Nobody’s perfect – Administrative Law: Procedural irregularities will not always invalidate a board’s decision

The recent case Bachli v Yukon Care and Consent Board, 2025 YKSC 70 provides commentary on the actions of administrative bodies which may fall short of perfect procedure.

Read the decision

Administrative bodies and their insurers should be aware that some irregularities in the processes followed by administrative tribunals may not affect the validity of an administrative Board’s decision.

Case History 

This case examines the court’s decision to affirm the findings and recommendations of medical professionals regarding a patient’s mental capacity and care needs. 

a. A History of Health Challenges

The patient in question had a long and complicated history of health issues, most notably a traumatic brain injury that resulted in partial permanent paralysis. Despite these challenges, the patient initially resisted the recommended medical care, insisting that he could manage his own health and care needs at home.

The patient’s attempts at home care failed, and over time, he developed a severe condition that required urgent medical attention. 

b. The Role of the Yukon Care and Consent Board

Given the patient’s medical condition and his refusal of treatment, the Yukon Care and Consent Board became involved in assessing his capacity to make decisions regarding his own healthcare. Under section 38(1)(b) of Yukon’s Care and Consent Act, SY 2003, c. 21, the Board was authorized to consider the opinions of medical professionals to determine whether a patient was capable of making informed decisions about his or her care.

The Board, after careful review of the patient’s condition and medical history, consulted with healthcare providers to evaluate the patient’s mental capacity. The doctors and medical experts concluded that the patient’s ability to make informed decisions was compromised due to his medical condition, including cognitive and physical limitations arising from his injury. The Board followed the recommendations of the health care professionals and admitted the patient to long-term care. 

The patient appealed the Board’s decision. 

Decision 

In its ruling, the court found that although there were procedural irregularities in the Board’s review process, they were not serious enough to warrant a rehearing or reversal of its decision. These included: 

• The written decision from the Board included an incorrect date; 
• The decision was sent to the patient months after it was made; 
• Which health care providers originally made the capacity decision; and 
• Inconsistent evidence as to whether an informal meeting was held with the patient regarding the Board’s decision. 

Despite this, the Board’s decision was upheld. 

The Court here acknowledged that these inconsistencies may be taken as contributing to the distrust of administrative boards. However, in this case, the inconsistencies did not reach that level.

These concepts are applicable to common law jurisdictions which highlight that an administrative body’s governing statue sets out the expected procedures that must be followed, even if a patient or appellant disagrees with the process.¹ Not every breach or technical irregularity will amount to a reversible error. Rather, only a "defect in substance that goes to the very core of the tribunal's jurisdiction" will give rise to a breach sufficiently serious that contravenes an appellant’s procedural fairness rights.²

This is assessed by considering whether an irregularity is intentional and how this could impact access to justice.³ Examples such as difficulties downloading and accessing a board’s decision, or minor discrepancies in reports do not meet this threshold. 

Conclusion

Administrative bodies, clients, and insurers must remain committed to follow processes that support consistent and reliable decision-making. They should stay alert to the need for genuine fairness toward litigants. That said, minor detours from perfect processes does not necessarily mean the decision of a board should be overturned or returned for a re-hearing. By balancing procedural discipline with equitable treatment, all stakeholders can help ensure a system that is both efficient and just.

[1] Stubicar v Calgary (Subdivision and Development Appeal Board), 2019 ABCA 336 [Stubicar].

[2] 2248870 Alberta Ltd (Stacey's Happy Place) v Alberta Health Services, 2023 ABKB 368.

[3] Sedgwick v Edmonton Real Estate Board Co-Operative Listing Bureau Limited (Realtors Association of Edmonton), 2022 ABCA 264.

Should you have any questions or need further information on this insight or on related matters, please contact Don Dear, K.C. or Courtney Chrusch in our Calgary office.