INTRODUCTION
Procedural justice or procedural fairness, which is also referred to as natural justice, is a major legal principle in administrative law that is meant to ensure that people are treated with fairness at different stages of decision-making (Röhl, 2019). Considering its roots in English Common Law that can be traced back to the Middle Ages and the abundance of its legal traditions throughout centuries, it has considerably changed its look and usage over time. This fundamental system was systematized on historical grounds with natural justice principles and inspired by Romano law and early Christian teaching, which guarantees equitable treatment, transparency, and impartiality in administrative proceedings (Sznycer & Patrick, 2020). The landmark case of Baker V. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) is the first place in Canada’s jurisprudence as it articulates the fundamental concepts of proper procedure, such as notice of hearing, revealing all relevant evidence, and fair judgment explanation (Nakata, 2022). This delicate judgment indicates the necessity of creativity regarding the procedure and, especially concerning vulnerable groups like refugee claimants.
Within Canada, the notion of fair hearings determines administrative decision-making to a large extent, impacting how various entities such as government agencies, boards, and tribunals work. It guarantees the declaration of an equitable and open justice system where anyone can express their position and objection to statements that are against them and understand the reasons that determine decisions that shape their rights and interests (Scassa, 2020). In addition to this, procedural justice also helps the formation of proper decision-making by increasing transparency, accountability, and the dignity and rights of the people. Procedural fairness is divided into two categories: this hearing process and the decision-making process have to be based on procedural justice and procedural fairness (Walters & Bolger, 2018). In short, the disability criterion relates to the quality of the decision, which touches upon the integrity of the process, free from bias, conflict of interest and the strength of the arguments made. One of the components of the former is that the due process should be fair when considering the process of the hearing, which entails presenting evidence that he is being heard and that there is an unbiased decision-maker.
The article compares procedural fairness in administrative decision-making, using Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) as a benchmark. Ms. Baker’s refugee case serves as the context and emphasis of the judge’s procedural fairness remarks, which constitute the court’s approach and sometimes the judge’s conclusion. The case from the Immigration and Refugee Board’s rejection of Ms. Baker’s petition to the Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling will overshadow the fair process that was either enforced or disregarded. The study also examines Baker’s Canadian administrative case’s long-term effects. It highlights problems and suggests methods to improve justice, transparency, and accountability in government. The paper uses empirical examples and philosophical analysis to show that procedural fairness promotes fundamental changes in public and private government in Canada and adjacent states.
Analysis
In the Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) case, who was a Jamaican seeking refugee status in Canada became the focus of the case, despite the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) first rejecting her claim and mostly (because) of her credibility matters, her lawyer does not agree with those unreasonable decisions. Ms. Baker elected to contest the judgment; she would compete before the Supreme Court of Canada in 1999. The parties were Ms. Baker, the appellant, and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who was the respondent, as well as the Immigration and Refugee Board, who made the initial determination. This fact, on the one hand, became prominent in the determination of Ms. Baker’s refugee status while, at the same time, being applied through the exercising of procedural fairness principles. In this case, the breaches of some of the elements of substantive justice were either shown or went unnoticed (Alton, 2019). Ms Baker emphasized that she did not have a fair hearing from the IRB committee because she was treated as not credible without being given a proper chance to give her response, which was the other side of the story. The IRB’s decision predominantly entailed credibility concerns without thoroughly establishing possible evidence against Ms. Baker. It becomes, moreover, a violation of her right to know the information against her. Ms. Baker stated she was given very limited time and space to introduce evidence, which affected her ability to verify correctly her refugee claim (Clark, 2017). The question of how impartial the IRB’s decision-making process was, as shown when it happened to be her credibility, started to loom in the air. It is questionable whether the IRB gave proper reasons because the reasons for the ending of Ms Baker’s refugee claim are very vague and do not disclose the basis upon which the IRB based its decision, therefore breaking Ms Baker’s right to know why her refugee claim was declined.
In Baker v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration Minister), the applicant violated or satisfied many procedural due process principles at various judicial stages. Denying an individual the chance to establish and respond to claims violates their right to be heard and defend themselves. Ms Baker argued that the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) misrepresented their evidence and credibility concerns against her. It prevented Ms. Baker from representing herself and denied her the right to a jury trial. When employees facing disciplinary fines in an organization are not given clear and exact grounds to develop their defence, tangible parts of the violation are offered. Another issue is the Baker case’s infringement of the right to explanations for decisions (Delisle & Nakache, 2022). On decision-makers, the Supreme Court Board underlined the need for clear and sufficient grounds and decision accuracy, allowing parties to comprehend the proper judgement and accelerating appellate or reviewing statute. Though short on reasonable questions, the IRB failed to address Ms. Baker’s key reasons for rejecting the refugee application. This infringement prevented Ms Baker from understanding the decision’s rationale and devising remedies and corrections. Administrative irregularities without explanations leave people confused and alarmed, demonstrating insufficient reason for breaches. The notion of procedural fairness, stated in Baker’s case, requires decision-makers to offer fair hearings and weigh important matters (Zadyraka, 2022). Supreme Court acknowledged the principle of making rulings on the principles of law and conducting court processes fairly and inclusively for all, including vulnerable persons like refugee claimants (Daly, 2022). These criteria follow the theory, but Ms. Baker’s case indicates that the hearing procedure and evidence analysis raise many issues. Accepting these rules emphasizes their importance in protecting formal grievance participants’ attitudes.
Moreover, the case exposed a number of ways in which the administrative process in Canada needed to be stronger. The people who needed the knowledge or financial means to affix legal representation to navigate the refugee claim were deprived of access to legal counsel, especially during the early legal stages. Irregularity ensued in the administration of procedural fairness rules among the different levels in the hierarchical process, causing much unfairness in some cases. The administrative process was unjust as it needed to take the language and cultural causes of these difficulties into account, which in turn barred the claimants from a successful claim. Additionally, the issue of the decision process by the IRB, which needs to be clarified to the public, is another point that was questioned as concerns about accountability and the process itself integrity were raised (“problem of procedural fairness,” 2020). It is necessary to bridge these gaps, which has led to various proposals. Sustained and intensified judicial services, including the creation of the offices of legal aid, would provide the needed legal services for refugees (Banks & Dias-Abey, 2019). Providing operating standards and specific training for involved persons results in the uniform application of procedural justice principles. To deal with the different backgrounds of the refugees who are claimants, cultural competency training should be provided not only for the decision-makers but also for the support staff. Increased plain language in the office dealing with the measures improving transparency, like giving written reasons for decisions and allowing for meaningful review and appeal, can provide additional accountability and can build social trust in the administrative process. Regardless of the advancement in this domain, discrepancies still need to be present in the framework of the Canadian administrative system. A strong commitment to expediting legal aid services through budget allocation will facilitate the provision of legal services to the most vulnerable people in the area. Demands for the dissemination of norms and remediation of systemic problems need to be continuous to sustain fairness and equity in the process of making decisions (Pearson, 2020). Enhanced transparency and accountability measures are essential to maintain public trust and confidence in the administrative process.
Baker’s have influenced civil society administrations privately and governmentally, especially in neighbouring nations where procedural fairness is maintained in decision-making. In public administration, the Immigration and Refugee Determination Proceedings Act conceived these improvements. Since Baker v Minister of Immigration established these principles in the case law, the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) in Canada has increased the transparency, consistency, and accessibility of its procedures (King, 2020). Policy development includes offering administrators clear guidelines, training on how to do it, and providing law counsel to all groups, especially the poor. We and its neighbours are also studying Baker’s case to strengthen immigration and asylum constitutional rights procedures. Concrete examples include equitable approval processes, interpreters for non-English speakers, time to prepare cases, and reviews of prompted judgements. However, Baker’s case helped neighbouring states and private administrative entities in Canada adopt fair decision-making standards. For instance, job tribunals and human rights boards must ensure that all parties are heard, all facts are reviewed, and anyone accused can react. Overall, this baker’s case has sparked a movement in Canada and other territories to promote preparatory fairness with the public and private sectors, transparency, accountability, and equal treatment for all in planning (Linovski et al., 2022).
The administrative justice system relies on procedural impartiality to make outcomes transparent and fair for the public. Each case’s facts may determine the procedural fairness objective. However, such individuals can receive more procedural justice. Grievance procedures in schools require students accused of academic misconduct to argue their case. Such students are entitled to be heard, provide evidence, and seek legal aid. In this approach, employee termination conflicts frequently involve the right to be heard fairly and impartially, where an employee can discuss the termination’s reasons and present their case (Albors-Llorens, 2020). Criminal defendants have even greater procedural rights, including the right to a lawyer and the presumption of innocence unless proven guilty. What a contrast to instances where people do not deserve written choice reasoning. Another practical example is regular customized issues where the choice has little impact on the persons concerned. Immigration applications that follow the rules have no disputed aspects. These situations may not require a written statement. If the decision is based on the organization’s norms and regulations, written justifications are not important in blue-collar disciplinary hearings (Solomakh, 2022). Additionally, decision-makers may ban written justifications in immigration and national security cases where security and confidentiality may conflict.
Even if a core rule does not obligate parties to oral hearings in each case, there are specific instances necessitated to give parties the best chance to have a fair trial. For instance, in matters where the facts or the law are involved in complicated ethical problems where there is a whiff of disagreement between the parties, there is the need for an oral hearing for the full and fair consideration of the problems (Metzger, 2020). The focus of summary judgment proceedings in child protection is on welfare, where all parties involved have an opportunity to advance evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and ensure that the child’s best interests are taken into mind. Pertaining to cross-examination, its use in administrative proceedings depends on the issues that are raised through the case, the credibility of witnesses and how important it will test each piece of evidence. Although cross-examination can be quite an effective technique for bringing forth the truth while bumping off inconsistencies in one’s testimony, this process must be practised within the confines of other important procedural justice principles that may call for the fulfilment of one’s right to a fair hearing and to the avoidance of undue delays. It is vital to take into account credibility, which is a core element in cases where it is central, such as in refugee proceedings and disciplinary hearings, where cross-examination may be of significant importance to ensure a fair and thorough assessment of facts. Nonetheless, taking into account the really important cases where witnesses are being abused or traumatized, cross-examination must be handled with maximum care, and the victim’s dignity and well-being must be the top priority (NAM, 2020). It should be the basis of the decision to conduct cross-examination, which should consider the principles of fairness, proportionality, and the rights of all parties.
Conclusion
Leaving the last words, we can safely say that this case has left a very deep, irremovable trace of procedural justice in Canada and its nearest states. The case is a good illustration of a feature of administrative decision-making: the importance of procedural fairness. It is even more evident in these instances when a position of power is used to control the lives of individuals at a disadvantage, like refugee claimants. It pointed out both the principles that were maintained and those that were not. Thus, light was partially shed on the sacred Canadian administrative procedures that were left with no room for further improvements. Notwithstanding the advances that have been achieved regarding some parts of these gaps through recommendations that include eliciting the services of legal aid, establishing standardized procedures and putting more transparency measures on the agenda, several challenges are still immense and need to be considered to guarantee ease of access to justice for all individuals involved in administrative meetings. Public or private business administration requires the development of policies not only to ensure procedural justice but also to shape the quality of life of individuals and communities. The future of procedural fairness in Canada could comprise new technological upgrades that will be used to improve timely access to justice- for instance, through online dispute resolution platforms, virtual hearing capabilities, and so on. These inventions will assist in overcoming the issues related to distance, languages, and accessibility; thus, it will enable the administrators to process the services more inclusively and efficiently (Sanders & Scanlon, 2021). It can also become clear that the idea of procedural fairness is becoming more and more intertwined with other values of fairness, such as culturally adapted ways and trauma-informed care practices. Along with Canada’s multicultural context, there will likely be greater emphasis made in the future to ensure that the administrative processes take the inner and outer cultural backgrounds of individuals into proper consideration.
Besides, there might be a parallel strategy to reinforce accountability and surveillance systems, which can be used to curb corruption, promote transparency, and encourage integrity in decision-making. It could include having the power to form the creation of formal independent review bodies, or it could involve one person specifically called an ombudsperson office for the investigation of unfair processes and the accountability to the respective decision-makers. For example, the increasing attention may be on providing the safeguards of procedural justice in the non-traditional preference of administrative contexts like online platforms and some alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (Ruder & Woods, 2019). Digital terrain would keep on evolving. Therefore, principles of adapting procedural fairness to new modes of communication and interaction via the Internet, as well as ensuring that individuals are given a chance for a fair deal irrespective of the forum where cases are handled, is necessary. Finally, the Baker case is a prime example of the milestones in the growth of procedural justice in the Canadian context. However, considerable accomplishments still need to be achieved to remedy the existing gaps and challenges in the administrative system. Through adopting and nurturing innovation while enforcing accountability and working for inclusivity, Canada keeps up with the uprightness of its process rules to ensure that all people have the opportunity to access fair procedure and justice in the form of administrative proceedings.
References
Albors-Llorens, A. (2020). 10. Judicial protection before the Court of Justice of the European Union. European Union Law, 283-333. https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198855750.003.0010
Alton, A. (2019). Rethinking fairness in tribunal adjudication to best promote access to justice. Canadian Journal of Administrative Law & Practice, 32(3), 157-177.
Banks, K., & Dias-Abey, M. (2019). Migrant workers: Contesting definitions, institutional responses, and rights. International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations, 35(Issue 2), 153-161. https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2019008
Clark, E. (2017). Reasonably unified: The hidden convergence of standards of review in the wake of Baker. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3082520
Daly, P. (2022). An update on administrative law: The Supreme Court of Canada in 2022. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4250315
Delisle, A., & Nakache, D. (2022). Humanitarian and compassionate applications: A critical look at Canadian decision-makers’ assessment of claims from “Vulnerable” applicants. Laws, 11(3), 40. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws11030040
King, A. S. (2020). Global civil procedure. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3652731
Linovski, O., Manaugh, K., & Baker, D. M. (2022). The route not taken: Equity and transparency in unfunded transit proposals. Transport Policy, 122, 77-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2022.04.015
Metzger, G. E. (2020). The Roberts court and administrative law. The Supreme Court Review, 2019, 1-71. https://doi.org/10.1086/708146
Nakata, S. R. (2022). Fairness: The bedrock of Ombuds practice in Canada. Canadian Journal of Bioethics, 5(3), 48. https://doi.org/10.7202/1092956ar
NAM, S. (2020). An international due process standard for competition adjudication? A critical approach. Asian Journal of Comparative Law, 15(2), 310-333. https://doi.org/10.1017/asjcl.2020.9
Pearson, M. (2020). Empathy and procedural justice in clash of rights cases. Oxford Journal of Law and Religion, 9(2), 350-371. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojlr/rwaa012
The problem of procedural fairness. (2020). Conceptualising Procedural Fairness in EU Competition Law. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781509935444.ch-001
Ruder, A. I., & Woods, N. D. (2019). undefined. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(3), 400-414. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muz017
Röhl, K. E. (2019). undefined. Procedural Justice, 1-36. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429444524-1
Sanders, C. K., & Scanlon, E. (2021). The digital divide is a human rights issue: Advancing social inclusion through social work advocacy. Journal of Human Rights and Social Work, 6(2), 130-143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41134-020-00147-9
Scassa, T. (2020). Administrative law and the governance of automated decision-making: A critical look at Canada’s directive on automated decision-making. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3722192
Solomakh, A. (2022). «History of administrative law of Ukraine» as an academic discipline at Kyiv University. CONCEPTUAL BASIS OF DEVELOPMENT OF DOMESTIC ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND PROCESS: TRENDS, PERSPECTIVES, PRACTICE, 435-465. https://doi.org/10.30525/978-9934-26-233-3-15
Sznycer, D., & Patrick, C. (2020). The origins of criminal law. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(5), 506-516. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0827-8
Walters, G. D., & Bolger, P. C. (2018). Procedural justice perceptions, legitimacy beliefs, and compliance with the law: A meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 15(3), 341-372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-018-9338-2
Zadyraka, N. (2022). undefined. CONCEPTUAL BASIS OF DEVELOPMENT OF DOMESTIC ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND PROCESS: TRENDS, PERSPECTIVES, PRACTICE, 150-180. https://doi.org/10.30525/978-9934-26-233-3-5
Zadyraka, N. (2022). undefined. CONCEPTUAL BASIS OF DEVELOPMENT OF DOMESTIC ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND PROCESS: TRENDS, PERSPECTIVES, PRACTICE, 150-180. https://doi.org/10.30525/978-9934-26-233-3-5
write