As a guideline to what constitutes "adequate reasons,"
the basic rule used in the Alberta Ombudsman's office is there
must be a rational connection between the evidence presented
and the conclusions reached by the decision-maker. In addition,
a clear explanation must be provided as to how legislation,
regulation or policy was applied to the individual's circumstances.
The decision should be able to stand alone and must be written
so a reasonably informed person can understand it. Adequate
reasons should also include the signature of the decision-maker.
The following examples reflect the usual types of deficiencies
found in written decisions of various levels of decision-making:
- Some statutory tribunals have written decisions which
only discuss the arguments they accept. They do not mention
or weigh the arguments they reject. The individual is often
left to question how or why the tribunal rejected his/her
argument or whether the argument was even considered. The
Ombudsman maintains that adequate reasons must explain the
weight given to all arguments put before the decision-makers.
- A complainant, who owed money under the Maintenance Enforcement
Program (MEP), wrote MEP asking whether it was appropriate
for support payments to be collected. This was in reference
to a child who had turned 18 and was no longer in full-time
attendance at school (no longer a "child of the marriage").
MEP made inquiries and determined the child was still a
"child of the marriage," but never replied to
this complainant's inquiries.
As a general observation, investigations often find the decision-maker
has made a decision with rational reasons. However, the reasons
have not been communicated at all or not in a sufficiently clear
manner.
|
