Court of Appeal

NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL

Citation: O’Hara v. Nova Scotia (Education), 2008 NSCA 62

Date: 20080703

Docket: CA 288846

Registry: Halifax

Between:

Gary O’Hara, Deborah Brunt, Grace Walker,

Bridget Ann Boutilier, Debra Barlow and Wade Marshall

Appellants

v.

The Honourable The Minister of Education

Respondent

Judge:                            The Honourable Chief Justice MacDonald

Appeal Heard:                June 3, 2008         

Subject:                Administrative Law, Ministerial Discretion, Standard of Review, Reasonableness.   

Summary:             Throughout 2005 and 2006, there was open hostility among certain members of the Halifax Regional School Board.  This culminated in the Minister of Education's decision to strip authority from all thirteen members.  They were replaced with an appointed one‑person Board.

Seven deposed members asked a judge of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court to quash the Minister's decision.  In essence, they feel that they are the victims of an unfair process that, in any event, led to an unreasonable decision.  The judge disagreed and dismissed their application. Six of those seven Board members now appeal to this court.

                                                           - 2 -

Issues:              1.  Did the Minister breach her duty of procedural fairness?

2.  Was the Minister’s decision entitled to deference?

3.  Was the Minister’s decision unreasonable?

4.  Did the Charter play a role in this case?

Result:             Appeal dismissed.

1.  Simply put, the Minister’s decision was, at its core, not about sanctioning Board members. Instead, it was about protecting a quality education for Halifax's school children. Placed in this context, it cannot be said that the Minister proceeded unfairly.

2.  She made a fact-based discretionary decision that was entitled to deference.

3.  Because the hostility that had plagued the Board seemed to re-emerge in the Fall of 2006, the Minister’s decision in all the circumstances of this case was not unreasonable.

4.  The Charter has no application to the facts of this case.