Was There a Fair Hearing? Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)79 A woman was ordered deported. She applied, on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, for an exemption from the rule that an application for permanent residency had to be made from outside of Canada. Her application was supported by letters about the availability of medical care in her home country and the effect of her depar- ture on her Canadian-born children. An immigration officer refused her application by letter, without providing reasons for his decision. The Supreme Court indicated that the duty of procedural fairness is flexible and vari- able. The extent of the duty depends on several factors, including the nature of the deci- sion (the more an administrative tribunal is designed like a court, the higher the duty of fairness), the relevant legislation (greater procedural fairness is required if there is no appeal process, the decision is determinative/final, and there are no further requests that can be made of the tribunal), the importance of the decision to the individual affected (the higher the stakes, the higher the requirement of fairness), and the procedure fol- lowed in making it (legitimate expectations of the party[ies] regarding the level of proce- dural fairness that ought to be part of the decision-making process). Here the claimant had to have an opportunity to present evidence and to have it fully and fairly considered. An oral hearing was not required; the chance to provide written documentation was suf- ficient. Written notes prepared by a junior officer that were provided to the claimant's lawyer were a sufficient explanation of the decision. The claimant was successful, how- ever, because these notes gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The decision appeared to be based on the fact that the claimant was a single mother with several children and had been diagnosed with a psychiatric illness. This was inappropriate; deci- sions of this nature should instead be made impartially, based on the evidence. The Court ordered that another hearing be held in front of a different immigration officer. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS Are the standards imposed on administrative tribunals too onerous? Should the courts ever have the power to interfere with the operation of statutory tribunals in the execu- tion of their function? Should such tribunals remain unfettered from the restrictions of rules and procedures found in the court process? What do you think?