Gannett v Semper

Gannett (Applicant) sought to set aside a review decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal). The Applicant alleged that the Tribunal had taken into account irrelevant considerations, denied procedural fairness, failed to afford a real and meaningful hearing, exhibited actual or apprehended bias, and made a legally unreasonable decision by misapplying the relevant law.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the Tribunal had committed jurisdictional error by engaging in any of the alleged improprieties. Specifically, the Court was required to determine if the Tribunal's decision-making process was vitiated by the consideration of irrelevant factors, a lack of procedural fairness, bias, or a misapplication of the law, such that the decision was legally unreasonable.

Judge Street found that no jurisdictional error had been made out. The Court concluded that the Applicant had not demonstrated that the Tribunal had taken into account irrelevant considerations, denied procedural fairness, failed to provide a meaningful hearing, or acted with bias. Furthermore, the Court determined that the Tribunal had not misapplied the relevant law in a manner that rendered its decision legally unreasonable. Consequently, the amended notice of appeal was dismissed. The Applicant was ordered to pay the second respondent's costs fixed at $7,200.00.