Baker Procedural Fairness: The 5 Factors You Must Know for NCA Exams

Why Baker Matters on the NCA Exam

Procedural fairness is one of the two pillars of Canadian administrative law — the other being the standard of review under Vavilov. While Vavilov governs whether the substance of an administrative decision can withstand judicial scrutiny, Baker governs whether the process that produced the decision was fair. These are parallel inquiries. A decision can be substantively reasonable but procedurally unfair, and vice versa. On the NCA Administrative Law exam, you must be prepared to address both — and you must never confuse one with the other.

The duty of procedural fairness is grounded in the principle of natural justice: a person affected by an administrative decision has the right to know the case against them (audi alteram partem) and the right to an unbiased decision-maker (nemo judex in causa sua). Baker did not invent these principles — they have deep roots in English common law. What Baker did was establish a modern framework for determining how much procedural protection any particular decision demands. Not all administrative decisions require the same level of process. A decision to revoke a professional licence requires more procedural protection than a decision to issue a routine permit. Baker's five factors tell you where on that spectrum a particular decision falls.

The Five Baker Factors

Factor 1: The Nature of the Decision and the Process Followed

The first Baker factor asks you to examine the nature of the decision being made and the process the decision-maker followed in reaching it. The core principle is this: the closer the administrative process resembles judicial decision-making, the more procedural protection is required. A tribunal that holds formal hearings, receives evidence under oath, and issues written reasons is functioning more like a court, and the procedural expectations are higher. Conversely, a decision-maker exercising broad policy discretion — such as a minister deciding how to allocate limited funding — is functioning in a manner more analogous to a legislative or executive function, and the procedural expectations are lower.

On the NCA exam, this factor is often the easiest to apply because the question will typically describe the process that was followed. Look at the facts: did the decision-maker hold a hearing? Did they receive submissions? Did they provide reasons? The answers to these questions position the decision along the spectrum from highly judicial to highly discretionary.

Factor 2: The Nature of the Statutory Scheme

The second factor requires you to examine the statute that empowers the decision-maker. Some statutes contain detailed procedural provisions — they specify notice requirements, hearing rights, and appeal mechanisms. Where the legislature has provided such procedural protections, the duty of procedural fairness supplements but does not replace those statutory provisions. Other statutes are silent on procedure, granting the decision-maker broad discretion. Where the statute provides no procedural protections, the common law duty of fairness fills the gap — and the content of that duty is determined by the remaining Baker factors.

When analyzing this factor on the exam, read the statutory provisions described in the hypothetical carefully. If the statute requires a hearing before the decision is made, and the decision-maker failed to hold one, that is a clear breach. If the statute is silent, you must argue that the common law duty of fairness requires the particular procedural step that was denied.

Factor 3: The Importance of the Decision to the Individual

This is frequently the most powerful factor in a Baker analysis, and it is the one that drives many exam answers. The principle is straightforward: the more important the decision is to the individual or individuals affected, the more procedural protection is required. A decision that affects a person's livelihood, their liberty, their professional status, or their right to remain in Canada demands robust procedural fairness. A decision that affects only a minor economic interest demands less.

In Baker itself, the decision at issue was a deportation order — a decision that would separate Ms. Baker from her Canadian-born children and remove her from the country. The Supreme Court found that the importance of the decision to the individual was extremely high, which demanded a correspondingly high level of procedural fairness. On the NCA exam, always identify what is at stake for the affected individual. Is it their career? Their freedom? Their family? The higher the stakes, the stronger the case for robust procedural protections.

Factor 4: Legitimate Expectations

The fourth factor addresses whether the person affected by the decision had a legitimate expectation about the procedure that would be followed. A legitimate expectation can arise from several sources: a representation made by the decision-maker (such as a promise that a hearing would be held), a past practice or consistent course of conduct (such as always providing an oral hearing before revoking a licence), or a published policy or guideline that sets out the procedure the decision-maker will follow.

It is critical to understand the scope of the legitimate expectations doctrine in Canadian law. In Canada, legitimate expectations are procedural only — they can give rise to an expectation about the procedure that will be followed, but they cannot give rise to a substantive outcome. This is different from some other common law jurisdictions. A promise by a minister to consult a particular group before making a decision creates a legitimate expectation of consultation, but it does not create a right to a particular outcome. If the exam question involves a representation about procedure, invoke this factor. If the representation is about outcome, this factor does not apply.

Factor 5: The Decision-Maker's Own Procedural Choices

The fifth factor gives deference to the procedural choices made by the decision-maker itself. Where the legislature has given the decision-maker discretion to choose its own procedure, courts will respect those choices, provided they are fair. This factor often operates as a counterweight to the other four. Even where the other factors point toward high procedural protections, the decision-maker may have chosen a particular procedural model that is appropriate for its mandate, expertise, and workload. A specialized tribunal that processes thousands of cases per year may adopt streamlined procedures that would be inappropriate for a court but are entirely reasonable for the tribunal.

On the NCA exam, this factor is most relevant when the hypothetical describes a decision-maker that has established its own rules of practice or has followed a procedural model that the applicant challenges. The question is whether the decision-maker's procedural choice was reasonable in the circumstances, not whether the court would have chosen differently.

Applying the Baker Factors: The Analytical Framework

The Baker factors do not operate as a checklist where each factor receives a separate score. They are contextual considerations that you weigh together to determine where on the spectrum of procedural fairness the particular decision falls. At the low end of the spectrum, the duty of fairness may require nothing more than notice and an opportunity to make written submissions. At the high end, it may require a full oral hearing with the right to cross-examine witnesses, the right to counsel, and the right to detailed written reasons.

In your NCA exam answer, structure your analysis as follows. First, identify that the issue is procedural fairness, not standard of review. State that the Baker factors govern the content of the duty. Second, work through each factor as it applies to the facts. Not every factor will be equally relevant — spend more time on the factors that are most engaged by the facts. Third, conclude by stating the level of procedural fairness required and whether the decision-maker met that standard. If the decision-maker fell short, identify the specific procedural step that was missing — was it notice? A hearing? Reasons? An unbiased decision-maker? Be specific.

Common Exam Patterns for Baker Questions

NCA examiners tend to use recognizable patterns when testing procedural fairness. The most common pattern is the "missing step" question: the hypothetical describes a decision-making process that omits one or more procedural steps, and you are asked whether the process was fair. The omitted step might be a hearing, written reasons, or notice to the affected party. Your task is to apply the Baker factors to determine whether the omitted step was required.

A second common pattern is the "bias" question. The hypothetical describes a decision-maker who has some connection to one of the parties — a financial interest, a personal relationship, prior involvement in the matter, or prejudgment of the issue. You are asked whether there is a reasonable apprehension of bias. The test for bias comes from Committee for Justice and Liberty v National Energy Board, [1978] 1 SCR 369: would an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically, conclude that the decision-maker would not decide the matter fairly? This is a separate doctrine from the Baker factors, but it falls under the broader umbrella of procedural fairness.

A third pattern combines procedural fairness with standard of review. The question describes a decision that is both procedurally suspect and substantively questionable. Examiners want to see that you can treat these as separate inquiries. Address the procedural fairness issue first (using Baker), then address the standard of review issue (using Vavilov). Never merge them into a single analysis.

Baker and the Duty to Give Reasons

One of the most significant contributions of Baker to Canadian administrative law was the recognition that the duty of procedural fairness can include a duty to give reasons. Before Baker, there was no general duty to provide reasons for administrative decisions. Baker established that where the decision has significant consequences for the individual, and where there is a statutory right of appeal or judicial review, the duty of fairness may include an obligation to provide reasons — or at least a reasoned explanation — for the decision.

This principle was extended by Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board), 2011 SCC 62, which held that reviewing courts should read administrative reasons as a whole, in context, and should not take a "treasure hunt" approach looking for specific errors. Under the current Vavilov framework, the requirement for reasons has become even more important: Vavilov holds that where reasons are required, the reviewing court assesses reasonableness by reference to those reasons. The reasons are both the subject of procedural fairness scrutiny and the vehicle for substantive review.

---

← Back to all articles