Public decision-makers owe a duty of procedural fairness to those their decisions affect. Fairness is not fixed: it runs along a spectrum, from a bare right to be heard to something close to a full hearing.
How much is owed in a given case turns on factors including the nature of the decision, the statutory scheme, the importance of the decision to the individual, any legitimate expectations, and the decision-maker's own choice of procedure. Depending on the case, fairness may require notice, a chance to respond, written reasons, and a decision-maker free from bias.
A probationary police officer dismissed without reasons was owed a duty of fairness, even though he could not claim the full protections of natural justice. The Court recognised a general duty of fairness in administrative decision-making, bridging the old divide between “judicial” and “administrative” functions.
The Court set out the factors that shape the content of the duty of procedural fairness, held that fairness could require written reasons, and confirmed that discretionary decisions must be exercised reasonably and consistently with the values underlying the power granted.