Knight v. Indian Head School Bd. (1990), 83 Sask.R. 81 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
…………………….
The Board of Education of the Indian Head School Division No. 19 of Saskatchewan (appellant) v. Ronald Gary Knight (respondent)
(21040)
Indexed As: Knight v. Board of Education of Indian Head School Division No. 19
Supreme Court of Canada
Dickson, C.J.C., Wilson, La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Cory and McLachlin, JJ.
March 29, 1990.
Summary:
Knight was appointed director of education by a board of education. The parties unsuccessfully attempted to renegotiate Knight’s contract. The board terminated Knight’s contract on three months’ notice, as provided for in the contract. Knight sued for wrongful dismissal, alleging a denial of procedural fairness.
The Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, in a judgment reported 53 Sask.R. 278, dismissed the action. The trial judge agreed that the board was a statutory authority bound to act in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness; that there was no lack of procedural fairness where Knight was given every opportunity to present his case and renegotiate his contract. Knight appealed.
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported 66 Sask.R. 308, allowed the appeal and set aside the termination. The court held that procedural fairness required that Knight be given reasons for his dismissal as well as a hearing. The board appealed. The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the decision of the trial judge. The court agreed that Knight’s employment could be terminated without just cause on three months’ notice. L’Heureux-Dubé, J. (Dickson, C.J.C., La Forest and Cory, JJ., concurring), held that Knight was entitled to procedural fairness. Procedural fairness was accomplished where Knight knew the reasons for his dismissal and had every opportunity to be heard. Sopinka, J. (Wilson and McLachlin, JJ., concurring), agreed that just cause was not required for termination, but stated that the board owed no duty of fairness to Knight.
Administrative Law – Topic 2143
Natural justice – Administrative decisions – Duty of administrative bodies to act fairly – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that whether an administrative body owed a duty of fairness depended partly on the nature of the decision – The court stated that “there is no longer a need, except perhaps where the statute mandates it, to distinguish between judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative decisions” – The court stated that all administrative bodies are under a duty to act fairly – “Decisions of a legislative and general nature can be distinguished in this respect from acts of a more administrative and specific nature, which do not entail such a duty” – “A duty of a preliminary nature will not in general trigger the duty to act fairly …” – See paragraphs 25 to 26.
Administrative Law – Topic 2261
Natural justice – Duty of fairness – General – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the general duty to act fairly depended upon (1) the nature of the decision made by the administrative body; (2) the relationship between the administrative body and the individual; and (3) the effect of the decision on the individual’s rights – See paragraph 24.
Administrative Law – Topic 2266
Natural justice – Duty of fairness – Procedural fairness – What constitutes – [See Administrative Law – Topic 2272].
Administrative Law – Topic 2266
Natural justice – Duty of fairness – Procedural fairness – What constitutes – A director of education was dismissed without cause as provided for in his contract – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that because the director was an office holder at pleasure, the duty of fairness owed to him was minimal – The court stated that the requirements of procedural fairness were met, notwithstanding the lack of a formal hearing, where the director knew the reasons for his dismissal and was given every opportunity to be heard by the board of education – The court stated that the duty to give reasons was satisfied by revealing the general substance of the reasons for dismissal – See paragraphs 46 to 51.
Administrative Law – Topic 2272
Natural justice – Duty of fairness – Circumstances where duty applied – Dismissal of office holder at pleasure – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that a dismissed office holder at pleasure (director of education) was entitled to procedural fairness – The board of education must be cognizant of all relevant circumstances surrounding the employment and its termination – Procedural fairness did not require the board to show cause for dismissal, but only that the board give reasons for termination and afford the office holder an opportunity to be heard – The court stated that neither the employment contract, nor the Education Act, absolved the board from its duty to act fairly – The court noted that the board exercised delegated statutory powers and the public had an interest in ensuring they were not exercised improperly – See paragraphs 31 to 45.
Education – Topic 822
Education authorities – School boards – Decisions – Duty to act fairly – [See Administrative Law – Topic 2272].
Education – Topic 825
Education authorities – School boards – Decisions – Termination of administrative personnel – Knight was appointed director of education by the board of education – His contract provided for termination on “three months notice in writing” or “for reasons of just cause provided that the employee shall be entitled to a fair hearing and investigation pursuant to s. 113 of the Education Act” – The Supreme Court of Canada interpreted the Education Act as not requiring cause for dismissal – The court stated that the contract clearly provided for dismissal without cause on three months notice – See paragraphs 14 to 21.
Education – Topic 825
Education authorities – School boards – Decisions – Termination of administrative personnel – [See Administrative Law – Topic 2266].
Cases Noticed:
Barrett, Nicholas and Reiss v. Board of Education of the Northern Lights School Division No. 113, [1988] 3 W.W.R. 500; 64 Sask.R. 81 (C.A.), consd. [para. 8].
Cardinal v. Director of Kent Institution, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 643; 63 N.R. 353, consd. [para. 9].
Syndicat des employés de production du Québec et de l’Acadie v. Commission Canadienne des droits de la personne et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 879; 100 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 25].
Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and Anti-Poverty Organization v. Attorney General of Canada, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 735; 33 N.R. 304, refd to. [para. 26].
Ridge v. Baldwin, [1963] 2 All E.R. 66, consd. [para. 28].
Wilson and Nova Scotia Government Employees’ Association v. Civil Service Commission of Nova Scotia, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 211; 35 N.R. 103; 43 N.S.R.(2d) 631; 81 A.P.R. 631, refd to. [para. 28].
Malloch v. Aberdeen Corp., [1971] 2 All E.R. 1278 (H.L.), consd. [para. 29].
Kane v. Board of Governors of the University of British Columbia, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1105; 31 N.R. 214, consd. [para. 35].
Wiseman v. Borneman, [1969] 3 All E.R. 275, refd to. [para. 37].
Furnell v. Whangarei High School Board, [1973] A.C. 660, refd to. [para. 46].
Maxwell v. Department of Trade and Industry, [1974] Q.B. 523, refd to. [para. 46].
R. v. Beare; R. v. Higgins, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387; 88 N.R. 205; 71 Sask.R. 1, refd to. [para. 46].
Selvarajan v. Race Relations Board, [1976] 1 All E.R. 12, refd to. [para. 49].
Statutes Noticed:
Education Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. E-0.1, sect. 91(x) [para. 14]; sect. 106(1), sect. 107, sect. 108 [para. 29]; sect. 112 [para. 14]; sect. 113(1), sect. 113(3), sect. 113(9) [para. 40]; sect. 206(d) [para. 14].
Education Act Regulations, sect. 21(4)(d) [para. 42]; sect. 37(1) [para. 14].
Authors and Works Noticed:
de Smith, Judicial Review of Administrative Action (4th Ed. 1980), p. 240 [para. 49].
Dussault and Borgeat, Traité de droit administratif, tome 3, 2e éd., p. 370 [para. 26].
Molot, Employment During Good Behaviour or at Pleasure (1989), 2 C.J.A.L.P. 238, p. 250 [para. 31].
Pépin and Ouellette, Principes de contentieux administratif, p. 249 [para. 46].
Wade, Administrative Law (5th Ed. 1982), pp. 482, 483 [para. 49]; 498, 499 [para. 29]; 500 [paras. 31, 32]; 501 [para. 32].
Counsel:
G.L. Gerrand, Q.C., for the appellant;
F.L. Dunbar, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on November 28 and 29, 1989, before Dickson, C.J.C., Wilson, La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Cory and McLachlin, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On March 29, 1990, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:
L’Heureux-Dubé, J. (Dickson, La Forest and Cory, JJ., concurring – see paragraphs 1 to 52;
Sopinka, J. (Wilson and McLachlin, JJ., concurring) – see paragraphs 53 to 74.
