Digital Brain
digital brain
digital brain

Equitable Remedies at Tribunals? Only if Statutory

July 2015 Administrative Law Bulletin 3 minutes read

Pleas for equity often ring out in courtrooms. Lawyers may invoke inherent jurisdiction of the courts and common law precedent to seek relief. Are adjudicative tribunals required to consider similar requests? Recent appellate case law shows that there is a strong limitation on the grant of equitable relief by an administrative tribunal.

In Alberta v. McGeady,[1] the Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed leave against an appellate decision upholding a lower court decision.[2]The McGeady decision upheld the importance of a tribunal’s enabling statute. The Supreme Court’s denial of leave makes the decision persuasive across Canada.

The Board’s Award of a Remedy

Mr. McGeady applied for statutory benefits arising from knee problems. The first adjudicator denied benefits on account of section 6(1) of the Public Service Long Term Disability Continuance Plan Regulation (Regulation). The first-level appeal adjudicator upheld the initial denial of benefits. Mr. McGeady, supported by the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, sought to appeal to Alberta’s Long Term Disability Second Level Appeal Board (Board).[3]

The Board granted Mr. McGeady relief on a “broader view of the circumstances” and in part due to fairness and justice.[4]

The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench subsequently overturned the decision of the Board.[5] The lower court’s decision is foreshadowed in the first paragraph by the following sentence:

This case is noteworthy because the Appeal Board deliberately ignored the governing statutory provision and based its decision on a standard it made up.

The Court of Appeal Rejects Equity

On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the issue was framed with at least nuanced difference. The Board’s decision was characterized as arising from equity and the issue was whether the Board had properly interpreted its granted authority.[6]

The Court of Appeal held that the Board awarded disability benefits even though under its statutory authority it had no specific authority to do so.[7] The court considered the Public Service Act, the Administrative Procedures and Jurisdiction Act and the Regulation to determine if the Board had broad powers to grant the benefits. The court did not find statutory language granting the Board broad authority to take action it considered proper.[8]

The Court of Appeal held that the award granting benefits was in direct conflict with words in the related statute and therefore unreasonable.[9]

Equity (or Other Remedies) Require Statutory Basis

The Court of Appeal distinguished the legislation of other tribunals, such as the Alberta Labour Relations Board. The court pointed out that these tribunals may have broader authority.[10] However, although not considered by the court in McGeady, even in these types of adjudicative tribunals, courts have sought statutory authority for the granting of a remedy.[11]

Any grant of equitable relief made by an administrative tribunal should arise from some language in statute or regulation. Parties arguing cases before administrative tribunals should ensure that the relief they are seeking (or the relief sought by the other side) has an arguable home in the tribunal’s enabling legislation.

by Adam D.H. Chisholm and Marc-Elie Scott

1 Alberta v McGeady, 2015 ABCA 54, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused: http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/case-dossier/info/sum-som-eng.aspx?cas=36334.

Alberta v McGeady, 2014 ABQB 104.

Alberta v McGeady, 2014 ABQB 104 at paras. 6-14.

Alberta v McGeady, 2014 ABQB 104 at para. 16.

Alberta v McGeady, 2014 ABQB 104 at para. 58.

6 Alberta v McGeady, 2015 ABCA 54 at para. 2.

Alberta v McGeady, 2015 ABCA 54 at para. 6.

Alberta v McGeady, 2015 ABCA 54 at para. 7.

9 Alberta v McGeady, 2015 ABCA 54 at para. 8.

10 Alberta v McGeady, 2015 ABCA 54 at para. 7.

11 For example, in Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v Canada (AG), 2011 SCC 53, the Supreme Court held that legal costs could not be awarded to a Human Rights applicant as “expenses”.

A Cautionary Note

The foregoing provides only an overview and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are cautioned against making any decisions based on this material alone. Rather, specific legal advice should be obtained.

© McMillan LLP 2015

Related Publications (5 Posts)

Featured Insight

McMillan’s ESG Strategy Sessions

The COVID-19 pandemic and increased concerns over environmental and social issues, such as climate change and systemic racism, have prompted conversations throughout global capital markets.

Details
Wednesday, October 6, 2021
Featured Insight

Divisional Court confirms Environmental Significance of Ministerial Zoning Orders and Importance of Consultation under the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993

Review of Divisional Court decision: Ontario’s compliance with Environmental Bill of Rights in passing Bill 197, particularly re: Ministerial Zoning Orders

Read More
Sep 13, 2021
Featured Insight

Federal Government Launches Consultations on Remedies Against Low-Priced Imports

A review of the stakeholder engagement process for proposed amendments to the Special Import Measures Act and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act

Read More
Sep 13, 2021
Featured Insight

Mandatory Mask Policy Does Not Breach Human Rights Act

Alberta's Human Rights Commission has dismissed a complaint alleging that Costco discriminated against a customer who refused to wear a mask or face shield.

Read More
Sep 9, 2021
Featured Insight

The pitfalls associated with sustainability-linked bonds

Short article on the pitfalls associated with sustainability-linked bonds.

Read More
Sep 8, 2021