THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE Secretariat and Office of General Counsel 22 September 2016 Secretariat & Office of General Counsel

INTRODUCTION The rules of natural justice are derived from administrative law, one of the branches of law governing interactions between governments and private citizens. To a greater or lesser degree, the concepts – natural justice, procedural fairness, fair play in action – have been applied to decision-making in judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative settings outside of government, including at universities. Therefore, it is important to understand the principles of natural justice in order to be able to apply them correctly in your role as a University decision maker. Secretariat & Office of General Counsel

SPECTRUM OF FAIRNESS Administrative Matters Judicial/Quasi-Judicial Matters fewer procedural considerations - court-like procedures Duty of Fairness Natural Justice Considerations - nature of decision being made and process followed in making it - nature of the statutory scheme and terms according to which the body operates - importance of the decision to the individual(s) - legitimate expectations of the individual(s) - choice of procedure made by the body itself Secretariat & Office of General Counsel

Principles of natural justice The rules of natural justice are enshrined in the following two principles: “audi alteram partem” (let the other side be heard). This is the principle that no person should be judged without a fair hearing in which each party is given the opportunity to present their case and respond to the evidence against them. “nema judex in causa sua” (no one can be the judge in their own cause). This gives rise to a duty to act fairly, to listen to arguments and to reach a decision in a manner that is untainted by bias. The key to natural justice is to ensure that decision-making processes are transparent, impartial, evidence-based and, therefore, fair. Secretariat & Office of General Counsel

Audi alteram partem the right to be heard 1. Notice of Hearing 2. Hearing a) Written vs. Oral b) Evidence c) Assistance d) Witnesses e) Adjournment Decision a) Decisions by persons who have heard all the evidence b) Decision based substantially on the evidence submitted at the hearing c) Reasons for the decision d) Hearing within a reasonable time Secretariat & Office of General Counsel

Nemo Judex in causa sua debet esse FREEDOM FROM BIAS Pecuniary interest Family relationship and personal friendship Professional relationship Attitudinal bias Involvement in process Secretariat & Office of General Counsel

UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO POLICIES FOR STAFF FOR STUDENTS FOR FACULTY Policy 18 – Staff Employment Policy 33 - Ethical Behaviour Policy 36 – Dispute Resolution for University Support Staff Union Agreement between the University of Waterloo and The Canadian Union of Public Employees C.L.C. Local 793 Policy 33 – Ethical Behaviour Policy 70 – Student Petitions and Grievances Policy 71 – Student Discipline Policy 72 Student Appeals Policy 77 (Part 7) – Tenure and Promotion of Faculty Members The Memorandum of Agreement between the Faculty Association of the University of Waterloo and the University of Waterloo – Article 9 (Grievance and Arbitration) Secretariat & Office of General Counsel

FAILURE TO APPLY RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE Mandamus  an order demanding a person to perform a duty or an act. 2. QuoWarranto  removal of a person occupying an office illegally. 3. Judicial Review  court of law is asked to rule on the appropriateness of a University decision. Secretariat & Office of General Counsel

Questions & contact If you have any questions, please contact: Secretariat: Alice Raynard araynard@uwaterloo.ca Office of General Counsel: Laurie Arnott laurie.arnott@uwaterloo.ca Secretariat & Office of General Counsel