Kheir v Robertson

The plaintiff, Kheir, sought judicial review of a decision by the delegate of the Secretary to the Department of Justice and Regulation, refusing an application for emergency management days. The dispute centred on whether the plaintiff was denied procedural fairness, whether the decision was tainted by apprehended bias, whether the delegate provided inadequate reasons, whether the delegate failed to consider relevant factors or took irrelevant factors into account, whether the decision was unlawfully delayed, and whether the plaintiff's rights under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 were breached. The court had to determine these issues in the context of the applicable statutory and regulatory framework.

The court examined whether the plaintiff was denied procedural fairness and whether the decision was tainted by apprehended bias. It assessed the adequacy of the reasons provided by the delegate and whether the delegate took into account relevant considerations or failed to consider irrelevant ones. The court also evaluated whether the decision was unlawfully delayed and whether the plaintiff's rights under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 were breached. In making its determination, the court considered the statutory provisions of the Corrections Act 1986 and the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015.

After reviewing the evidence and arguments presented, the court found that the plaintiff was not denied procedural fairness, and the decision was not tainted by apprehended bias. The court determined that the reasons provided by the delegate were adequate, and the delegate had considered relevant factors. The court also found that the decision was not unlawfully delayed and did not breach the plaintiff's rights under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed.

The court's final orders included dismissing the plaintiff's application for judicial review and determining that the decision of the delegate was lawful and valid. The court found that the delegate had acted within their statutory powers and had not breached any relevant statutory provisions or the plaintiff's rights under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.