Stamp v. Eastern School District (Nfld. and Lab.), (2015) 371 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 339 (NLTD(G))

• Judge: Goodridge, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (Canada)
• Case Date: April 29, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (2015), 371 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 339 (NLTD(G))

Stamp v. Eastern School Bd. (2015), 371 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 339 (NLTD(G));

    1156 A.P.R. 339

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. SE.020

Michele Stamp (applicant) v. English School District (Nfld. and Lab.)

(respondent)

(201401G7219; 2015 NLTD(G) 121)

Indexed As: Stamp v. Eastern School District (Nfld. and Lab.)

Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court

Trial Division (General)

Goodridge, J.

September 14, 2015.

Summary:

The Eastern School District's Respectful Working and Learning Environment Policy provided for a simple right of appeal from decisions of the District. Appeals were made in writing and were determined by the Executive Committee based on the written record of the investigation and the notice of appeal. Stamp appealed from two decisions by the District regarding harassment complaints. She asked the court to exercise its discretion under rule 29.10(g) of the Rules of the Supreme Court to provide direction regarding the conduct of the appeals. Specifically, Stamp wanted to appear in person before the Executive Committee and to file additional material regarding the appeals.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division (General), in a decision reported at (2013), 343 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 313; 1066 A.P.R. 313, dismissed the application. The Executive Committee dismissed the appeals. Stamp applied for judicial review.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division (General), dismissed the application.

Administrative Law - Topic 262

The hearing and decision - Right to a hearing - When right exists - Stamp was a high school teacher - Her harassment complaints regarding two coworkers were investigated under the school district's Respectful Working and Learning Environment Policy - Stamp was unhappy with the investigator's conclusions and appealed from both decisions - Following consideration of the record from the harassment investigations and written submissions, the district's Executive Committee dismissed the appeals - Stamp applied for judicial review, asserting breaches of procedural fairness - The Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division (General), having found that Stamp was entitled to a relatively low degree of procedural fairness, rejected her assertion that the Executive Committee should have held an oral hearing with cross-examination of the witnesses - An oral hearing was not necessary - The facts had been determined by the investigator - The appeal grounds related to flaws in the investigation and the outcomes' reasonableness - See paragraphs 66 to 68.

Administrative Law - Topic 266

The hearing and decision - Right to a hearing - Persons not entitled to a hearing - [See Administrative Law - Topic 262 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2267

Natural justice - The duty of fairness - Reasonable expectation or legitimate expectation - [See Administrative Law - Topic 2272 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2272

Natural justice - The duty of fairness - Circumstances or powers to which duty applies (inc. extent of duty) - Stamp was a high school teacher - Her harassment complaints regarding two coworkers were investigated under the school district's Respectful Working and Learning Environment Policy (the policy) - Stamp was unhappy with the investigator's conclusions and appealed from both decisions - Following consideration of the record from the harassment investigations and written submissions, the district's Executive Committee dismissed the appeals - Stamp applied for judicial review, asserting breaches of procedural fairness - The Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division (General), found that Stamp was entitled to a relatively low degree of procedural fairness - The decision's nature was closer to an administrative decision-making process than a judicial process - The delegation of authority to the school district under the Schools Act to create a complaint processing scheme supported a high level of deference to the district's choice of procedures as set out in the policy - Stamp's employment interest was not at stake - As Stamp had no reasonable expectation of a hearing de novo under the policy, the doctrine of legitimate expectations did not support a high level of procedural fairness - Finally, as the legislature had decided that the district was to determine its own process, Stamp could not impose her views on the Executive Committee as to the appropriate procedure - See paragraphs 44 to 65.

Administrative Law - Topic 2607

Natural justice - Evidence and proof - Receipt of new evidence at the appeal stage - Stamp was a high school teacher - Her harassment complaints regarding two coworkers were investigated under the school district's Respectful Working and Learning Environment Policy - Stamp was unhappy with the investigator's conclusions and appealed from both decisions - Following consideration of the record from the harassment investigations and written submissions, the district's Executive Committee dismissed the appeals - Stamp applied for judicial review, asserting breaches of procedural fairness - The Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division (General), having found that Stamp was entitled to a relatively low degree of procedural fairness, rejected Stamp's argument that the duty of procedural fairness required disclosure and inclusion in the record of all of the documents reviewed by the investigator - The documents at issue related almost entirely to a parallel investigation into conflicts in professional relationships and were not material to the harassment investigations or the appeals - Exclusion of the documents was consistent with the parties' original understanding regarding the parallel investigation - See paragraphs 69 to 75.

Administrative Law - Topic 2607

Natural justice - Evidence and proof - Receipt of new evidence at the appeal stage - Stamp was a high school teacher - Her harassment complaints regarding two coworkers were investigated under the school district's Respectful Working and Learning Environment Policy - Stamp was unhappy with the investigator's conclusions and appealed from both decisions - Following consideration of the record from the harassment investigations and written submissions, the district's Executive Committee dismissed the appeals - Stamp applied for judicial review, asserting breaches of procedural fairness - The Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division (General), having found that Stamp was entitled to a relatively low degree of procedural fairness, rejected Stamp's argument that the duty of procedural fairness allowed Stamp to file supplementary documentation as part of the appeal record - The school district had determined what the record would include - All material documents were disclosed and included in the appeal record - The disclosure was adequate - The Executive Committee was not required to allow Stamp to file supplementary documents - See paragraphs 76 to 78.

Administrative Law - Topic 9129

Boards and tribunals - Administrative appeals - Duty of appellate body to act fairly - [See Administrative Law - Topic 2272 ].

Education - Topic 822

Education authorities - School commissions or boards - Decisions - Duty to act fairly - [See Administrative Law - Topic 2272 ].

Cases Noticed:

Knight v. Board of Education of Indian Head School Division No. 19, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 653; 106 N.R. 17; 83 Sask.R. 81, refd to. [para. 6].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 6].

Elliott et al. v. Board of Education of Burin Peninsula (1998), 166 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 73; 511 A.P.R. 73; 80 A.C.W.S.(3d) 328 (Nlfd. C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

Aylward v. Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador (2013), 344 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 62; 1068 A.P.R. 62; 2013 NLCA 68, refd to. [para. 56].

VIA Rail Canada Inc. v. Canadian Transportation Agency et al., [2007] 1 S.C.R. 650; 360 N.R. 1; 2007 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 64].

Niaki v. Canada (Attorney General) (2006), 297 F.T.R. 262; 2006 FC 1104, dist. [para. 69].

Gerrard v. Canada (Attorney General), [2010] F.T.R. Uned. 768; 2010 FC 1152, dist. [para. 69].

Counsel:

Ian S. Patey, for the applicant;

Ian C. Wallace, for the respondent.

This application was heard at St. John's, N.L., on January 29, February 6 and April 29, 2015, by Goodridge, J., of the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division (General), who delivered the following reasons for judgment on September 14, 2015.