Clifford v. Ont. (A.G.),

• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Judge: Goudge, Sharpe and Armstrong, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2009 ONCA 670
• Citation: (2009), 256 O.A.C. 354 (CA),2009 ONCA 670,98 OR (3d) 210,312 DLR (4th) 70,93 Admin LR (4th) 131,[2009] OJ No 3900 (QL),188 LAC (4th) 97,256 OAC 354,98 O.R. (3d) 210,(2009), 256 OAC 354 (CA),[2009] O.J. No 3900 (QL),312 D.L.R. (4th) 70,256 O.A.C. 354
• Date: 20 April 2009
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)

Clifford v. Ont. (A.G.) (2009), 256 O.A.C. 354 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] O.A.C. TBEd. SE.042

Sylvia Clifford (applicant/respondent) v. The Attorney General of Ontario, The Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System and Bernadette Campbell (respondents/appellants)

(C49624; 2009 ONCA 670)

Indexed As: Clifford v. Ontario (Attorney General) et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Goudge, Sharpe and Armstrong, JJ.A.

September 23, 2009.

Summary:

The Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (OMERS) Appeal Sub-Committee (the Tribunal) determined that Campbell was Clifford's common law spouse at the time of his death and, as such, she was entitled to his OMERS pension death benefits. Ms. Clifford, Clifford's former spouse and the named beneficiary under his pension plan, applied for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision.

The Ontario Divisional Court, Pitt, J., dissenting, in a decision reported at 237 O.A.C. 277, allowed the application and quashed the Tribunal's decision. The court assessed the Tribunal's reasons against both a standard of reasonableness and the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness and it found that the Tribunal's reasons were inadequate to meet its legal obligation to provide reasons. OMERS and Campbell appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal applied the standard of correctness and concluded that the reasons given by the Tribunal were adequate to meet its legal obligation. The court also held that the Tribunal's decision in favour of Campbell met the standard of reasonableness. The court therefore allowed the appeal and dismissed the application for judicial review.

Administrative Law - Topic 547

The hearing and decision - Decisions of the tribunal - Reasons for decisions - When required - [See first Administrative Law - Topic 549 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 549

The hearing and decision - Decisions of the tribunal - Reasons for decisions - Sufficiency of - The Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (OMERS) Appeal Sub-Committee (the Tribunal) determined that Campbell was Clifford's common law spouse at the time of his death and, as such, she was entitled to his OMERS pension death benefits - Ms. Clifford, Clifford's former spouse and the named beneficiary under his pension plan, applied for judicial review - The Ontario Divisional Court allowed the application - The court assessed the Tribunals' reasons against both a standard of reasonableness and the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness and it found that the Tribunal's reasons were inadequate to meet its legal obligation to provide reasons - OMERS and Campbell appealed - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal - The court held that procedural fairness imposed a legal obligation on the Tribunal to give reasons for its decision and that the standard of review of the legal obligation to give reasons was correctness - Applying the correctness standard, the court concluded that the reasons given by the Tribunal were adequate to meet its legal obligation - The Tribunal's reasons demonstrated that the Tribunal grappled with the issues before it - From a functional perspective, they explained why the Tribunal gave the answers it did to those issues - Neither Ms. Clifford nor Campbell could be left in any doubt about that - Moreover, the reasons allowed for effective judicial review of the decision itself.

Administrative Law - Topic 549

The hearing and decision - Decisions of the tribunal - Reasons for decisions - Sufficiency of - The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed how a court was to assess whether an administrative tribunal had complied with a legal obligation to give reasons - The court stated that "In the context of administrative law, reasons must be sufficient to fulfill the purposes required of them, particularly to let the individual whose rights, privileges or interests are affected know why the decision was made and to permit effective judicial review ... this is accomplished if the reasons, read in context, show why the tribunal decided as it did. The basis of the decision must be explained and this explanation must be logically linked to the decision made. This does not require that the tribunal refer to every piece of evidence or set out every finding or conclusion in the process of arriving at the decision ... the 'path' taken by the tribunal to reach its decision must be clear from the reasons read in the context of the proceeding, but it is not necessary that the tribunal describe every landmark along the way. R.E.M. [S.C.C.] also emphasizes that the assessment of whether reasons are sufficient to meet the legal obligation must pay careful attention to the circumstances of the particular case. That is, read in the context of the record and the live issues in the proceeding, the fundamental question is whether the reasons show that the tribunal grappled with the substance of the matter" - See paragraphs 25 to 30.

Administrative Law - Topic 549

The hearing and decision - Decisions of the tribunal - Reasons for decisions - Sufficiency of - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that "it is important to differentiate the task of assessing the adequacy of reasons given by an administrative tribunal from the task of assessing the substantive decision made. A challenge on judicial review to the sufficiency of reasons is a challenge to an aspect of the procedure used by the tribunal. The court must assess the reasons from a functional perspective to see if the basis for the decision is intelligible. This is to be distinguished from a challenge on judicial review to the outcome reached by the tribunal. That may require the court to examine not only the decision but the reasoning offered in support of it from a substantive perspective. Depending on the applicable standard of review, the court must determine whether the outcome and the reasoning supporting it are reasonable or correct. That is a very different task from assessing the sufficiency of the reasons in a functional sense" - See paragraphs 31 to 32.

Administrative Law - Topic 2155

Natural justice - Administrative decisions or findings - Effect of failure of tribunal or official to give reasons for decisions (incl. sufficiency of reasons) - [See all Administrative Law - Topic 549 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 3202

Judicial review - General - Scope or standard of review - [See first Administrative Law - Topic 549 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 9102

Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Standard of review - [See first Administrative Law - Topic 549 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 1948.3

Remuneration - Pension or retirement benefits - Regulation - Superintendent or tribunal - Judicial review - [See first Administrative Law - Topic 549 ].

Cases Noticed:

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1, consd. [para. 15].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22; 174 D.L.R.(4th) 193, consd. [para. 19].

R. v. R.E.M., [2008] 3 S.C.R. 3; 380 N.R. 47; 260 B.C.A.C. 40; 439 W.A.C. 40; 2008 SCC 51, consd. [para. 28].

Counsel:

Terrence J. O'Sullivan and M. Paul Michell, for the appellant, Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System;

Sheila Holmes, for the appellant, Bernadette Campbell;

John Legge, for the respondent, Sylvia Clifford.

This appeal was heard on April 20, 2009, before Goudge, Sharpe and Armstrong, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Goudge, J.A., and was released on September 23, 2009.