CASUAL LEGAL: Fatal Inadequacy: An Applicant’s Right to Reasons

Fatal Inadequacy: An Applicant’s Right to Reasons   

By Emma Banfield

Reynolds Mirth Richards Farmer LLP

AMSC Casual Legal Service Provider

In many circumstances, whether under the common law or by way of a statutory requirement, a person applying to a decision maker for a determination of a contested question is entitled to reasons for the decision maker’s conclusion. Where a board or tribunal fails to provide adequate reasons for its decision, the determination can be overturned. A recent Alberta Court of Appeal decision overturned the decision of a Subdivision and Appeal Board (SDAB) because the reasons were “fatally inadequate”.

How can an applicant determine if the reasons they have been provided are adequate? How can a decision maker, writing reasons, determine if their reasons are adequate? In a nutshell, adequate reasons will “bear the hallmarks of reasonableness: justification, transparency and intelligibility.” This is because there are three objectives in providing reasons for a decision: (a) to help parties understand why a decision was made; (b) to afford public accountability for a decision; and (c) to permit effective appellate review.

By way of example, in the recent decision, the SDAB had to determine if a proposed cannabis production facility complied with the County’s Municipal Development Plan (MDP). To do so, the SDAB was required to analyze the MDP to determine what the MDP actually said, and whether its language was prescriptive or merely aspirational. Instead, the SDAB, without providing any justification, concluded the MDP was “an aspirational document”. On that basis, the SDAB then concluded the County Bylaws took precedence over the MDP because latter was merely aspirational.

On appeal, the Court concluded the SDAB erred in failing to explain how it reached its conclusion. The SDAB also failed to address whether there was any inconsistency between the proposed development and the County’s MDP and Land Use Bylaw. The applicants were entitled to adequate reasons for the SDAB’s rejection of their appeal in order to meet the three objections set out above. In this case, the necessity for proper reasons was even more important because in the event of a tie vote, the appeal was automatically dismissed.

Determining the adequacy of reasons can be a subjective exercise, and indeed, at the Court of Appeal, the minority found the SDAB’s conclusion did provide an adequate explanation. It is important therefore, to remember the purpose of providing reasons, and to make sure the three hallmarks of reasonableness (justification, transparency and intelligibility) are present. 

To access AMSC’s Casual Legal Helpline, AUMA members can call toll-free to 1-800-661-7673 or email casuallegal [at] amsc.ca (casuallegal[at]amsc[dot]ca) and reach the municipal legal experts at Reynolds Mirth Richards and Farmer LLP. For more information on the Casual Legal Service, please contact riskcontrol [at] auma.ca (riskcontrol[at]auma[dot]ca), or call 310-AUMA (2862) to speak to AUMA’s Risk Management staff. Any Regular or Associate member of the AUMA can access the Casual Legal Service.

DISCLAIMER: This article is meant to provide information only and is not intended to provide legal advice. You should seek the advice of legal counsel to address your specific set of circumstances. Although every effort has been made to provide current and accurate information, changes to the law may cause the information in this article to be outdated.