Jones v Dawson APM, Assistant Commissioner

In the matter of Jones versus Dawson APM, Assistant Commissioner, the applicant, Jones, sought to challenge the decision of the third respondent, who was an administrative decision-maker, to decline to exercise its jurisdiction in a merits review of a decision made by the first respondent, Dawson APM. The case reached the court after Jones had successfully applied for a statutory order of review of the third respondent's decision. Jones then sought an order for the third respondent to pay the costs of the application.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the general rule, which prevents costs from being awarded against a magistrate or an inferior court on an application for judicial review unless exceptional circumstances are present, should be applied to the third respondent in this instance. The court was required to determine if the third respondent, as an administrative decision-maker, fell within the scope of the general rule.

The court considered the principles established in previous cases and determined that the general rule should indeed apply in this situation. The court held that the third respondent, being an administrative decision-maker, was not subject to the same restrictions as a magistrate or an inferior court. Consequently, the court declined to depart from the general rule and ruled that no order as to costs should be made against the third respondent. The decision was based on the notion that the third respondent had abided by the order of the Court at the hearing and that no exceptional circumstances were present to warrant a departure from the general rule.