Natural Justice — Ontario Employment Law
Related Keywords
About Natural Justice
In Ontario employment law, "natural justice" refers to the fundamental legal principles that ensure fair procedural processes when decisions are made that affect a person's rights, privileges, or livelihood. While most commonly associated with administrative law—such as decisions made by government tribunals, the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB), or the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT)—principles of natural justice also heavily impact unionized environments, professional regulatory bodies, and certain institutional employers like universities or hospital boards.
At its core, natural justice relies on two main pillars. The first is the right to be heard, historically known as audi alteram partem. This means that before a formalized decision is made against you—such as being expelled from a union, losing your professional license, or having tenure denied—you have the right to know the allegations and evidence against you, and you must be given a meaningful opportunity to respond. The second pillar is the rule against bias, or nemo judex in causa sua. The person or committee making the decision must be impartial. If a fair-minded and informed person would conclude that the decision-maker was biased (known as a "reasonable apprehension of bias"), the process may be legally flawed.
It is important for workers to understand how natural justice applies to their specific employment relationship. If you work for a private company and are dismissed "without cause," your employer does not strictly owe you a hearing or a right to respond; they simply owe you proper notice or severance under the Employment Standards Act (ESA) and common law. However, in contexts involving administrative bodies, unions, or terminations for "just cause," a rigged internal investigation or a refusal to hear the employee's side of the story can severely undermine the employer's case or the tribunal's ruling.
Navigating administrative appeals or internal institutional governance is procedurally complex and highly sensitive to the exact circumstances of the event. Because challenging administrative or institutional decisions involves navigating strict legal tests and deadlines, having a legal professional review the specific procedures used in your situation is the most reliable way to determine if your rights were breached.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between natural justice and procedural fairness?
In modern Ontario law, the two terms are often used interchangeably. Historically, "natural justice" applied strictly to judicial or quasi-judicial bodies, while "procedural fairness" applied to broader administrative decisions. Today, courts recognize both as part of a general duty of fairness owed to individuals facing institutional decisions.
Does my private-sector boss have to follow natural justice before firing me?
If you are a non-unionized employee being fired "without cause," your employer generally does not have to provide a formal hearing or right to respond, so long as they pay your required severance. However, if they are alleging "just cause" for severe misconduct, denying you an opportunity to explain your side can seriously weaken their legal position.
What does "reasonable apprehension of bias" mean?
This legal standard asks whether an informed, reasonable, and right-minded person would think it is more likely than not that the decision-maker, whether consciously or unconsciously, would not decide fairly. It is a common ground for overturning an administrative decision.
How do principles of natural justice apply to union members?
Unions must adhere to natural justice when conducting internal discipline, such as removing an elected union executive or revoking a membership. The targeted member must be given clear notice of the rule they allegedly broke and a fair chance to defend themselves before an impartial committee.
How do I challenge a decision that ignored natural justice?
If a government tribunal or administrative board breached these principles, it is usually challenged through a process called Judicial Review. If the breach happened internally (like inside a university or union), you must often exhaust their internal appeal mechanisms first before involving the courts.
Is there a time limit to challenge a decision for lack of fairness?
Yes, administrative tribunals and internal appeals have incredibly strict deadlines. Under the Judicial Review Procedure Act, challenges to most tribunal decisions must be launched within 30 days. It is critical to get legal guidance immediately if you believe a decision was made unfairly.
Common Scenarios
- A university faculty member is denied tenure by a review committee that includes a senior professor with a well-documented personal grudge against them, creating a clear reasonable apprehension of bias.
- A regulated professional, such as an Ontario nurse or teacher, faces suspension of their license by their regulatory college after being given only 24 hours' notice of the hearing, leaving them no realistic time to prepare a defense.
- An elected local union president is removed from their governing position by the union's national executive without ever being provided the specific details of the financial misconduct allegations against them.
- A worker appealing a denial of employment insurance (EI) benefits discovers that the administrative decision-maker relied on a secret employer document that the worker was never shown or permitted to respond to.
What You Should Know
- Always request the disclosure of all evidence, reports, and allegations in writing prior to any formal institutional meeting or disciplinary hearing so you know exactly what case you have to meet.
- If you know a decision-maker or investigator has a conflict of interest or a bias against you, you must raise an objection on the record immediately; waiting until you lose the decision to bring it up can result in you waiving your right to challenge it.
- Keep detailed, timestamped records of every time you asked to present evidence, call a witness, or read an internal report and were denied by the organization.
- Because the legal process for Judicial Review and institutional appeals relies on rigid technical rules, evaluating your procedural fairness claim with a qualified employment or administrative lawyer promptly is essential.
Featured Cases
Hart v. Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of the Diocese of Kingston, in Canada
2010 ONSC 4709 (CanLII) · 2010-08-31Constructive Dismissal: Priest's Case Stayed Due to Internal Remedies
A Roman Catholic priest's wrongful dismissal claim was stayed due to a failure to exhaust internal remedies under Canon Law. The court found that the internal processes satisfied principles of natural justice, and no abuse of process was found.
Weisleder v. Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation
2003 CanLII 14546 (ON SC) · 2003-04-03Union Governance Dispute: Injunction Denied for Union President
A merits decision involving a union governance dispute where the plaintiff sought reinstatement as president of a bargaining unit after being removed for misconduct. The court denied the injunction due to lack of irreparable harm and balance of convenience favoring the union, while acknowledging procedural issues but finding them insufficient for injunctive relief.
Munyal v. Sears Canada Inc.
1997 CanLII 12328 (ON SC) · 1997-04-17Wrongful Dismissal: Summary Judgment Denied Over Procedural Fairness
A wrongful dismissal case where the plaintiff sought summary judgment, arguing issue estoppel applied to an administrative decision by the Unemployment Insurance Commission. The defendant disputed the application of issue estoppel and alleged just cause. Summary judgment was denied due to the administrative process lacking procedural fairness and natural justice.
Ellis-Don Limited v. Ontario Labour Relations Board and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 894
1992 CanLII 6320 (ON SC) · 1992-07-17Judicial Review of OLRB: Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice
A judicial review case concerning the procedural fairness of the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB), where the applicant alleged a denial of natural justice in the OLRB’s decision-making process. The court examined whether statutory protections for administrative board officers could override natural justice principles and held that procedural transparency is essential in administrative decisions.
Re Giroux and The Queen in right of Ontario et al.
1983 CanLII 1595 (ON SC) · 1983-11-10Procedural Fairness in Tenure Evaluation: Faculty Member Challenges University Decision
A merits decision involving a faculty member denied tenure evaluation due to the university's ad hoc committee finding their master's degree minimally relevant. The case examines whether the university met procedural fairness standards, including notice and opportunity to respond, and whether the committee's composition created a reasonable apprehension of bias.
Re Paine and University of Toronto et al.
1980 CanLII 1613 (ON SC) · 1980-09-02Academic Tenure Dispute: Procedural Fairness in University Employment Decision
A merits decision involving a university president's decision not to award tenure, with questions about whether the decision constitutes a statutory power of decision and whether procedural fairness was upheld in the tenure process.
Re Fisher et al. and Hotels, Clubs, Restaurants, Tavern Employees' Union, Local 261 et al.
1980 CanLII 1882 (ON SC) · 1980-03-11Union Certification Dispute: Employees Opposing Unionization Denied Fair Hearing
A labour relations case involving employees opposing union certification, where the Ontario Labour Relations Board's decision to reject their petition and refuse to hear oral evidence was quashed for jurisdictional error and denial of natural justice.
Re Dagg and Ontario Human Rights Commission et al.
1979 CanLII 1671 (ON SC) · 1979-09-18Workplace Discrimination Case: Ontario Human Rights Commission Investigates Hiring Practices
A discrimination case involving a complaint of sex-based discrimination in hiring practices investigated by the Ontario Human Rights Commission. The Commission recommended no board of inquiry, and the Minister of Labour accepted this recommendation. The court determined that the Commission and Minister were acting in an administrative, not judicial, capacity and were not required to provide a hearing.
Re Men's Clothing Manufacturers Association of Ontario et al. and Arthurs et al.
1979 CanLII 2114 (ON SC) · 1979-09-07Labour Arbitration: Legal Representation Rights Quashed for Violating Natural Justice
A labour and employment case addressing whether parties in arbitration under a collective agreement have an absolute right to legal representation, and whether an arbitrator can limit legal counsel's participation. The court quashed the arbitrator’s ruling for improperly restricting legal representation and failing to meet natural justice requirements in a case involving complex legal and factual issues.
Re Gillingham and Metropolitan Toronto Board of Commissioners of Police
1979 CanLII 2023 (ON SC) · 1979-08-20Probationary Police Constable Forced Resignation and Procedural Fairness
A merits decision involving a probationary police constable who was forced to resign without being given an opportunity to respond to allegations. The case examines whether this constitutes a dismissal requiring procedural fairness and whether the Nicholson principle applies to probationary employees.
Re Flamboro Downs Holdings Ltd. and Teamsters Local 879
1979 CanLII 1669 (ON SC) · 1979-05-22Labour Relations Board Refusal to Adjourn Hearing Upheld as Fair
A labour relations case involving the Ontario Labour Relations Board, addressing whether the refusal to adjourn a hearing constituted a denial of natural justice or improperly fettered the board's procedural discretion. The board's decision was upheld as fair and reasonable, considering the need for procedural fairness and the expeditious resolution of labour disputes.
Re Dorothea Knitting Mills Ltd. and Canadian Textile & Chemical Union et al.
1975 CanLII 654 (ON SC) · 1975-05-13Labour Relations Board Refusal to Issue Summons Quashed
An administrative law case involving the Ontario Labour Relations Board, where the refusal to issue a summons for a field officer to testify was challenged as a denial of natural justice. The court quashed the Board’s decision and remitted the matter for the issuance of the summons.
Re Nicholson and Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Board of Commissioners of Police
1975 CanLII 454 (ON SC) · 1975-05-13Probationary Police Officer Dismissal and Natural Justice
A merits decision involving the dismissal of a probationary police officer without a hearing. The case examines whether the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness apply to probationary officers under section 27(b) of the Police Regulations, despite the regulation's exemption from formal hearing requirements.
Re Domtar Packaging Ltd. and United Paperworkers International Union
1973 CanLII 627 (ON SC) · 1973-06-25Union Certification: Procedural Fairness and Late-Arriving Employees
A certification hearing before the Ontario Labour Relations Board where objecting employees arrived late and were not heard. The Board refused to reopen the hearing or hear the late-arriving employees, raising questions about procedural fairness and whether this denied natural justice under the Labour Relations Act.
Re Canadian Union of Operating Engineers and Imperial Tobacco Products (Ontario) Ltd. et al.
1973 CanLII 680 (ON SC) · 1973-06-06Labour Relations Board Jurisdiction in Certification Dismissal Case
A certification application was dismissed by the Ontario Labour Relations Board, and the case addresses whether the Board exceeded its jurisdiction by dismissing the application without determining the appropriateness of the bargaining unit or the proportion of union membership. The dispute also involves the interpretation of sections 6, 7, and 8 of the Ontario Labour Relations Act and whether the Board's procedural rules allow for dismissal without a hearing.
Re Metropolitan Toronto Board of Police Commissioners and Metropolitan Toronto Police Association (Unit B) et al.
1973 CanLII 677 (ON SC) · 1973-05-03Police Arbitration: Time Limits and Natural Justice Considered
An interlocutory proceeding involving the arbitration process under the Police Act, where the arbitration board failed to deliver its decision within the 60-day time limit and did not explicitly address certain issues raised by the applicant. The court considered whether the statutory time limit was mandatory or directory and whether the failure to address specific issues rendered the award a nullity. The court held that the time limit was directory and that the issues were implicitly rejected.
Regina v. Schiff et al., Ex parte Trustees of the Ottawa Civic Hospital
1969 CanLII 368 (ON SC) · 1969-10-27Hospital Labour Dispute Arbitration: Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice Issues
A labour and employment case involving a hospital labour dispute arbitration where the board of arbitration relied on undisclosed external material and failed to provide procedural fairness to the parties. The case raises questions about the board's jurisdiction, compliance with statutory requirements, and potential bias in its decision-making process.
Regina v. Ontario Labour Relations Board, Ex parte Nick Masney Hotels Ltd.
1969 CanLII 394 (ON SC) · 1969-06-11Union Certification and Natural Justice: Ontario Labour Relations Board Case
An administrative law case involving the Ontario Labour Relations Board, where the employer requested an adjournment for certification of a union, but the Board refused. The case examines whether the Board’s refusal to rehear the application under section 79(1) of the Labour Relations Act violated principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.
Re Hoogendoorn and Greening Metal Products & Screening Equipment Co. et al.
1966 CanLII 202 (ON SC) · 1966-08-02Collective Agreement Dispute: Union Dues and Arbitration Jurisdiction
A case involving disputes over the enforcement of union dues under a collective agreement, including whether an arbitrator's jurisdiction extends to determining employer violations, and whether the collective agreement was still in force at the relevant time. The case also addresses procedural fairness in arbitration and the availability of alternative grievance procedures.
Regina v. Canada Labour Relations Board et al., Ex parte Martin et al.
1966 CanLII 274 (ON SC) · 1966-03-09Labour Relations Board Certification Challenge: Natural Justice and Notice
A judicial review case concerning the Canada Labour Relations Board's certification of a larger bargaining unit. Applicants argued they were denied notice and an opportunity to be heard, challenging the Board's authority and compliance with natural justice principles.