Kane v. B.C. Univ. (1980), 31 N.R. 214 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
Kane v. The Board of Governors of the University of British Columbia
Indexed As: Kane v. Board of Governors of the University of British Columbia
Supreme Court of Canada
Martland, Ritchie, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey and McIntyre, JJ.
March 3, 1980.
Summary:
This case arose out of the disciplinary suspension of a university professor by the president of the university. The professor appealed the suspension to the university board of governors. The president, as a member of the board of governors, participated in the appeal hearing. After the close of the hearing the president provided additional information to the board of governors in response to questions; although he did not participate in deliberations or vote on the decision. The board affirmed the suspension. The professor petitioned for an order quashing the decision on the ground of bias, because of the participation on the appeal by the president, who had suspended him originally. The British Columbia Supreme Court in a judgment reported 82 D.L.R.(3d) 494 dismissed the petition. The professor appealed. The British Columbia Court of Appeal in a judgment reported 11 B.C.L.R. 318 dismissed the appeal. The professor appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and set aside the board’s decision, because it received additional information from the president in the absence of the professor, a breach of the rules of natural justice. See paragraphs 1 to 22.
Ritchie, J., dissenting, was of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed, because the mere answering of questions by the president was insufficient to show that the rules of natural justice was breached. See paragraphs 23 to 35.
Administrative Law – Topic 2004
Natural justice – General principles – Requirements of natural justice – The Supreme Court of Canada set out the general principles of natural justice governing the proceedings of the board of governors of a university on an appeal from the disciplining of a professor – See paragraphs 12 to 19.
Administrative Law – Topic 2606
Natural justice – Evidence and proof – Receipt of evidence or information after the close of a hearing – A university professor appealed to the board of governors from his suspension by the president of the university – The president, as a member of the board of governors, participated in the appeal hearing – After the close of the hearing the president provided additional information to the board of governors in response to questions; although he did not participate in deliberations or vote on the decision – The Supreme Court of Canada set aside the decision of the board affirming the suspension, because it received additional information from the president in the absence of the professor – See paragraphs 1 to 22.
Cases Noticed:
Law Society of Upper Canada v. French (1974), 3 N.R. 410; [1975] 2 S.C.R. 767, refd to. [para. 8].
French v. Law Society of Upper Canada (1974), 3 N.R. 410; [1975] 2 S.C.R. 767, refd to. [para. 8].
King v. University of Saskatchewan, [1969] S.C.R. 678, refd to. [para. 8].
Ringrose v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta (1976), 9 N.R. 383; [1977] 1 S.C.R. 814, refd to. [para. 8].
Local Government Board v. Arlidge, [1915] A.C. 120, 140, appld. [para. 13].
Ridge v. Baldwin, [1962] 1 All E.R. 834, appld. [para. 14].
Russell v. Duke of Norfolk, [1949] 1 All E.R. 109, appld. [para. 14].
Abbott v. Sullivan, [1952] 1 K.B. 189, appld. [para. 15].
Board of Education v. Rice, [1911] A.C. 179, appld. [para. 16].
Kanda v. Government of the Federation of Malaya, [1962] A.C. 322, appld. [paras. 17, 31].
Errington v. Ministry of Health, [1935] 1 K.B. 249, appld. [para. 17].
Brook and Delcomyn, Re (1864), 16 C.B.R.(N.S.) 403, appld. [para. 17].
An Arbitration between Gregson and Armstrong, Re (1894), 70 T.L.R. 106, appld. [para. 17].
R. v. Deputy Industrial Injuries Commissioner Ex p. Jones, [1962] 2 Q.B. 677, appld. [para. 17].
Pfizer Company Limited v. Deputy Minister of National Revenue for Customs and Excise (1975), 6 N.R. 440; [1977] 1 S.C.R. 456, appld. [para. 18].
R. v. Birmingham City Justices, ex p. Chris Foods (Wholesalers) Ltd., [1970] 1 W.L.R. 1428, refd to. [para. 18].
R. v. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council, ex p. Hook, [1976] 3 All E.R. 452, refd to. [para. 18].
R. v. Justices of Bodmin, ex parte McEwen, [1947] 1 K.B. 321, refd to. [para. 18].
Jeffs v. New Zealand Dairy Production and Marketing Board, [1967] A.C. 551, appld. [para. 19].
R. v. Architects’ Registration Tribunal – ex parte Jaggar (1945), 61 T.L.R. 445, appld. [para. 21].
Schabas and The University of Toronto, Re, 52 D.L.R.(2d) 495, consd. [para. 33].
Statutes Noticed:
Universities Act, S.B.C. 1974, c. 100, sect. 58 [paras. 3, 27]; sect. 61 [para. 4].
Authors and Works Noticed:
de Smith, Judicial Review of Administrative Action (3rd Ed.), p. 179 [para. 17].
Halsbury’s Laws of England (3rd Ed.), vol. 10, p. 457 [para. 34].
Counsel:
David Roberts, for the appellant;
G.S. Cumming, Q.C., and M.A. Cummings, for the respondent.
This case was heard on October 25 and 26, 1979, at Ottawa, Ontario, before MARTLAND, RITCHIE, PIGEON, DICKSON, BEETZ, ESTEY and McINTYRE, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On March 3, 1980, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered and the following opinions were filed:
DICKSON, J. – see paragraphs 1 to 22;
RITCHIE, J., dissenting – see paragraphs 23 to 35.
MARTLAND, PIGEON, BEETZ, ESTEY and McINTYRE, JJ., concurred with DICKSON, J.
