procedural fairness, including explaining procedures and decisions in plain language without legal jargon, avoiding “multitasking” (a practice that is not only intimidating, but also results in decreased performance) and video recording of oneself – both to observe personally and to provide objective feedback. receive – their behavior and behavior.. .