Given the variety of decisions made by government and reviewed
by the Alberta Ombudsman's office, investigations are often looking
at varying degrees of procedural protection of fairness. However,
as a general guideline, investigations should look for greater
procedural protections if there is:
- no appeal established within the statute;
- no further person or body of persons the individual can
appeal to in the department, agency or board;
- a substantial effect on the individual's rights (i.e,
loss of financial benefit or a right to continue in a profession
or employment).
In cases where a complainant feels he/she is receiving rude treatment
from a government staff person or the staff person is not
providing a response or is delaying a response, the Alberta Ombudsman's
office usually requires the complainant to attempt to resolve the
complaint within the department first.
Where there is an opportunity for a decision to be reviewed,
the Alberta Ombudsman's office looks for a review process which is
meaningful as well as an opportunity to present arguments
or to be heard. An example of this situation was dealt with
on applications for out-of-country health care benefits. There
was no formalized appeal mechanism and several investigations
determined the initial decision-maker was subsequently reviewing
his/her own decision on "appeal." In addition, inadequate
reasons for denial were supplied.
On the other end of the spectrum are those decisions made
by administrative tribunals which are "final and binding
and have a substantial effect on an individual's rights."
The Citizens' Appeal Panel and the Appeals Commission for Alberta Workers' Compensation
are two prime examples of where the
Ombudsman would be looking for much greater procedural protection
and greater duty of fairness, such as adequate written reasons
and full opportunity to present arguments.
|
